88Mirrors Lessons Learned Film Industry Connection Platform
•
1 gefällt mir•3,324 views
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (8)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (7)
Ähnlich wie 88Mirrors Lessons Learned Film Industry Connection Platform
Ähnlich wie 88Mirrors Lessons Learned Film Industry Connection Platform (20)
Mehr von Stanford University
Mehr von Stanford University (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
88Mirrors Lessons Learned Film Industry Connection Platform
- 1. 88Mirrors: Lessons Learned Spencer Holt, Roopesh Nair, Sara Pollack, Nilesh Savkoor
- 2. Overview Team Name: 88MIrrors Hypothesized pain point: Current system for connecting people and projects in film is inefficient Hypothesized solution: A web-based service for all production professionals, leveraging social networks for trusted recommendations and a points system & leaderboard to increase engagement. Market Size:
- 3. The Team Spencer Holt Current Position: Audit Manager for Technology Start-ups Prior Experience: Audit for public semiconductor companies; training and employee development Team Role: Customer Outreach; Strategy; Financial/Market Analysis Roopesh Nair Current Position: Technology Consultant, Director of Professional Services Prior Experience: same Team Role: Customer Outreach; Strategy; Product Design and Development Sara Pollack Current Position: Head of Entertainment Marketing, YouTube Prior Experience: Film Development, Financing & Production Team Role: Customer Outreach; Strategy; Industry Insight; Site Design; Copywriting Nilesh Savkoor Current Position: Sr. Manager, Product Management & Marketing, Cisco Prior Experience: Product development, Consulting, Bus Dev & Sales Team Role: Customer Outreach; Strategy; Product Concept; Competitive Analysis
- 4. BMC: Version 1 Key Partners Key Activities Value Proposition Customer Customer Relationship Segments • Supplier • Develop & • Customers: • Customers: • Customers: Network maintain Promote projects communities, Production • Social platform and find self-service Professionals Networks • Maintain crew/services • Suppliers: (Directors & supplier through trusted Personal Producers) relationship referrals; leave assistance, • Authentic feedback to get automated • Suppliers: referrals points Suppliers: self-service Production • Marketing Showcase work • Advertisers: Crew & experience and Direct sales Service find new Providers Key Resources Channels projects; leave • Platform feedback to get • Web • Advertisers • Customer data points • Mobile • Supplier & Advertisers: • Social widgets Advertiser Access to Network targeted consumer base Cost Structure Revenue Stream • Platform development & maintenance • From suppliers: lead generation; sponsored • Customer acquisition listings; % of revenue • From advertisers: advertising dollars
- 5. What We Did Customers/Suppliers • Drafted interview questions to test our hypothesis • Conducted 15 1:1 interviews with potential customers & suppliers Market Landscape • Evaluated competitive landscape • Assessed market opportunity Teaching Team/Mentors • Discussed scope, type of service and revenue model
- 6. What We Found Points, leaderboards, ratings did not find much support Pain point and proposed TAM: 2.4M users (based on solution validated by all MPAA statistic) interviewees, but especially filmmakers Many competitors in The teaching team creative matchmaking questioned the (Blurgroup, MediaMobz, reliability of this Crowdspring), but not may stat in film specifically Pivot: Focus on Film
- 7. What We Did Customers/Suppliers • Interviewed financial services and healthcare professionals • Sent out survey to collect additional information from filmmakers Market Landscape • Reassessed market opportunity for film: – MPAA – Bureau of Labor Statistics – Film Guilds and Schools • Assessed market opportunity for other verticals
- 8. What We Found Financial services and healthcare wouldn’t work – Online recommendations not common – Factors other than reputation play important role, e.g. insurance coverage TAM: 8MM…but irrelevant The market size for film was really a 690K user opportunity TAM: 690K users But our filmmaker survey was confirming Pivot: Refocus on Film + demand for an Production Services 88Mirrors type service
- 9. What We Found: Filmmaker Validation Time Spent (Producers) Access to Talent (Producers) 44% Just Fine Satisfied 50% 50% 56% Too Much Unsatisfied Time Spent (Crew) Access to Projects (Crew) 39% Just Fine 38% Satisfied 61% Too Much 62% Unsatisfied * 93 Respondents
