Starting in 2014, with the reallocation of demographic dividends and market resources, the shared economic products represented by uber/airbnb have been “spoiled” across all sectors, while the “shared economy” of human knowledge and skills has also begun to break down institutional and qualitative constraints and to take on a vibrant life. Time auctions, by me, in line, after 8:00, a mile. Innumerable applications of various kinds are taking over the new market, and the industry is not very popular。
When the noise is over, whether, as a bystander or an practitioner, it needs to be calmed down to see whether it is a real subversion, a capital-generating industrial bubble, or a wishful thinking. At a time when the well-known quora valuation reached $900 million, we need to consider the possibilities of a knowledge-sharing economy。
Knowledge-sharing economy under “wide knowledge” sharing
It has to be lamented that human demand for knowledge is an inexhaustible and incremental market, because human evolution and replacement move forward with access to information or questioning. From consumption (to receive information) to sharing (to disseminate information) to creating (to provide new information), people's desire for knowledge and information is never exhausted. But the ways in which we access knowledge information are mostly crude and inefficient. As described by industry, “in general, there are two avenues through which users can solve problems, one free of charge for counselling and the other for high training costs.” (excerpts from the collection of my coo guoquia by skynet.) today, traditional training advice is no longer able to “learning by doing” and “service on demand” the needs of the knowledge economy。
High cost. Free internet access needs to be filtered from vast amounts of information, with high time costs. The cost of paying for training advice is high. According to industry market research, the minimum annual cost of acquiring knowledge for a business person is $5,000, while hardware costs such as space and marketing costs such as promotion, marketing and other marketing costs for training consulting firms are passed on to trainees and continue to raise costs。
Inadequate efficiency. First of all, the high number of training courses is concentrated and informative, and less is actually absorbed. The second set of multiple models is irrelevant, and the so-called secret of martial arts is by no means a cure, and the problems faced by each participant require a cure. Moreover, even if one-on-one can be achieved, there is no guarantee that the consultant or trainee will be able to find an ideal mentor. Quora in the united states was originally meant to enable many people who want to collect but who cannot collect the internet company ceos and members of the core team to communicate with ordinary users。
Thus, a knowledge-sharing economic model that uses internet technology and big data to stimulate the cognitive surplus of industry experts to achieve information-sharing experiences is a growing ground. The pc-era wikipedia, twitter, encyclopedia and translation also used this ucg model to build up the platform's users using the perceived surplus。
And today, treatings, one mile, and so on and so forth, allow users to share their personal cognitive surpluses through internet platforms. This is either an “experimental conversation” or a “skilling” exercise, and it is this non-standardized product based on the transfer of empirical knowledge that happens to be a “general knowledge” exchange for value. Traders and small vs are beginning to be able to use the platform to upgrade their individual brands while reaping both moral satisfaction and material benefits。
It's broken and it's recreated. The knowledge-sharing economy is changing
I happen to have had the privilege of becoming a “thinker” “teacher” of many platforms, before describing the knowledge-sharing model, to list some examples, such as: a “work-in-work” model for one-on-one meetings with o2o; a “one-mile-by-one” for internet cafes; a “one-mile-by-one mile” for student students and sisters abroad; an “eight o'clock conference” for business rookies and white career leaders; a “meeting” under the user line; a “reward” focusing on small and medium-sized enterprise counselling; and the presence abroad of clarity, treatings and skillshare, which connects entrepreneurs and senior consultants and industry experts
Each platform has a distinct focus, but at the bottom the logic is the same, i. E. Connecting people to knowledge across the board through internet. This is the best picture of ro jin woo's “u-discretion”, where everyone can bring their own information, unsystematic, ready to be inserted and to work freely. Its new economic model, which breaks down traditional counselling and training models, has a unique advantage:
1. Economic value of direct transfer of knowledge from cognitive surplus
Earlier, people consumed only in front of television, and then those who had a wealth of knowledge were shared and created through the internet, thus gaining knowledge and encyclopedia. Knowledge-sharing platforms now generate more expertise, skills, experience, etc. From practitioners to be used in surplus time and delivered directly. This is far more intense than free sales on a level playing field, as it puts more emphasis on expertise and filters information and users by paying for it, because the “know-your-knower” who is really willing to pay is the sticky core user, and the truly valuable knowledge will not always be provided only free of charge。
2. The cognitive surplus continues to strengthen decentrize and demediate
In this “cognitive surplus battle”, wikipedia abroad has lost to socialized collaborative platforms such as quora, and it has been difficult for 100-mile encyclopedias to engage in an attack “in action”. Because they are part of economic and social chains, the former give more motivation to participants and the latter make communication more diffuse. This has led to a destabilization of business patterns, turning the original division of labour production into distributed sharing. Turned out to be an encyclopedia, you make up a piece of me, and now a problem always leads to the ideal answer. As a direct result, there has been increased polarization, one decentrization and one debromination。
As zhao lihui, who founded me after 10 years of war, said, “on my own account, i am a more pure individual economy, and no matter or medium is required to provide efficient problem solutions in connecting thinkers and users”. When human beings are themselves agents and no longer depend on any platform, knowledge sharing is amplified indefinitely and new internet-wide business models are developed: a business with a perceived surplus uses its spare time to provide one-to-one high-value services to others, thus transforming knowledge-sharing into a simple and goodwill “money deal”。
