5 ms·

I work for a TikTok Style style short video platform and we noticed how these relationships are important for keeping the engagement numbers high. An interestin

I work for a TikTok Style style short video platform and we noticed how these relationships are important for keeping the engagement numbers high. An interesting thing we saw was that investing in D-list creators could have a way higher ROI than A-list creators. An A-list creator could get a large number of followers but would not get the devotion that the D-list creators would get.

fadeke 5y ago
Fascinating. I’ve observed this dynamic too and mentioned it in an earlier draft but cut it. My guess is that smaller creators have a greater ability to respond to their smaller fan base, deepening these connections. Also, as some creators grow their content becomes more high-production, polished, and #sponsored which might feel less “organic” compared with smaller creators just starting out on a budget.
- antihero 5y ago
  I guess D listers also feel closer and more relatable, like, almost that they’re your actual buddies.
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    I bet that it's also that smaller creators are also more likely to actually interact with their fans because there's fewer people vying for their attention and they're still trying to build popularity.
  - bongoman37 5y ago
    Yea, this is one part of it. At least some followers look up to them because they think they could realistically jump to being them whereas A-listers are too distant.
cletus 5y ago
That makes sense to me. With a big influencer/creator it's a one-way relationship to the audience. With a smaller influencer/creator, it can be more two-way. So, for example, I watch a variety of streamers on Twitch. On the larger streams, I almost never look at chat or chat myself. It's a sea of text and emotes already. No one in chat will read your message. The streamer certainly won't. So you're just listening or watching like to the radio or TV. But a streamer with 200 viewers? You can often ask questions and get a response. It's a completely different dynamic.
- duckhelmet 5y ago
  > With a big influencer/creator it's a one-way relationship to the audience. With a smaller influencer/creator, it can be more two-way. It's still delusional thinking you can have a 'relationship' with someone on the other end of a screen that you are never going to meet in real life.
  - sodality2 5y ago
    Still "insane", but certainly a different beast...
  - DevKoala 5y ago
    I don’t know why you are being downvoted rather than being argued against. I agree with you in spirit. To an individual with thousands of followers, no single follower is more important than the mass. Obviously one of these followers could become a true friend, but friends dedicate time to nurture their friendships, and realistically nobody has enough time to keep that many friendships.
    - neolog 5y ago
      because that's not what they said.
    - seppin 5y ago
      Right, and they are doing it all for commercial reasons as well. Their followers = money.
    - duckhelmet 5y ago
      >I don’t know why you are being downvoted rather than being argued against. Because people would rather down-vote than change my mind!
  - calt 5y ago
    > It's still delusional thinking you can have a 'relationship' It's overly cynical to think that you need to be intimate and in the flesh to call it a 'relationship' (in scare quotes?). It is a relationship. There's a real exchange of ideas and emotions.
RGamma 5y ago
I'm also a technological apatheist who likes to exploit behavioral determinism to spam more minds with more inconsequential content. Where can I apply?
- coldtea 5y ago
  For that you don't need to apply to the parent's company or niche specifically. Any FAANG or media company would do. If you also want to sell useless crap to people who don't really need it and destroy the environment in the process, almost any consumer products company will do too. There's a very good chance you're already set for the same thing where you work now anyway!
- Gigablah 5y ago
  For starters, you already have an account on HN.
amelius 5y ago
I appreciate the openness, but don't you think that optimizing engagement numbers in this way is ethically objectionable at least a tiny bit?
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Engagement is an easily-gamed metric that (in the absence of heavy gaming) usually vaguely reflects satisfaction, addiction and usefulness. Gaming for engagement is unethical in the general case, but I suspect this specific instance is leaning towards “satisfaction” / enjoyment, rather than addiction. (I'm not certain, though; I don't understand the (para)social dynamics well.)
- an_opabinia 5y ago
  What conversation could this person possibly have on a take like this? So what if the answer was simply “Yes.”
- antonzabirko 5y ago
  Yes. Do you want the person to quit his job over it? Unless he's the C+ i'm sure he doesnt have a say in the ethics of the company.
- bongoman37 5y ago
  Why? We're democratizing attention a little bit. I don't see why A-listers should get all the attention.
bsder 5y ago
> An interesting thing we saw was that investing in D-list creators could have a way higher ROI than A-list creators. An A-list creator could get a large number of followers but would not get the devotion that the D-list creators would get. I would think that goes both ways, no? Someone small is going to take good care of a $100/month donator, for example.
- astrange 5y ago
  Anyone that small yet competent either has a lot going on and can't invest in their parasocial services career, or is capable of growing to not be small anymore, so it's a narrow window. (For the real biggest streamers who still get giant donations, like Hololives, it seems like the chat is actually in a parasocial relationship with itself…)
- chillwaves 5y ago
  That's not necessarily true. Someone small will not rely on Twitch for their income and while the $100 is nice, they won't get some crazy special treatment. It's still just $100.
an_opabinia 5y ago
> An interesting thing we saw was that investing in D-list creators could have a way higher ROI than A-list creators. Nobody cares about an “ROI” metric, “marginal minutes of viewing content gained per marginal dollar given to personality.” If you meant real ROI (“dollars of revenue minus ad expense per attributed channel”) there’s no way this is true. This is how people observe that only the top 10 or so web destinations make any sense to advertise on but Google sends you traffic from 99,990 more trash websites that never convert, because in aggregate you might barely break even but the extra non converting traffic enabled Google to spend all your budget faster. D-Listers are definitely not ROI positive and anyone who measures that to be so is almost certainly making an attribution error or has a product that is already good enough to sell without targeted ads. I'm not saying D-Listers are worthless. They aren't! They are ROI negative today. D-Listers are exclusively valuable for the potential of becoming A-Listers. Anyway this parasocial relationship stuff is a huge red herring because people who aren't sick in the head and need followers for weird reasons are only doing this to become Hollywood stars.
- TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
  > huge red herring … sick in the head … weird … stars. Strongly agree… And also won’t be surprised when some small team, or solo entrepreneur, turns this idea in to something they can sell for $obscene_sum
- klyrs 5y ago
  >> I work for a TikTok Style style short video platform and we noticed how ... investing in D-list creators could have a way higher ROI than A-list creators. > Nobody cares about an “ROI” metric... Except that you're responding to an obvious counterexample to your boldly-stated claim