- 10. BMC: Version 2 Key Partners Key Activities Value Propositions Customer Customer Relationship Segments • Supplier • Develop & maintain • Customers: • Customers: • Customers: Network platform Promote projects communities, self- Production • Social • Maintain supplier Find crew service Professionals Networks relationship through trusted • Brand advertisers: (Directors & • Authentic referrals referrals; direct sales Producers) • Marketing Streamline work • Suppliers: with production personal • Suppliers: services assistance, auto Production • Suppliers: mated self- Crew & showcase work service Service experience and Providers Key Resources Channels find new projects • Platform • Advertisers: • Web • Advertisers • Customer data access to • Mobile • Supplier & Advertiser targeted • Social widgets Network consumer base Cost Structure Revenue Stream • Platform development & maintenance • From suppliers: lead generation; sponsored listings; % of • Customer acquisition revenue • From customers: premium services (payments, crew communication, etc.) • From advertisers: advertising dollars
- 11. What We Did Customers/Suppliers • Expanded focus beyond filmmakers • Interviewed professionals in Music, Commercial Production, Design, Fashion, Visual Arts, etc. • Sent surveys to professionals in all creative fields Market Opportunity • Assessed new TAM to include all creatives
- 12. What We Found Other creative verticals validated the same pain points as filmmakers TAM: 2.9M (across the U.S., UK and Australia) Feedback on willingness to pay for our service ranged Pivot: Focus on Creatives from inconsistent to disconcerting
- 13. What We Found Time Spent (Hirers) Verticals 46% Just Fine Film 54% Too Much Music Adv. Publ. Perf. Arts Fashion Access to Talent (Hirers) Graphic Des. Cul. Arts Vis. Arts 46% Satisfied Architec. 54% Unsatisfied Access to Projects (Hire-ees) Time Spent (Hire-ees) 34% Satisfied 47% Just Fine Unsatisfied 53% Too Much 66%
- 14. BMC: Version 3 Key Partners Key Activities Value Propositions Customer Customer Relationship Segments • Supplier • Develop & maintain • Customers: • Customers: • Customers/S Network platform Promote projects communities, self- uppliers: • Social • Maintain supplier and find service Film, Music, Networks relationship crew/services • Advertisers: direct Advertising, • Schools • Authentic referrals through trusted sales Publishing, • Trade • Marketing referrals; • Suppliers: Performing Unions • Make new personal Arts, Fashion, professional assistance, auto Graphic contacts; mated self- Design, • Review contacts’ service Culinary Arts, activity as a feed Visual Arts, Key Resources Channels • Suppliers: Architecture • Platform Suppliers: • Web professionals • Customer data showcase work • Mobile • Advertisers • Supplier & Advertiser experience and • Social widgets Network find new projects • Advertisers: access to targeted consumer base Cost Structure Revenue Stream • Platform development & maintenance • From suppliers: monthly subscriptions fee • Customer acquisition • From customers: monthly subscription fee • From advertisers: advertising dollars
- 15. What We Did Built an MVP that allows you to… Login with new or existing IDs See a personal profile Search for talent with people and projects Free access to premium services 88Mirrors.com
- 16. What We Did Traffic Generation • AdWords Campaign • 18-44 year olds • Music, Visual Arts, Fashion, Film, Advertising, Performing Arts and Architecture-driven searchers • Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Portland, Providence, Nashville and Austin • Social Media • LinkedIn • Facebook • Students and schools • Academic Outreach • Campus Ambassadors
- 17. What We Found • AdWords only drove 134 clicks over 7 days, but we learned valuable information about our market Clicks 60 40 20 Clicks 0 23-Nov 24-Nov 25-Nov 26-Nov 27-Nov 28-Nov 29-Nov 30-Nov Highest CTR by City Highest CTR by Ad Group 0.20% 0.80% 0.15% 0.40% 0.10% CTR 0.00% CTR 0.05% 0.00% SF Austin LA Providence • Schools were unresponsive – of the 35 emails we sent, only 1 received a response – however traffic to the site may have come from this outreach • No Campus Ambassadors responded to the call of duty
- 18. What We Found Traffic Sources: Account Registrations: 74 • 616 Direct visits • 52 Google Search referrals • 247 Facebook referrals • 53 Linked In referrals • 94 Google AdWords referrals
- 19. What We Found Quantitative Feedback • 59% drop off rate after reaching the homepage • Many ads demoted in Google Search because of low quality score • Only 3 of 664 visitors left feedback via a survey and only 1 said they would recommend it • 14 people signed up for free premium services Qualitative Feedback • Showcase work—Need a mechanism to upload or showcase work • Search function—Parameters should include location, recent experience, etc. • Collaborative tools—Include tools such as a calendar to see availability • Look and feel—Should be clean, professional, but not compete with user content
- 20. Where We Ended Up Our Areas of Achievement & Our Areas for Continued Development • We found a genuine • We did not find a pain point solution • We found customers • We did not find a revenue model A Viable, but Challenging Business • Requires personalization and scalability • Targets a demanding customer segment • Associated with being free • Fiercely competitive Behance Moving Forward • Determine how to better communicate value proposition • Invest in resources to build full functionality customers asked for • Evaluate ―niche‖ differentiation strategy • Explore WTP w/ 14 ―premium‖ users • Build board of directors, including Jonathan Abrams & Scott Belsky
