Cost: "To put it succinctly ... TOO MUCH."
User Interface (UI): not going to be their primary consideration... Content is king
Hook: "Without some here-to-fore unheard of feature that provides extreme value to investors, attracting new users is nothing but a pipe dream." Bingo! Totally agree. Yes, trying to "stir the pot" intentionally and for a good reason.
Here is my vision in a nutshell. As with any net based endeavor, especially in the social media world, either it fails miserably or it goes viral. No middle ground.
1. The UI on SI is fine. Reddit and Craig's List are examples of bare bones UIs with amazing content. I happen to love the UI of SI. No conversation, written or spoken, ever goes purely linear. SI's chronological format along with "read replies" covers the best of both worlds. No worries there.
2. Why did all the "talent" leave SI over time? Money. They were not able to monetize their content here, so started their own thing, be it a competing message board, a newsletter, etc. And you can monetize your love for gardening just as much as your love for investing. We are talking sitewide, not just for securities.
For sake of argument, let's assume SI is break-even. Zero profit means for every dollar you put in is a dollar you'll never see again under the status quo. But-- say, collectively we raised "enough" money to be able to add features intended to allow people to monetize themselves here on SI. This could be anything from selling t-shirts to attracting advertisers to affiliate marketing, etc.
As in any crowdsourcing scenario, the service gets a cut. Win-win for everyone. Now, suddenly, your dollar *may* start to multiply. Perhaps this newly revamped SI gets a listing on an exchange. Now your shares are tradeable and worth multiples. Are you now a tad more incentivised to "invest" on the ground floor?
- Jeff |