fadeke 5y ago

Fascinating. I’ve observed this dynamic too and mentioned it in an earlier draft but cut it. My guess is that smaller creators have a greater ability to respond to their smaller fan base, deepening these connections. Also, as some creators grow their content becomes more high-production, polished, and #sponsored which might feel less “organic” compared with smaller creators just starting out on a budget.

antihero 5y ago
I guess D listers also feel closer and more relatable, like, almost that they’re your actual buddies.
- rtkwe 5y ago
  I bet that it's also that smaller creators are also more likely to actually interact with their fans because there's fewer people vying for their attention and they're still trying to build popularity.
- bongoman37 5y ago
  Yea, this is one part of it. At least some followers look up to them because they think they could realistically jump to being them whereas A-listers are too distant.

cletus 5y ago

That makes sense to me. With a big influencer/creator it's a one-way relationship to the audience. With a smaller influencer/creator, it can be more two-way. So, for example, I watch a variety of streamers on Twitch. On the larger streams, I almost never look at chat or chat myself. It's a sea of text and emotes already. No one in chat will read your message. The streamer certainly won't. So you're just listening or watching like to the radio or TV. But a streamer with 200 viewers? You can often ask questions and get a response. It's a completely different dynamic.

duckhelmet 5y ago
> With a big influencer/creator it's a one-way relationship to the audience. With a smaller influencer/creator, it can be more two-way. It's still delusional thinking you can have a 'relationship' with someone on the other end of a screen that you are never going to meet in real life.
- sodality2 5y ago
  Still "insane", but certainly a different beast...
- DevKoala 5y ago
  I don’t know why you are being downvoted rather than being argued against. I agree with you in spirit. To an individual with thousands of followers, no single follower is more important than the mass. Obviously one of these followers could become a true friend, but friends dedicate time to nurture their friendships, and realistically nobody has enough time to keep that many friendships.
  - neolog 5y ago
    because that's not what they said.
  - seppin 5y ago
    Right, and they are doing it all for commercial reasons as well. Their followers = money.
  - duckhelmet 5y ago
    >I don’t know why you are being downvoted rather than being argued against. Because people would rather down-vote than change my mind!
- calt 5y ago
  > It's still delusional thinking you can have a 'relationship' It's overly cynical to think that you need to be intimate and in the flesh to call it a 'relationship' (in scare quotes?). It is a relationship. There's a real exchange of ideas and emotions.