- 21. Acknowledgements Special Thanks To: Our Teaching Team Steve Blank, Oren Jacobs, Jon Feiber, Jim Hornthal Our TA Bhavik Joshi Our Mentors Michael Borrus, Dan Martell Our Advisors Jonathan Abrams, Scott Belsky, Manjula Nadkarni Our Customers The many hardworking filmmakers, musicians, designers, artists, architects and even chefs who took the time to help us figure out a business that would meet their needs
- 23. BMC: Version 1 Key Partners Key Activities Value Proposition Customer Customer Relationship Segments • Supplier • Develop & • Customers: • Customers: • Customers: Network maintain Promote projects communities, Production • Social platform and find self-service Professionals Networks • Maintain crew/services • Suppliers: (Directors & supplier through trusted Personal Producers) relationship referrals; leave assistance, • Authentic feedback to get automated • Suppliers: referrals points Suppliers: self-service Production • Marketing Showcase work • Advertisers: Crew & experience and Direct sales Service find new Providers Key Resources Channels projects; leave • Platform feedback to get • Web • Advertisers • Customer data points • Mobile • Supplier & Advertisers: • Social widgets Advertiser Access to Network targeted consumer base Cost Structure Revenue Stream • Platform development & maintenance • From suppliers: lead generation; sponsored • Customer acquisition listings; % of revenue • From advertisers: advertising dollars
- 24. BMC: Version 2 Key Partners Key Activities Value Propositions Customer Customer Relationship Segments • Supplier • Develop & maintain • Customers: • Customers: • Customers: Network platform Promote projects communities, self- Production • Social • Maintain supplier Find crew service Professionals Networks relationship through trusted • Brand advertisers: (Directors & • Authentic referrals referrals; direct sales Producers) • Marketing Streamline work • Suppliers: with production personal • Suppliers: services assistance, Production • Suppliers: automated self- Crew & showcase work service Service experience and Providers Key Resources Channels find new projects • Platform • Advertisers: • Web • Advertisers • Customer data access to • Mobile • Supplier & Advertiser targeted • Social widgets Network consumer base Cost Structure Revenue Stream • Platform development & maintenance • From suppliers: lead generation; sponsored listings; % of • Customer acquisition revenue • From customers: premium services (payments, crew communication, etc.) • From advertisers: advertising dollars
- 25. BMC: Version 3 Key Partners Key Activities Value Propositions Customer Customer Relationship Segments • Supplier • Develop & maintain • Customers: • Customers: • Customers/S Network platform Promote projects communities, self- uppliers: • Social • Maintain supplier and find service Film, Music, Networks relationship crew/services • Advertisers: direct Advertising, • Schools • Authentic referrals through trusted sales Publishing, • Trade Unions • Marketing referrals; • Suppliers: Performing • Make new personal Arts, Fashion, professional assistance, Graphic contacts; automated self- Design, • Review contacts’ service Culinary Arts, activity as a feed Visual Arts, Key Resources Channels • Suppliers: Architecture • Platform Suppliers: • Web professionals • Customer data showcase work • Mobile • Advertisers • Supplier & Advertiser experience and • Social widgets Network find new projects • Advertisers: access to targeted consumer base Cost Structure Revenue Stream • Platform development & maintenance • From suppliers: monthly subscriptions fee • Customer acquisition • From customers: monthly subscription fee • From advertisers: advertising dollars
Hinweis der Redaktion
- ***Pain point, solution, don’t know market sizeFollowing some pre-term conversations with Oren around an initial idea to create an end-to-end filmmaker services website, we kicked off the semester with a scaled down concept based on a single part of that end-to-end value chain – connecting people and projects – with the intention of adding a “game” experience – a points system to encourage feedback loops – and with the intention of scaling to other verticals that required collaboration and teamwork.As the diagram on this slide shows (which we submitted in our application for the class), we thought this matchmaking process could apply broadly to high-value services, but we intended to start with the production industry (film, commercials, music videos).Since we weren’t sure what our full scope would be – film? film/commercials/music videos? Other verticals? – we didn’t have a true sense of the market opportunity when we came up with the idea.
