Notes around "Boosting Streamers"

One of the ideas we had in order to ensure we can be profitable while still offering all of our streamers the same features is adding the concept of “Boosting” to a Channel. Very similar to Discord, x number of people need to boost the server for y benefits.

We’re still not quite ready for this idea, but I wanted to start this thread so we can start to talk about it.

Some potential features we’d need additional money for:

  • VODS
  • Transcoding
3 Likes

Looks like reddit does something similar:

I think this is a neat idea. I am working on the assumption that you would be able to buy ‘x’ boosts and not be limited to just one at a time, so realistically someone could boost a stream to VODs on their own if they wished?

If I may make a suggestion here, I think it could be useful if the streamer could prioritise which of the features they wanted boosting first or have some indication of their preference, even make then togglable so they can turn specific features off if they want, again in the idea of giving the streamers full control :slight_smile:

2 Likes

I think this is a neat idea. I am working on the assumption that you would be able to buy ‘x’ boosts and not be limited to just one at a time, so realistically someone could boost a stream to VODs on their own if they wished?

I think it’s really important to make this an option as well. Some streamers may choose to use it (eg. VODs) as a way to get more exposure, and thereby grow their community. For other streamers, a lack of boosts might tell them the feature really isn’t in that much demand after all. Streamers should be able to see how many boosts they have received, but also how many people have boosted them -maybe higher tiers also require x number of boosters.

If feasible, we could even use the boost tiers in the future to give streamers a larger sub cut (obviously not if self-boosted) which would drive streamers to encourage viewers to boost more

1 Like

I love this bit. Almost like an amazon wishlist or something you can priortise (as a creator) what boosts you think will help you the most, and let your community help you reach that goal.

Apart from the aforementioned VODs and transcoding, what other options do we see as good variants for boosts? Extra emote slots? I can imagine them falling under their own emote variant (where we have channel specific, site wide, etc). Basically they would be in addition to all the regular emote slots, but only active to be used once x/x boosts are received. Could be a fun way to hype up a community by reaching that goal and celebrating with the special ‘limited time’ (whilst boost number is active) type of emote.

What other options do we have for boost perks?

Love this idea! Transcoding and VODs are big features - their omission is a sticking point for many - it would be wonderful to see this implemented, and due to the unfortunate reality that these features are expensive to provide, I think a discussion around the fairest way to provide access is very important. You mention Discord Boost and Reddit, but this approach is also used to some extent by the purple brand. They allow some perks, like additional emote slots, when X number of concurrent subs is achieved. This appears to be the same principle of incentivising your community to hit a “goal” to unlock a perk that benefits everyone, which can equally be achieved instantly via the streamer issuing gift subs. They have not yet tied the transcoding perk to this reward strategy, and I think it’s a gap in the market for you to beat them to, as the market leader does not currently provide a pathway to guarantee transcoding will be available. If you were able to guarantee this feature for a set price, it solves a headache that many streamers currently tussle with: Do I stream in the highest quality I can produce and exclude my friends with poor Internet, or sacrifice the visual quality of my content to ensure more of the community are able to be included- thus potentially limiting my own growth when new viewers check out my low-quality stream for the first time. This feature definitely holds value to a streamer, and IMO a fixed monthly fee to access it can be justified.

2 Likes

Maybe an icon by their name with highlighted text, like so:

My concern about incorporating extra features like VOD’s and Clips into a feature like boosting would instantly put streamers who are starting out at an instant disadvantage to those with viewers - This is of course if the boosts are done by the streamers communities.

I think features like these would be best suited as an extra within the Gold Platform Sub - This way anyone willing to pay money will have this feature(s). It also makes the platform sub more valuable meaning more purchases of it and more regular subscribers.

I disagree. I think it’ll be seen as a sort of “payola/pay2win” scenario. Granted it’s not, and legally it wouldn’t be either, but a lot of people, already sick of companies doing lootbox crap and pay to win, won’t look at it positively - it might be seen as Glimesh “selling out”.

I’m sure there’s a fair and reasonable way to frame it, but I’m not sure selling it as part of the package is a way to go. We’re already telling people “if you can’t pay for the package, don’t do so” - to many, this would add an “and if you don’t, this is how we’re going to penalize you” understatement.