RGamma 5y ago

I'm also a technological apatheist who likes to exploit behavioral determinism to spam more minds with more inconsequential content. Where can I apply?

coldtea 5y ago
For that you don't need to apply to the parent's company or niche specifically. Any FAANG or media company would do. If you also want to sell useless crap to people who don't really need it and destroy the environment in the process, almost any consumer products company will do too. There's a very good chance you're already set for the same thing where you work now anyway!
Gigablah 5y ago
For starters, you already have an account on HN.

amelius 5y ago

I appreciate the openness, but don't you think that optimizing engagement numbers in this way is ethically objectionable at least a tiny bit?

wizzwizz4 5y ago
Engagement is an easily-gamed metric that (in the absence of heavy gaming) usually vaguely reflects satisfaction, addiction and usefulness. Gaming for engagement is unethical in the general case, but I suspect this specific instance is leaning towards “satisfaction” / enjoyment, rather than addiction. (I'm not certain, though; I don't understand the (para)social dynamics well.)
an_opabinia 5y ago
What conversation could this person possibly have on a take like this? So what if the answer was simply “Yes.”
antonzabirko 5y ago
Yes. Do you want the person to quit his job over it? Unless he's the C+ i'm sure he doesnt have a say in the ethics of the company.
bongoman37 5y ago
Why? We're democratizing attention a little bit. I don't see why A-listers should get all the attention.

bsder 5y ago

> An interesting thing we saw was that investing in D-list creators could have a way higher ROI than A-list creators. An A-list creator could get a large number of followers but would not get the devotion that the D-list creators would get. I would think that goes both ways, no? Someone small is going to take good care of a $100/month donator, for example.

astrange 5y ago
Anyone that small yet competent either has a lot going on and can't invest in their parasocial services career, or is capable of growing to not be small anymore, so it's a narrow window. (For the real biggest streamers who still get giant donations, like Hololives, it seems like the chat is actually in a parasocial relationship with itself…)
chillwaves 5y ago
That's not necessarily true. Someone small will not rely on Twitch for their income and while the $100 is nice, they won't get some crazy special treatment. It's still just $100.

an_opabinia 5y ago

> An interesting thing we saw was that investing in D-list creators could have a way higher ROI than A-list creators. Nobody cares about an “ROI” metric, “marginal minutes of viewing content gained per marginal dollar given to personality.” If you meant real ROI (“dollars of revenue minus ad expense per attributed channel”) there’s no way this is true. This is how people observe that only the top 10 or so web destinations make any sense to advertise on but Google sends you traffic from 99,990 more trash websites that never convert, because in aggregate you might barely break even but the extra non converting traffic enabled Google to spend all your budget faster. D-Listers are definitely not ROI positive and anyone who measures that to be so is almost certainly making an attribution error or has a product that is already good enough to sell without targeted ads. I'm not saying D-Listers are worthless. They aren't! They are ROI negative today. D-Listers are exclusively valuable for the potential of becoming A-Listers. Anyway this parasocial relationship stuff is a huge red herring because people who aren't sick in the head and need followers for weird reasons are only doing this to become Hollywood stars.

TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
> huge red herring … sick in the head … weird … stars. Strongly agree… And also won’t be surprised when some small team, or solo entrepreneur, turns this idea in to something they can sell for $obscene_sum
klyrs 5y ago
>> I work for a TikTok Style style short video platform and we noticed how ... investing in D-list creators could have a way higher ROI than A-list creators. > Nobody cares about an “ROI” metric... Except that you're responding to an obvious counterexample to your boldly-stated claim