- ***Team: Spencer (finance and quant), Roopesh (tech), Sara (marketing), Nilesh (product)The team consisted of Spencer Holt, an accountant; Roopesh Nair, a technology consultant and engineer; Sara Pollack, a marketing executive; and Nilesh Savkoor, a product manager.All of us played a role in the development of the business, strategy and customer outreach. In addition, Spencer lent his expertise to financial and market analysis, Roopesh oversaw building the site, Sara handled design, copywriting and advertising and Nilesh led product concepting and competitive analysis.
- ***Significant pieces of this BMC are the value proposition (collaborate on projects with trusted referrals), and segments (producers and crew)To recap our first slide, the principal parts of our first business model were our Value Proposition and Customer Segments. Our model was based on targeting production professionals (directors & producers) with the value proposition that they could use our site to promote projects and find crew and services through trusted referrals, and on targeting production crew & service providers with the value proposition that they could showcase their work experience and find new projects.Both would benefit from leaving feedback as they’d gain points that could be applied to future discounts. Again, this was our short-term vision, and long-term we hoped to scale to other verticals.
- ***To verify the value proposition and the segments, we held interviews with potential segments, evaluated the market landscape, and met our team’s mentors.After the first block, we set out to test our value proposition with production professionals. We drafted interview questions and met with potential customers and suppliers across the production industries.We also evaluated the competitive landscape, assessed our market opportunity and engaged in a lot of conversations with our mentors and the teaching team about trying to set our scope – film, production, other team-oriented verticals?
- ***one feature discussed was points and leaderboards, but it was not well-received; although we hit more than filmmakers in our interviews, we found that filmmakers strongly validated the pain point and that the market did not have a solution that focused specifically on the needs of the film industry. We were encouraged to see MPAA stats showing a sizable TAM, but ultimately brought to task on its reasonableness.While we talked to potential customers and suppliers across a handful of production industries, the feedback from filmmakers was consistently positive.Moreover, we found that while there was significant competition in the creative matchmaking business generally, the film vertical was relatively light.These two facts, combined with our projection that we could hit sales of $326MM in 5 years based on an MPAA statistic that said 2.4MM people were employed by Hollywood, gave us the confidence to focus on filmmakers (including those who made commercials and music videos) and that’s what we went into the next block with.And we decided to drop the points system based on a lack of support.
- ***Using the same BMC, we reassessed film market by gathering more data points, and tested expansion into other potentially collaborative and high-reputation industries.So….we decided to reassess other verticals after all, and settled on financial services and healthcare because they seemed similarly team-oriented. In these verticals, consumers were looking to put together a team – perhaps a money manager, an accountant and a mortgage broker or a primary care doctor, an ophthalmologist and a dermatologist – based on trusted recommendations. We drafted new questions for these verticals and sat down with 6 financial services and healthcare providers.At the same time, we sent out a survey to the film community to further validate our pain points and solution with a broader group of people (93 to be exact) and also asked questions to determine whether we could evolve our revenue model to include production services.We also set out to accurately assess the film market opportunity and to assess the incremental increase from financial services and healthcare.
- ***Other verticals had promising numbers of TAM, but we couldn’t validate the pain point. The market for film was reassessed at 690k, but its pain point was reconfirmed, so we decided to try and expand within the film industry through premium production services.Interviews with healthcare and financial services providers made us realize that scaling to these verticals would be impossible because the factors influencing hiring differed from factors in creative industries. Online recommendations were uncommon, factors others that reputation played an important role (i.e. healthcare coverage) and work was rarely project based.At the same time, our survey results, which we’ll review on the next slide, showed that filmmakers were continuing to feel the pain.The bad news was that our number crunching on the size of the film market was producing dismal results. Instead of 2.4MM potential users, we had 690K, which was bringing our 5-year revenue projections to as little as $3MM.
