5 ms·

There's a lot of truth in this. Can you go deeper, what does: "they didn't have a good funnel because the top influentials were too high stakes, and it creates

There's a lot of truth in this. Can you go deeper, what does: "they didn't have a good funnel because the top influentials were too high stakes, and it creates the incentive for arrivistes to knock the ladder away behind them,"

motohagiography 5y ago
Thanks. If they stay too exclusive, they wilt. Social networks are basically gamefied social climbing, and so the strategies people employ are like teenagers trying to get invited to parties. To grow one, you need to give hope to everyone, opportunity to some, and access to few. The (mimetic) distance of the valley billionaires and celebrities that clubhouse is famous for is too far from the Everyone, and that can create a negative feedback loop where normal people won't even try to join because there is no hope factor for them. Hence no funnel. The ones with opportunity to breathe that air are playing a pro game where they don't want to risk adding competitors or liabilities by inviting them. To grow a platform, someone has to have a meta understanding of it and they can't just pretend it's cool for reasons nobody can understand because it just is. The users can't acknowledge this dynamic or even talk about the unspoken rules because the first rule is that that the rules are unspoken. Growth doesn't come from getting a bunch of fancy people together, there just aren't enough of them to sustain anything, it comes from the bottom up. You need to extend the hope to a larger funnel so you can provide opportunities to some of them, and then select from the best candidates for access.
- nunez 5y ago
  > If they stay too exclusive, they wilt. Wouldn't other super-exclusive networks, like Ferrari owners or the American Express Centurion Card, also wilt for the same reason?
  - motohagiography 5y ago
    I'd argue that neither of those example networks (Ferrari owners or credit card holders) are exclusive because you can just join them with money.
    - nunez 5y ago
      Ferrari turns people down, even if they have money, as does Centurion.
  - vosper 5y ago
    Are either of those things social networks? (I don't know what it's like to be a Ferrari owner or a Centurion. I assume that status / privilege is a big part of it, but not necessarily in the form of rank in a network).
  - rawtxapp 5y ago
    I think those networks are based on things are useful without the social network, the network itself isn't something they use on an on-going basis (for example, I doubt Ferrari owners gather everyday to increase DAU numbers on an app, probably more like bi-monthly track meets which is fun by itself).
- holler 5y ago
  Appreciate the thoughtful commentary. I'm curious if you're suggesting that the only way for a new social network to overcome the "cold start" problem is to restrict access along some strata at the right ratio to incentivize the largest audience at the bottom to join? Do you think a social network that starts off as entirely "open" to everyone would be challenged due to lack of a "fomo" factor, or is a quality product with the right vision enough?
  - motohagiography 5y ago
    There needs to be a lobby. It can be an open lobby, but it's the funnel. A new social network isn't something you just create, it's the effect of something else. So it's not about restricting access, as that assumes an imaginary level of demand. It's about leveraging a core group to attract a larger crowd who you then selectively elevate into an in-group, typically based on competence and personal investment of some kind. A "product," isn't a technology, it's the thing that meets a need, and if you don't have that need, your technology is meaningless. The need must be concrete, as there is no magic ratio that will fool people, even if there are a few theoretical ratios about equillibrium changes in networks. This guy has thought a lot about it and articulates it better than I could in a comment: https://alexdanco.com/2021/03/19/how-scenes-work-with-jim-oshaughnessy/ https://alexdanco.com/2021/03/19/how-scenes-work-with-jim-os...
    - holler 5y ago
      > So it's not about restricting access, as that assumes an imaginary level of demand. It's about leveraging a core group to attract a larger crowd who you then selectively elevate into an in-group, typically based on competence and personal investment of some kind. That makes sense, so finding, attracting, and retaining a core group of early adopters is really key. > We talked about how startups are a scene, and why designing a local innovation economy from scratch – even if you think you ‘have all the incentives correctly’ – never works. (from the article) That's a really interesting observation, and I tend to agree, perhaps the antithesis of "build it and they will come"? Going to listen to the podcast now :D
- 55555 5y ago
  Dang this is insightful. You have a clever understanding of social dynamics.

