The sad tale of the 1%
According to Nielsen's '90-9-1' theory, 90% of the people in online communities are lurkers (basically leeches who contribution nothing and suck up the benefits in the group), 9% are semi-leeches who contribute sometimes, but mostly just leech and the poor 1% who contribute the most in the online communities and are responsible for most of the content. In a perfect world, the benefits and profits that one receives should ideally be symmetrical to the investments that the person has made.
Unfortunately, that is not always so. Here is the story of a poor guy who eventually got phased out of his online community. When I first started playing Runescape in 2007 (DONT JUDGE ME), I learnt all I could from this YouTuber called Suomi. Suomi was a legend in the game, becoming the first player to reach 5 BILLION exp in the game, the maximum experience you could get in the game at that point in time. What made him even more popular was his Youtube channel, which had up to 46 thousand subscribers in its heyday - at that point in time, he was one of the only youtubers with a channel dedicated to Runescape and watching his channel to see his progress was one of my past-times (I wouldnt say favourite...). However, the common consensus eventually was that he got too big for his boots, having various infractions with the creators of the game as well as the community, who felt harassed by his constant requests for donations. Eventually, after a particularly startling infraction with Jagex (the creators of the game), Suomi's account was BANNED, while his followers on Youtube quickly abandoned his channel after his antics and game ban.
Despite being one of the top content creators in the game, and drawing in a lot of attention for the game, Suomi was slowly (and eventually) ousted from the game that he helped grow so much. Is this a case where it is better to be the 90%, gaining just a little, but essentially needing no effort on your part?
Hi Kelvyn, I appreciate the anecdote to portray the 1%. It is interesting that as a 'legend' in his community, that the player was phased out and his following diminished too. I guess this aligns with the following the protocols and unspoken rules of a community. As an outsider to this anecdote and the Runescape community, it sounds like some of those protocols were broken, like the infractions and asking for donations (perhaps an example of an unspoken rule that just makes the community uncomfortable). I believe I fall under the category of 90%, and I am happy there. I can't imagine investing so much time and effort into a community and content creation, like Suomi, just to be pushed out.
ReplyDeleteHi Kelvyn, thank you for the very interesting post! I agree with Lissa's assessment that it must be devastating to invest so much time and energy into something only to have it whisked away by forces beyond your control. In that instance, yes, it would definitely be preferable to be part of the 90%. My thoughts on the percentage breakdowns regarding how people interact with online communities is that it is a somewhat accurate representation of how most people are. Many of us prefer to consume and learn from materials, a much smaller group of people feels compelled to contribute and an even smaller group would be active creators. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but as you pointed out, there are risks involved (etiquette breaches or the importance of maintaining a good reputation online?) that creators should be aware of.
ReplyDelete