But wouldn’t people paying for boosts be just as much as pay to win? The downside with the boosts is that you are community dependant and you would need them in order to maintain the features. Whereas the Gold Platform sub will put it into the streamers control. Glimesh does and will attract mainly new streamers, particularly are the early stages which growing communities with lack of viewers, then relying on them to boost your channel would almost make the feature redundant. I understand the pay to win aspect of the platform sub, but it is a business and there needs to be more ways for the company to make money. Think about how successful Mixer Pro was back in the day and the biggest benefit with that was access to certain features.

Agree with this.

As much as I like the idea of boosting I think some features are better suited to the platform sub option so the streamer has more control over their content.
For example if you want more transcoding options (we’ve discussed before about maybe having one transcode option open to everyone), then you have to pay for it via the platform sub to help offset the additional cost.

It also gives the platform sub some intrinsic value which it struggles to right now (short of it being there to just donate to the platform).

It also allows us to go deeper with the platform sub tiers. Maybe the base tier provides 1 transcode (among other features) but the gold level tier provides more, maybe 2-4 transcode options.
Obviously the financials and viability would have to be confirmed for that but it allows an entry level point as well for those who seek it.

As for boosts I believe we really need to think hard about what it can activate which are both “worth it” for viewers (and the creator), as well as being something that when taken away because the boosts expire doesn’t cause disruption.

I just want to throw in there that the cost of transcoding is a multiple to the number of viewers a stream has. While we’re small this is no problem, but as soon as we have even a streamer with 500 viewers the cost of transcoding would be x5 the cost. I haven’t done the exact financial analysis, but a single $25/mo sub from one streamer likely would not pay for the additional resources used for transcoding.

One of the ideas as well is that boosting can be dynamic to the size of the streamer, and the size of their usual subs. It could be used to nudge viewers into not only supporting the streamer, but also supporting us. For example a streamer with 10 normally monthly subs, would require 12 subs to get x y or z, and a streamer with 100 normally active subs would require 20 extra subs, etc. All stuff to think about, nothing final.

It’s also worth mentioning that all streamers would get a low level of transcoding for mobile support, in addition I would personally like to see some kind of minimum availability for all features even with a boost system.

Finally, I think we should stay away from incentivizing platform subs as ways of paying to win, or unlocking certain features. We should make streaming straightforward, streamers already pay so much money for equipment, time, and resources to make their streams stick out. Ideally we can convince people to use Glimesh Gold just because they want to support us, or in the future even show users exactly what things cost, and give them the same type of “boosting” to finish off our server costs for the month, or similar.

All just my thoughts for now, this is a complex idea, but we have to make sure it fits in with our morals, it provides benefits to our users, and it helps us pay for the servers.

I think this misses the mark completely. It’s not about competing to be the top ranked streamer(streamer of the month/year), its about helping your favorite streamers get the features their community wants for them. It doesn’t make sense to advertise what a streamers boost tier is - especially if we were to let streamers choose what targets they want to prioritize. This is not being pitched as a way to sort streamers by boost tier(on the browse pages), and I think that would be a huge mistake.

It would be seen as pay2win if money is directly involved in a streamers ranking in any way. We don’t sort by sub count or viewer count, or follower counts for good reason

Admittedly, I think I may have confused “Boosting Streamers” with the previous discussion, so that part of my statement can be ignored. I’ll still stand by the rest of it, though.

I think the discussion of platform sub vs community boost is looking at two sides of the same coin. A channel boost could be applied by the streamer in the same way as they can pay for a platform sub. I’m not sure there’s much value in arguing which guise the feature takes.

The cost being scalable according to a viewer count - which will vary month to month within any given channel - makes for a very complex problem. I do not have a solution to this. I think it needs to be simpler than a sliding scale relative to community size. Aside from being confusing, it may subconsciously discourage streamers from promoting themselves further when they are approaching a threshold limit- knowing that growth beyond their current level will cost them more $$$.

One suggestion would be a flat fee that overcharges streamers to play it safe (This will no doubt raise eyebrows, but if this is a desirable feature we may find the market will bear the fee. If it is too expensive: a lesson will be learned without incurring any additional transcoding costs. No harm done.) Any excess funds raised through this approach could be redeveloped into the site in other ways, or safeguard you against future rising costs to provide the service. Your price point would then be unlikely to become volatile.