- ***Of 93 respondents in our follow-on survey, more than a third felt they spent too much time searching, and more than half felt they did not have access to projects/talent.But again, we felt there was so much promise with filmmakers.Among those who hire crew and talent (we’re calling them producers here), 44% of our 93 respondents felt they were spending too much time finding crew and 50% felt they could use more access to talent.Among the crew who responded, 31% felt they spent too much time looking for projects and 62% thought they could benefit from access to more projects.So we headed back to block determined to service filmmakers despite the negligible market opportunity, accepting that we would probably never find funding.
- **We went into block with a BMC that reflected our new focus on production services and a network for filmmakers, with the realization we would never be a venture fundable business.Since we were planning to maintain the same customer segment focus, despite the small TAM, we decided to add production services to our value proposition for customers. Our survey had shown us that filmmakers were spending significant dollars on payroll fees, legal fees and project management fees, so we decided that perhaps we could bundle web-based services at a lower fee. This meant that in addition to previous revenue models based on lead generation and advertising, we could add one-time and/or monthly fees for production services.
- ***Met with Steve, realized we were being unnecessarily narrow-minded, and expanded to all creative verticals. Following our presentation of this BMC, we met with Steve, who asked us why we were ignoring the many other creative verticals that could potentially benefit from a “Facebook-meets-Linked In for Creatives” and asked us why we were myopically focused on film.We wondered the same and expanded our focus beyond filmmakers. We met with potential customers in the Music, Commercial and Design industries and we drafted a new survey for all creative professionals, which 40 people responded to.We also looked for data on a new TAM that would include potential users in the Film, Music, Visual Arts, Architecture, Graphic Design, Design, Publishing, Advertising and Fashion industries.
- ***Survey results, which we’ll show on next slide, confirmed other verticals suffered from the same pain point. Although our survey didn’t let us validate WTP, based on positive customer demand and a new 2.9MM tam, we pivoted to become Facebook-Meets-LinkedIn for creatives.Other creative verticals also experienced difficulty finding people to collaborate with or projects to work on. Like filmmakers, they looked to friends and trusted sources to expand their networks, but felt their networks could be bigger – we’ll dive into results on the next slide.But feedback about willingness to pay was mixed. Many people said they wouldn’t pay for a site that helped them expand their network and helped them leverage that network to connect people and projects. Others said they would pay a nominal amount. And others said they’d pay a reasonable amount.But based on the validation of the pain point and a TAM that now looked like a proper 2.9MM potential users across the US, UK and Australia, we decided we would be Facebook-Meets-Linked In for creatives.
- ***Again, almost half of respondent feel they spend too much time searching and don’t have enough access to talentBased on respondents who reflected a more diverse cross-section of the creative industries, we found that, among those who hire other creatives to work on their projects, 46% felt they spent too much time looking for people and 46% were not satisfied with their access to talent. For those who work on other people’s projects, 53% felt they spent too much time looking for projects and 66% were unstatisfied with their access to talent.
- ***All of this customer discovery resulted in our final business model canvas, which reflected changes to our customer segments, value prop and revenue stream. Our customers and suppliers were now all creative industry professionals and we expanded value proposition to reflect a more “active” service that would help creatives keep up to date with and expand their networks by aggregating professional news about people in their immediate and expanded networks in their activity feed, which we thought might provide enough value to let us charge a monthly subscription fee.Our customer segment would include all creative industries. Our value proposition would continue to be connecting people and projects based on trusted referrals, however we would drop production services (which wouldn’t scale across verticals and had competition, i.e. Scenios) and focus on building a better recommendation engine for network building based on activity within a users’ immediate and extended networks.We hoped this new value proposition would be so valuable that we could charge users a monthly subscription fee.
- *** So we updated our MVP to be accessible to all creative verticals, with the ability to login with a new ID or a FB/Twitter ID, create a profile for yourself or your projects and to search for talent. We also offered 2 months free access to premium services to better test demand for our potential paid services.We also created a value prop videoAnd took EarlyVangelists through the website 1:1To better test willingness to pay, we differentiated between current free services and forthcoming premium ones by offering 2 months free access to premium services with a special sign up.