motohagiography 5y ago

Thanks. If they stay too exclusive, they wilt. Social networks are basically gamefied social climbing, and so the strategies people employ are like teenagers trying to get invited to parties. To grow one, you need to give hope to everyone, opportunity to some, and access to few. The (mimetic) distance of the valley billionaires and celebrities that clubhouse is famous for is too far from the Everyone, and that can create a negative feedback loop where normal people won't even try to join because there is no hope factor for them. Hence no funnel. The ones with opportunity to breathe that air are playing a pro game where they don't want to risk adding competitors or liabilities by inviting them. To grow a platform, someone has to have a meta understanding of it and they can't just pretend it's cool for reasons nobody can understand because it just is. The users can't acknowledge this dynamic or even talk about the unspoken rules because the first rule is that that the rules are unspoken. Growth doesn't come from getting a bunch of fancy people together, there just aren't enough of them to sustain anything, it comes from the bottom up. You need to extend the hope to a larger funnel so you can provide opportunities to some of them, and then select from the best candidates for access.

nunez 5y ago
> If they stay too exclusive, they wilt. Wouldn't other super-exclusive networks, like Ferrari owners or the American Express Centurion Card, also wilt for the same reason?
- motohagiography 5y ago
  I'd argue that neither of those example networks (Ferrari owners or credit card holders) are exclusive because you can just join them with money.
  - nunez 5y ago
    Ferrari turns people down, even if they have money, as does Centurion.
- vosper 5y ago
  Are either of those things social networks? (I don't know what it's like to be a Ferrari owner or a Centurion. I assume that status / privilege is a big part of it, but not necessarily in the form of rank in a network).
- rawtxapp 5y ago
  I think those networks are based on things are useful without the social network, the network itself isn't something they use on an on-going basis (for example, I doubt Ferrari owners gather everyday to increase DAU numbers on an app, probably more like bi-monthly track meets which is fun by itself).
holler 5y ago
Appreciate the thoughtful commentary. I'm curious if you're suggesting that the only way for a new social network to overcome the "cold start" problem is to restrict access along some strata at the right ratio to incentivize the largest audience at the bottom to join? Do you think a social network that starts off as entirely "open" to everyone would be challenged due to lack of a "fomo" factor, or is a quality product with the right vision enough?
- motohagiography 5y ago
  There needs to be a lobby. It can be an open lobby, but it's the funnel. A new social network isn't something you just create, it's the effect of something else. So it's not about restricting access, as that assumes an imaginary level of demand. It's about leveraging a core group to attract a larger crowd who you then selectively elevate into an in-group, typically based on competence and personal investment of some kind. A "product," isn't a technology, it's the thing that meets a need, and if you don't have that need, your technology is meaningless. The need must be concrete, as there is no magic ratio that will fool people, even if there are a few theoretical ratios about equillibrium changes in networks. This guy has thought a lot about it and articulates it better than I could in a comment: https://alexdanco.com/2021/03/19/how-scenes-work-with-jim-oshaughnessy/ https://alexdanco.com/2021/03/19/how-scenes-work-with-jim-os...
  - holler 5y ago
    > So it's not about restricting access, as that assumes an imaginary level of demand. It's about leveraging a core group to attract a larger crowd who you then selectively elevate into an in-group, typically based on competence and personal investment of some kind. That makes sense, so finding, attracting, and retaining a core group of early adopters is really key. > We talked about how startups are a scene, and why designing a local innovation economy from scratch – even if you think you ‘have all the incentives correctly’ – never works. (from the article) That's a really interesting observation, and I tend to agree, perhaps the antithesis of "build it and they will come"? Going to listen to the podcast now :D
55555 5y ago
Dang this is insightful. You have a clever understanding of social dynamics.