This article is from WeChat official account:Steam Gallery (ID: amacit)< span class = "text-remarks">, author: cayman Kaman, from the head of FIG: unsplash
Zhihu has a question about social product entrepreneurship:
Has China’s social field come to an end? What are the possible developments and innovations in the social field in the future?
The analysis of Gao Zan’s answer is concise and neat, but because it is too short and concise, the conclusion is not too convincing.
In view of the fact that we are currently exploring offline social networking, many things are inspiring, so there is such an article.
Thank you for the invitation, let’s make a conclusion: It’s the end, no matter if you are an acquaintance or a stranger, there is no opportunity for online socializing
Don’t talk about social interaction with acquaintances. What acquaintances want is communication. This is product common sense. The following revolves around socializing with strangers.
1. Correction scope
Many people classify social interactions with strangers as male and female hormones. This actually narrows things down. For example, when I was working as an illustration community platform, I wanted to find an engineer who is passionate about art as a partner, but it has not gone smoothly. Either the concept is not consistent or the skills are wrong, and I seriously “find a partner.” This thing is also socializing with strangers.
Second, the establishment of social relationships is essentially a curve transaction
Think about yourself. In what situation is it easiest to find friends?
His suggestion is that entrepreneurs start from their own needs to find products, and if they don’t have such a product that meets them, they can build one by themselves. In this way, at least the demand is real.
The typical example is Facebook. Zuckerberg didn’t want to make such a powerful social product at the beginning. He only wanted to let Harvard alumni (including him Own)Improve the efficiency of seeing beautiful women.
This is no different from what the founder of 37signals advocates—tick one’s own itch. Start-up companies have to figure out the user’s intentions. It’s like a blind man and an elephant, but if you weigh your own ideas, it’s at least clear (although many people don’t know What do you want), this is a cost-saving approach for start-ups, and it is also a way to generate organic entrepreneurial ideas. This method ensures that the demand for the product is real. Even if the product is only for your own use.
Paul Graham also added: Not all companies have to find entrepreneurial ideas in this way, but most companies that are successful in the end have done so.
The venture capital boss Paul Graham advocates such a proposal. Most Chinese entrepreneurs say that they are right, but they still disagree in their actions. It’s useless if you have a need, so it’s not big.
We are in a society of merit, and society requires individuals to output maximum efficiency. The subtext of this society is “you can”, emphasizing high enthusiasm, so we also have a universal “entrepreneurial ethics”, that is, you can’t do Small things must be big things. Because of what? Because public opinion tells you: Everything is possible. They all said it was possible, but I didn’t try it yet, it was too weak.
How can we be satisfied to start from small things? Coming out to start a business is to do big things. This idea is both reasonable and absurd.
The reason is that: Most people think that starting a business and doing business are two different things. Business doesn’t mind small, but starting a business has to have a pattern. Otherwise, who would read the PPT you forced out? The absurdity is: the future is constructed by infinite variables. You can’t always see the ghost stories of Zhuge Liang after the capital market, and then bring in other people’s variables and imagine yourself ascending to the sky.
Following the logic, we came to the other side.
The second case: the entrepreneur has no realReal social needs, but he will be cursed by the “market size”, so as to guess user needs and force a logical self-consistent.
If you want to observe whether this situation is true, it is recommended that you go to offline activities for product managers. Whether speakers or audiences, whether it is social products or other products, there must be this kind of thinking routine.
We first have an idea. We think this idea is great, and users will love it. Even if in most cases your (I also tried) will not do what you want, but if you don’t give up, you will be bound by this idea and exhaust all theories and Logic to round this idea, and finally self-consistent, another great social APP idea that changes the world, it began to bad investors and programmers.
Technology is the age of optimism, technology is the age of religion, and entrepreneurship is the age of mythology. Both cats and dogs know the words network effect, head effect, and scale effect. They all know that these things mean being sought after, and high valuation means the peak of the market. . As a result, everyone will naturally be constrained by a certain “ism” in the market, even if the casserole is broken, they will be asked, and they still don’t believe that this opportunity is gone. As a result, there will be acts of forcibly subdividing scenes and dimensions, and then wanting to find breakthroughs in scenes and dimensions, and never forgetting the curse of scale.
Six. The root cause of the final game-social products and real social interaction are natural contradictions
Let’s change our way of thinking, no longer separate layers of in-depth analysis, but abstract from the bottom up. What do you mean, is that all social products, first talk about whether there are common points?
Yes, they are all online products. That’s it? Isn’t it nonsense?
One more sentence: They all have a focus function. WHAT?
Online means low cost of disguise, and because of concern, low-cost disguise has become an inevitable means.
Take an example. I recently used another note-taking software, which is a bit like a personal version of twitter. If you have any ideas or inspirations, you can write it down. If there is any difference between it and twitter, it is that it does not focus on the function. This means that when you use this software, you are talking to yourself. Just because there is no focus on the function, the “disguise” disappears.
If we add a “Follow” button to this note-taking software, do you still dare to express the truest you? For others, Even if you write an article, you will modify the words to a certain extent-the communication is not smooth, whether there are typos. If you post photos, you will also choose as good-looking photos as possible, or some kind of photos that express your personal tags.
Your thinking subtly has a starting point for attention. Even if you violently put forward a point of confrontation with the mainstream, you subconsciously seek to be recognized. When you think of so many people in social software, there is no one who agrees with me. , That kind of loneliness forces you to pretend to be an inevitable means.
The need for biochemistry is not the only mandatory need in human nature. There is another urgent need, rooted in the nature of the human model and life practice: people need to connect with the world outside of themselves to avoid loneliness.
“Escape from Freedom”-Fromm
For myself, I don’t even bother to correct a typo. It’s so powerful and true.
So, if you want to make a social product, if you really solve the problems of trust cost, authenticity, and improving the efficiency of social achievement among strangers, you will fail miserably, because what you want is not a social product, but At the beginning we talked about social filters. If you have to solve it, the “concern” must exist, so there is the core: camouflage. This in turn leads to unreality and real social conflict.
If you still want to make social products and hope to have a chance to live, don’t think about solving the real, redundant, tortuous social needs, and boldly address the laziness, voyeuristic desires, and self-construction of those human natures. Set the image (generally called “ego” in meditation philosophy) to get in. For example, Tantan has created an illusion of “I can make an appointment.”
But is this road not blocked enough? How many programmers’ hairs are left behind on this road of homogenization competition.
Summary: True social interaction does not necessarily require social products, and what social products solve may not necessarily be true social interaction.
So this is the end, the door to online social networking has been closed, and there is no longer a large-scale stranger societyDeliver products.
Of course, there are also people who want to go: You are so sure, in two years, will there really be an app that can subvert Momo and slap you in the face?
Then I can’t wait. While being slapped in the face, while enjoying the opportunity of the new era of social interaction, instead of not being slapped, but letting the ship of the old age sail into the desert, which one do you choose?
From the perspective of entrepreneurs, I prefer to see this so-called endgame, which proves that the peak of a cycle has passed, large products are facing maturity and decline, and users are beginning to divide and flee. Whoever can provide a refuge for fleeing users may be the beginning of a new social era, even if its type is not a social product.
This article is from WeChat official account:Steam Gallery (ID: amacit)< span class = "text-remarks">, author: cayman Kaman