🟧2. Issues with the conventional industry
Currently the hours to use livestreaming apps surpass the hours to use chatting apps, photo apps or video social apps, and the live streaming market has secured a multitude of consumers and creators.
At the same time without being restricted by national borders, the perfect global market expansion has become possible, which has increased the number of viewers and consequently the demand for the market also has heightened whereas the centralized platforms and relatively low growth rate in livestreaming infrastructure are causing various issues.
2.1 Closed platform economic mechanism
Almost of all livestreaming platforms are either closed or independent platform economy. For example, the currency circulated in Platform A is in form of points which the Platform A issues and cannot be used or traded in another popular Platform B or Platform C. And in that situation, if the Platform A happens to be bankrupt, then the Platform A’s cryptocurrency in the possession of content creators who would not have a chance to change them to legal tender or viewers who have already changed to the Platform A cryptocurrency will no longer hold value in it.
2.2 Monopoly of big platform production companies
The livestreaming market is under monopoly of various stakeholders. Big entertainment companies or big platforms pour out big money into the market to exercise influence. And content creators who sign a contract with such companies would be able to make high quality of content by cutting down the production cost over the entire process from content-making to distribution.
But the recent rapid growth of livestreaming has been done by the inflow of a plethora of new viewers and the content creators who satisfy their demand. The capital influx from the big companies became a foundation for such growth, but as the competition has been limited to a few content creators, small companies and new content creators are experiencing difficulties in creating content. Good planning and creativity alone can no longer secure competitiveness in the livestreaming market, as a result, it makes for viewers hard to find a fresh content.
2.3 Monolith of service using models and deterioration of the industry ecosystem
Currently many livestreaming platforms keep a fragmentary service model which viewers sponsor creators. This prolonged and monotonous service model in the market has started putting distance between the creators and the viewers. The real-time communication, the strong point of the livestreaming is fading away.
Therefore, if this type of uniform service continues to operate, it probably cannot retain the new viewers for a long time. It is leading to hard competition over commission fees among platforms rather than addressing the issues in the livestreaming industry. It is highly likely that the cut-throat competition for the commission continues at the expense of the viewers. And if damage actually occurs, not only the industry ecosystem but also industry competitiveness may be lost.
2.4 Platform-oriented creator economy
‘Creator Economy’ is economy where creators can make content independently without needing a third party so to directly create profits from profit models such as subscription fees and number of hits. On the conventional form of the centralized livestreaming platform, the Creator Economy operates in a way which takes commission for connecting between creators and consumers, and in such centralized platform which the third party exists, an ideal Creator Economy is hard to be formed.
Also, the profits only to be produced by certain services designated by the platform, and after the profit creation, the structure of profit distribution between creators and platforms is opaque, coerciveness of platform rules binding creators to create content accordingly, a system where minor creators rather have to pay to have own content exposed on the platform, and the consequent profit bipolarization among creators, and other issues exist.
2.5 Absolute authority of platform algorithm
As mentioned above, the issue of profit bipolarization among creators which is caused by that profit is made in proportion to spending not by the fair rewards is revealing the absolute authority of the platform algorithm. For independent profit creation, the platforms make creators to pay for platform-making products on the premise that the platforms introduce more viewers to creators, or the platforms provide biased contents to viewers while diversity and quality of contents more and more deteriorate, or the legit high quality of contents are underrated due to lack of exposure in the platforms.
2.6 Limit of commission payment system for centralized platform service
For centralized livestreaming platforms, the means to pay for service is limited to payment in legal tender in respective countries, and the payment opportunities for global users are limited, so it is not easy to attract more global users. Although the platforms which provide services for global BJs, withdrawal is possible only through banks in the competent country, thus BJs without a bank account in the competent country have difficulties in creating profits as they are limited in receiving sponsors or money exchanges.
Last updated