4 ms·

He should charge guests and extra $1 to livestream their stay (on top of the regular price). Some people like to voyeur; others like to be on camera. Charging t

He should charge guests and extra $1 to livestream their stay (on top of the regular price). Some people like to voyeur; others like to be on camera. Charging to be seen makes it seem less creepy (than - "normal price $10... but only $1 if people can watch you"), and engenders the idea of scarcity (for $1 you can be featured on a popular livestream). I see wannabe 'influencers' seeking out such an opportunity.

JDiculous 7y ago
Perhaps if the channel got popular enough then that might make sense, but at this stage I think that would be a terrible move. Charging extra to be livestreamed changes the whole dynamic from "cheapest hotel ever, with one odd condition" to "what kind of idiot pays extra money for a hotel room to be livestreamed?" $1 hotel is cool and something you want to share with your friends and stay in for the experience. Having to pay extra money on top of the room fare for the "privilege" of being livestreamed does not sound attractive and would probably generate outrage (though to be fair, outrage is still attention). Also as a viewer, I'd be less interested in watching people so desperate for attention that they're willing to pay extra money to be livestreamed - I'd assume they're one of those "wannabe influencers".
- subroutine 7y ago
  Maybe, maybe not, opinions vary If staying in a cheap hotel was cool, why don't I ever hear people bragging about the low budget roadside motel they stayed in? Travelers who randomly wander in might submit to being livestreamed, if presented that option. But people who go there, specifically, are doing so for the unique experience of being livestreamed", not for the experience of paying $1. Again, just an opinion. Also, which seems like it would generate more outrage... (1) A hotel where people can pay to be livestreamed on youtube. (2) A hotel for people who don't actually want to be filmed in the privacy of their hotel room, but can't afford the room otherwise. But you are right, it shouldn't cost extra. It should be a free experience (with the option to have it promoted somehow - for a small fee ;)
  - usrusr 7y ago
    > If staying in a cheap hotel was cool, why don't I ever hear people bragging about the low budget roadside motel they stayed in? That's the entire marketing AirBnB has ever needed. Technically not a hotel, but oh so much bragging about finding good deals.
    - subroutine 7y ago
      Sure, people brag about getting a good deal, no matter what it is. But it's usually a brag about finding value, a good bang for the buck, not simply paying less for less. Most airbnb brags I hear are similar to: 'I found a fabulous downtown loft with a view of the city for the same price as a vanilla hotel room.' That is quite a bit different than: 'just got a great deal at the Scranton Motel 8 for agreeing to stay in the room with the peep hole.' I'm just trying to say that the livestreaming part of staying at the hotel will be a whole lot easier to market if it's not something people have to do to get the deal but something they want to do (and is in fact the reason they came there). Otherwise you are just reinventing the timeshare (that shitty meeting our parents had to sit through while we were out skiing). But i concede, the youtube channel will need to be quite popular already. Honestly, would any of you stay there? It doesn't appeal to me at all; but then again, I don't have an instagram account.
      - JDiculous 7y ago
        Everyone places a different value on the livestream piece. For most people I'd imagine even $0/night wouldn't be enough to justify the invasion of privacy of being livestreamed. For me personally I don't care as much and think it's a cool concept with no real downside (assuming I don't do anything stupid on the stream I'd later regret, which I think is a fairly low bar), so I'd probably do it for a night if only for the story.
  - JDiculous 7y ago
    People brag about getting bargains all the time. That's like one of the core themes of the "digital nomad" community. The (2) option you specified is not the case. And if people can only afford a $1/night hotel room, then I think there are more productive places to direct that outrage.
friendlybus 7y ago
I agree with the logic. The hotel owner is conceding that he doesn't expect anyone to value being livestreamed by making it a motive for discounting. You could make managed streaming an addon for a more magical hotel experience.

JDiculous 7y ago

Perhaps if the channel got popular enough then that might make sense, but at this stage I think that would be a terrible move. Charging extra to be livestreamed changes the whole dynamic from "cheapest hotel ever, with one odd condition" to "what kind of idiot pays extra money for a hotel room to be livestreamed?" $1 hotel is cool and something you want to share with your friends and stay in for the experience. Having to pay extra money on top of the room fare for the "privilege" of being livestreamed does not sound attractive and would probably generate outrage (though to be fair, outrage is still attention). Also as a viewer, I'd be less interested in watching people so desperate for attention that they're willing to pay extra money to be livestreamed - I'd assume they're one of those "wannabe influencers".

subroutine 7y ago
Maybe, maybe not, opinions vary If staying in a cheap hotel was cool, why don't I ever hear people bragging about the low budget roadside motel they stayed in? Travelers who randomly wander in might submit to being livestreamed, if presented that option. But people who go there, specifically, are doing so for the unique experience of being livestreamed", not for the experience of paying $1. Again, just an opinion. Also, which seems like it would generate more outrage... (1) A hotel where people can pay to be livestreamed on youtube. (2) A hotel for people who don't actually want to be filmed in the privacy of their hotel room, but can't afford the room otherwise. But you are right, it shouldn't cost extra. It should be a free experience (with the option to have it promoted somehow - for a small fee ;)
- usrusr 7y ago
  > If staying in a cheap hotel was cool, why don't I ever hear people bragging about the low budget roadside motel they stayed in? That's the entire marketing AirBnB has ever needed. Technically not a hotel, but oh so much bragging about finding good deals.
  - subroutine 7y ago
    Sure, people brag about getting a good deal, no matter what it is. But it's usually a brag about finding value, a good bang for the buck, not simply paying less for less. Most airbnb brags I hear are similar to: 'I found a fabulous downtown loft with a view of the city for the same price as a vanilla hotel room.' That is quite a bit different than: 'just got a great deal at the Scranton Motel 8 for agreeing to stay in the room with the peep hole.' I'm just trying to say that the livestreaming part of staying at the hotel will be a whole lot easier to market if it's not something people have to do to get the deal but something they want to do (and is in fact the reason they came there). Otherwise you are just reinventing the timeshare (that shitty meeting our parents had to sit through while we were out skiing). But i concede, the youtube channel will need to be quite popular already. Honestly, would any of you stay there? It doesn't appeal to me at all; but then again, I don't have an instagram account.
    - JDiculous 7y ago
      Everyone places a different value on the livestream piece. For most people I'd imagine even $0/night wouldn't be enough to justify the invasion of privacy of being livestreamed. For me personally I don't care as much and think it's a cool concept with no real downside (assuming I don't do anything stupid on the stream I'd later regret, which I think is a fairly low bar), so I'd probably do it for a night if only for the story.
- JDiculous 7y ago
  People brag about getting bargains all the time. That's like one of the core themes of the "digital nomad" community. The (2) option you specified is not the case. And if people can only afford a $1/night hotel room, then I think there are more productive places to direct that outrage.

friendlybus 7y ago

I agree with the logic. The hotel owner is conceding that he doesn't expect anyone to value being livestreamed by making it a motive for discounting. You could make managed streaming an addon for a more magical hotel experience.