The other option I can practically think of to resolve this would be one where Glimesh itself assumes the risk, offering at a low flat fee that makes the feature very accessible. A loss leader. You would be hoping that if a larger community came along & Glimesh took a loss through the Transcoding, it would still make that money back through a cut of subs & any other monetization that exists/will exist. There are so many variables in play; this low price point may still be profitable for all but the largest communities on Glimesh. (and that surplus might, in turn, also cover the costs incurred by the larger streamers.)

I don’t buy into the pay2win argument at all, personally. There is no “win” condition in streaming. How much we are willing to invest in achieving our own goals should be our own prerogative, and by no means perceived as an attempt to cause any other party to lose. I think it would be nice to have the option to spend money on luxuries for yourself, or your friends & their channels. It’s like ordering an ice cream with extra sprinkles. (Mmm, ice cream)

Thanks for considering this topic!

Well worded and couldn’t agree more

So i’ve been thinking about this hard and long and sadly I do see this as a pay to win type of situation. If you’re a small streamer who lives on the pennies and you get let’s say 100 viewers but all your community is also poor in this situation that will mean that they will be having a disadvantage with way more issues. If you have a poor internet connection now you have issues streaming on Glimesh. So imagine if you are poor overal and cannot afford 300 bucks a month internet but only the cheap 20 a month that would mean that you as a poor streamer will never be able to stream on Glimesh. You will leave those out.

If you’re rich and have thousands in your bank you can afford everything for your stream. If you’re community is rich too they will support you.

So what are the plans for those people? Those who live on the edge but still want to share their games?

Rough example from myself I’ve been struggling for weeks now and had to cancel all subs and the platform sub. Does that mean my community would suffer with disconnects and stuff too?

Try and find a sollution for that problem. Because if you’re goal with this is to also make more money, then keep an eye out on Small Streamers. Not everyone who comes into streaming gets subs straight forward.

Just my two cents.

Hi JustSimy, I’m afraid you may not have fully understood the discussion. There is no option for free access to premium features like transcoding. These cost Glimesh money to provide, and if this cost is not passed on to the consumer, the feature simply does not exist at all. Glimesh cannot afford to absorb these costs for you. Nothing you currently enjoy would be taken away by introducing extra (wanted) features. Please feel free to re-word if you feel I have missed an important point from your post. I’m sorry to hear about your recent struggles.

Hello DanV,
I actually do know what i’m asking and adding to this conversation. And I have read and followed the entire conversation for many months.

And while you may think it doesn’t add to the conversation at hand. It’s an example of what might happen.

And to add to your words i’ve supported Glimesh with my platform sub for months on months. It’s not that I wouldn’t but, I am pointing out an issue others might run into. Where i’m from we have perfect internet but let’s say you are from a country that isn’t as fortunate. Will you then leave these people out by doing the features way behind another paywall.

That’s why I said and asked Paco during his podcast chat thing last night what he would say. It’s a crude example maybe but it is a way people will move to those platforms that offer it natively in their systems.

If Glimesh is smart they can with really good marketing make a sub very very appealing for people to do.

And since Glimesh if I remember correctly from before I joined said that everyone is equal, then this will create a divide and make it not equal at all.

I just want to clarify a few things here to be absolutely clear and make sure we are all on the same page with this discussion:

It was not my stream/show/podcast, I was simply invited to jump into voice chat by the members of the stream while I was in the chat. It was not planned, nor was it an interview or anything even resembling that. Just guys chatting it up. I was also careful to say, anytime we spoke on features or the future, or anything similar, that what I was speaking my opinions and my views and there was nothing official or for sure. I, in fact, even referenced this specific post during the conversation about boosting streamers and urged people to come and read this thread instead of just listening to me.

At the end of the day the fact remains that when a feature is so expensive, simply giving it to literally everybody is a recipe for disaster. We will do everything we can to ensure that we apply things in a fair and equatable way as much as we possible can, but we can’t sacrifice the company in the process of doing it or we can’t serve anybody.