4 ms·

Racial segregation is a stretch. They do not block you from subscribing if you're not black.

by essem 5y ago

kadabra9 5y ago
Realistically though, how many white people would pay for a platform with all black content, one that they are told is explicitly not for them?
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  My understanding is that they may not need to cater to white people, but they also don't need to exclude them either. Black hair often has a texture that requires specialized hair products and the people who make them can make a ton of money. It isn't excluding white people to cater to black people.
  - kadabra9 5y ago
    I'm not saying they're excluding them. Black hair products are a great analogy actually. Virtually no white people buy them, and virtually no white people will sub to a platform like this. There will likely be slightly more white subscribers to Black Oak than there are white users of black hair care products, but my point is the number will be very small. That's OK. Its not marketed to them. Black hair products can be a thriving business, just as this potentially can be as well.
- zentiggr 5y ago
  You need to justify how "for <group>" is exclusionary, as opposed to it's normal meaning of "focusing on <group>".
  - kadabra9 5y ago
    Saying it is For <group> implies it is not for other groups. Again, realistically, how many white people would pay for a platform like this? If you think the number is substantial you are delusional. For starters, its being marketed "for black people", its all black content, and other platforms e.g Netflix already have content from black creators (albeit not as focused) Having said that, they do not need white people to sub to build a viable business. I think it could work - the real secret sauce will be in securing great content naturally. But positioning your business as "$X for black people" does pigeon hole their potential market quite a bit.
    - zentiggr 5y ago
      > Saying it is For <group> implies it is not for other groups. Umm, no? Like I tried to convey in my original comment, "for <group>" means a focus on that group, as opposed to just general content. Nothing I've ever come across that was marketed as "for <>" has ever been intended to exclude me as a non-member, nor have I ever interpreted it that way. I suspect you have a bias to hear it as exclusionary more than is typical. Anecdotally, I watch BET fairly regularly, if not often. I'm aware that it's business model is generally content by black creators, for black consumers, but again, I don't remember any hints anywhere of implications of "if you're not black, you can go". If anything, wider viewing would be more informative and promote sharing across groups.
      - kadabra9 5y ago
        Ah yes, the classic tripe "You disagree with me, so therefore you must be biased".
    - tptacek 5y ago
      No, it doesn't. It just needs to for this thread to have any oxygen, and so it will here until this tiny micro-current of the discourse dies out.
- runbathtime 5y ago
  It is a big market actually. Kendi has made a lot of money off of the amount of whites that enjoy and pay to be told they are bad ppl with white privilege.
- kbelder 5y ago
  Crunchyroll keeps getting mentioned here, as a success story. Certainly, they focus nearly exclusively on Japanese content. But they in no way market to Japanese, or Asians in general. I think that is the key. You should be marketing "black content for everybody", not "content for black people". Sure, the segment that responds will be heavily slanted to certain demographics, but at least you aren't putting up artificial barriers, and you'll stir up a lot less upfront negative reactions. Unless controversy is part of the marketing strategy, which is risky, but sometimes works.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- emodendroket 5y ago
  I am not persuaded those numbers would look better with different messaging but the same content.
ju_sh 5y ago
No, but the exclusive intent has been made clear with the title "Netflix for black people". Feels like some kind of "Outrage marketing" strategy, I mean, look how this thread has blown up over the last hour. I'm sure the OP is smart and knew what they were doing when wording this post.

Racial segregation is a stretch. They do not block you from subscribing if you're not black.

by essem 5y ago

Racial segregation is a stretch. They do not block you from subscribing if you're not black.

Realistically though, how many white people would pay for a platform with all black content, one that they are told is explicitly not for them?

KittenInABox 5y ago
My understanding is that they may not need to cater to white people, but they also don't need to exclude them either. Black hair often has a texture that requires specialized hair products and the people who make them can make a ton of money. It isn't excluding white people to cater to black people.
- kadabra9 5y ago
  I'm not saying they're excluding them. Black hair products are a great analogy actually. Virtually no white people buy them, and virtually no white people will sub to a platform like this. There will likely be slightly more white subscribers to Black Oak than there are white users of black hair care products, but my point is the number will be very small. That's OK. Its not marketed to them. Black hair products can be a thriving business, just as this potentially can be as well.
zentiggr 5y ago
You need to justify how "for <group>" is exclusionary, as opposed to it's normal meaning of "focusing on <group>".
- kadabra9 5y ago
  Saying it is For <group> implies it is not for other groups. Again, realistically, how many white people would pay for a platform like this? If you think the number is substantial you are delusional. For starters, its being marketed "for black people", its all black content, and other platforms e.g Netflix already have content from black creators (albeit not as focused) Having said that, they do not need white people to sub to build a viable business. I think it could work - the real secret sauce will be in securing great content naturally. But positioning your business as "$X for black people" does pigeon hole their potential market quite a bit.
  - zentiggr 5y ago
    > Saying it is For <group> implies it is not for other groups. Umm, no? Like I tried to convey in my original comment, "for <group>" means a focus on that group, as opposed to just general content. Nothing I've ever come across that was marketed as "for <>" has ever been intended to exclude me as a non-member, nor have I ever interpreted it that way. I suspect you have a bias to hear it as exclusionary more than is typical. Anecdotally, I watch BET fairly regularly, if not often. I'm aware that it's business model is generally content by black creators, for black consumers, but again, I don't remember any hints anywhere of implications of "if you're not black, you can go". If anything, wider viewing would be more informative and promote sharing across groups.
    - kadabra9 5y ago
      Ah yes, the classic tripe "You disagree with me, so therefore you must be biased".
  - tptacek 5y ago
    No, it doesn't. It just needs to for this thread to have any oxygen, and so it will here until this tiny micro-current of the discourse dies out.
runbathtime 5y ago
It is a big market actually. Kendi has made a lot of money off of the amount of whites that enjoy and pay to be told they are bad ppl with white privilege.
kbelder 5y ago
Crunchyroll keeps getting mentioned here, as a success story. Certainly, they focus nearly exclusively on Japanese content. But they in no way market to Japanese, or Asians in general. I think that is the key. You should be marketing "black content for everybody", not "content for black people". Sure, the segment that responds will be heavily slanted to certain demographics, but at least you aren't putting up artificial barriers, and you'll stir up a lot less upfront negative reactions. Unless controversy is part of the marketing strategy, which is risky, but sometimes works.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
emodendroket 5y ago
I am not persuaded those numbers would look better with different messaging but the same content.

ju_sh 5y ago

No, but the exclusive intent has been made clear with the title "Netflix for black people". Feels like some kind of "Outrage marketing" strategy, I mean, look how this thread has blown up over the last hour. I'm sure the OP is smart and knew what they were doing when wording this post.