Three, one-on-one models of knowledge services unleash the power of weak relationships
The economic model of knowledge-sharing is a one-to-one service model, depending on the pair of firms, educational and training institutions, question-and-answer websites, etc. Whether it is on me, one-mile-to-one telephone/on-line communication, or one-on-one conversation, this one-on-one approach is providing a scene for targeted, private knowledge services; it also creates the possibility of establishing deep human links。
More importantly, knowledge-sharing is no longer confined to the circle of “strong relationships” at this time, and it involves the “weak relationships” of cattle in the planning of their own ideas. This fulfils both the media's task of changing the nature of information asymmetries and the ability of knowledge to replicate and bring the marginal cost of sharing closer to zero, as xiao bernard put it: if you have an apple, i have an apple, and we exchange them, then you and i still have an apple. But if you have an idea, and i have an idea, and we exchange those ideas, then we each have two ideas.” this is the true killer of knowledge sharing: no “internal consumption” can produce net incremental value。
Even with long sleeves, watch out for industry
If we measure the value of such products in line, for example, by: (1) the content of attitudes (the value of content), (2) the level of interactivity (user interaction) and (3) the profit of participants in sharing (the new connection value), then the knowledge-sharing economy model should be one that allows non-standardized products such as knowledge to win more with the c2c (individual-to-individual) model. And the industry's booming is by no means a big deal now, and even the best business model has a pit-fall trap。
1. Attitudes towards knowledge trading
Indeed, with a knowledge-sharing economy model, thinkers can use debris time to help users answer various questions, a way of trading wisdom that avoids users constantly asking the embarrassment of “knowers” and allows participants to maintain pure “money connections” with experts. But at a time when traditional cultures, more or less influenced by “sun-farming” and in an era of “money hurts”, whether the time and knowledge of experts need to be priced in a balanced manner. How to deal with the last identity label behind the big v when the topic of “knowledge sharing” is in close contact with money and even the equivalent. How in turn does this intellectual trade ensure the original purpose of knowledge sharing: to maximize the use of cognitive surpluses, which can be seen in three ways:
First, access to high-value information includes how to filter out truly high-quality knowledge, filtration by practitioners, how to increase their dependence on the platform and how to safeguard the quality of expert services。
Second, efficient matching of high-quality information, which includes the efficiency of knowledge retrieval and referral, and the degree of satisfaction that ultimately leads to exchange。
Thirdly, the assessment of the value of information, which includes pricing mechanisms, incentives and evaluation feedback mechanisms。
Now i'm using a ritual-filled appointment to “reduce the trading sense”, and i'm trying to get out of the awkward situation of meeting and paying each other for money by using a poignant trade line. Is that really the best way
2. Non-standardized ways to secure services mass
The essence of the knowledge-sharing economy is an evolution of the cognitive surplus, following a one-to-one private c2c model. Such decentralized and individualized user needs cannot standardize knowledge providers. How can service quality be ensured under non-standardized service experience models? How can product size be achieved? How can the value of individual services and the platform as a whole be quantified? How can the platform provide sufficient information to support users in selecting suitable mentors? Based on my current use of a real name certification and a dual transaction evaluation system, i am working on a two-point rating system for a one-mile breakout process. This is all in the hope of enhancing the controlability of this non-standardized product, but is it really not comfortable to try again? How can standardization and replicability of services be addressed
3. Balance between user size, content quality and platform quality
To complete the quality of service is to say the size of the user, the quality of the content and the size of the platform. It is generally accepted that every community should be watered, but that the increase is not equivalent to community growth, because with huge numbers of users and content, it is not necessarily a good thing, with so much traffic, its “new knowledge” is sunk. Such one-on-one, part-time knowledge-sharing platforms, which are less frequent for experts and participants, will necessarily increase user size if they are to increase the frequency and volume of transactions, but when the number of users increases, the cost of information filtering will increase, the quality of one-on-one communication will be compromised, and the needs of most users will always be met relatively few, and the need will inevitably turn into a “video lecture” for “classes”
4. The commercialization of platforms
As an economic platform for knowledge-sharing, they certainly have three missions: to eliminate the sense of guilt that “knowledge trading” brings with it money,2 to keep the thinkers of the prodigal mentors in hot cells, and to “go home” the three students. But even after all three, did he realize his own commercial value? What if the participants ran away from the platform? Will the one-on-one communication be a new tool for the engagement? Is there a need for such a scenario in three or four cities, and what is the willingness of participants to pay? Is it possible for every platform to work as closely as i do with hotels, ubers and so on to make a profit while providing accommodation, transportation, etc. How can the limited expert community of “talking communities” connect more services with conversation at its core and build business models
However, this does not mean that the knowledge-sharing model has no room for imagination, as did the treasure hunt of the year, when many people started just trying, and then started to live on it. The knowledge-sharing economy is only emerging as a new industry, and the commercialization of pan-knowledge is just beginning. Are we really ushering in a new era when everyone begins to move away from fixed jobs and achieve “one-size-fits-all survival”, a shared economy and decentrization
It is reproduced from the tiger sniffer, who used to ring the bell, wireless public no. Xiangling 0815。
This article is a mustard net reproducing article
Two, if you're also in education and want to be covered by mustard piles, please fill us in。