- After brainstorming traffic generating ideas with Jonathan Abrams and the teaching team, we focused on an AdWords campaign targeted to 18-44 year olds in art & culture driven cities searching for keywords related to creative industries We posted links to the 88Mirrors site to relevant Linked In groups and to our Facebook accountsWe also sent emails to the heads of relevant academic departments and student groups at Berkeley, Columbia and the Academy of Art to ask them to forward an email to students explaining 88Mirrors and encouraging people to leave feedback on the siteAnd we reached out to potential “campus ambassadors” to sign students up for the MVP
- 130K impressions with 134 clicks for a .1% CTRWhile the AdWords campaign only drove 134 clicks over 7 days, we learned that users in SF, Austin, LA and Providence were more likely to click on our ads, and searches tied to Architecure, Visual Arts, Fashion, Music and Film, provided the greatest CTR. Note that of these 5 industries, film had the lowest CTR – go figure.While only one academic department – the Film & Media department at Berkeley – responded to our emails, we believe this outreach did drive some traffic based on data on the following slide.Unfortunately no students took up our offer to be paid as a campus ambassador.
- Over the semester, the side received 1000+ unique visits. Reference traffic sources and new visitor vs. returning.Spike in visits when we were walking customers through the MVP and during our concentrated push. During our week of marketing, we drove 301 uniques and the most new visitors (85%).Given traffic sources, Belsky and Abrams points around word of mouth vs. advertising validated.But something kind of worked, because our goal was to drive 1000 visits to our MVP, and we got pretty close with 679 visits. Many of these visits were direct, so our emails to academic institutions and our relevant contacts may have paid off. 193 referrals came from Facebook. 71 from AdWords. 47 from organic search. And 46 from Linked In.This reinforces Jonathan Abrams and Scott Belsky’s feedback that spending on marketing may not be necessary for a site like 88Mirrors – word of mouth within the right community should suffice.Despite the positive news on traffic, the response visitors had to the site was not as rosy.
- We were pleased with our overall traffic for the semester, but we also got quantitative and qualitative feedback that – not surprisingly – reminded us of the work ahead.Ad demotion – reminded us of the tension between pushing something out before its ready to test vs. waiting We added a Provide Feedback button to every page of the site, which linked to a survey with questions about whether people were satisfied with design, functionality and relevance and whether they would recommend the site.Only 3 of our 524 visitors took the time to sign up and leave feedback, which signals low engagement. Moreover, of the 3, only 1 said they would recommend it. This didn’t surprise us, but is worth noting.There was also a 59% drop off rate after users hit the home page, which underscores some of the qualitative feedback we got from EarlyVangelists about the difficulty of understanding the value proposition and how to move through the site and perhaps the design issues as well.Many of our ads were also demoted because of people clicking to the site and then bouncing.Qualitatively, we learned we have our work cut out for us. Users felt the site design, copy, UI and information architecture had to do a better job of clarifying the value proposition and felt the recommendation and search functionality had room for improvement.
- ***Found pain point/customers. We found a genuine pain point that exists for creative professionals: their opportunities to collaborate and to find work are constrained by the people they’ve met in the “real” world. Social networks like Facebook and Twitter don’t provide the right community or tools for building their networks, and LinkedIn feels corporate and irrelevant to many of them. We also found customers. There are 2.9M people working in creative professions in the U.S. and potential customers across 9 creative industries validated our pain point.Did not yet validate solution/revenue model. Think it’s viable, but there are real challenges. Need scalability to multiple verticals to create enough revenue, but need functionality expertly tailored to different vertical targets and needs. Behance tackling through incredible metadata. We’ve also learned that this is a difficult business. First, it requires personalization -- our customers wanted to see that the MVP was relevant to them and their profession, but any revenue model will also demand that the site be scalable to multiple industries and professions. It is probably likely that someone can create a site that is dynamic enough to be both niche and scaled, but this is a challenge. Second, the creative industry is a fickle and demanding one, something that was reinforced by Scott Belsky, the founder of Behance, so anyone who pursues this business needs to make design a top priority. Third, social networks are associated with being free. Many of our survey respondents indicated they would be unwilling to pay for a social network service. And, fourth, this is a fiercely competitive field. There are many competitors, and there is one competitor – Behance – who is about to introduce many of the features 88Mirrors hoped to develop. It may be difficult for a start up to challenge them. Nonetheless, some members of the group intend to move forward with the concept by….
- To recap our first slide, the principal parts of our first business model were our Value Proposition and Customer Segments. Our model was based on targeting production professionals (directors & producers) with the value proposition that they could use our site to promote projects and find crew and services through trusted referrals, and on targeting production crew & service providers with the value proposition that they could showcase their work experience and find new projects.Both would benefit from leaving feedback as they’d gain points that could be applied to future discounts. Again, this was our short-term vision, and long-term we hoped to scale to other verticals.
- Since we were planning to maintain the same customer segment focus, despite the small TAM, we decided to add production services to our value proposition for customers. Our survey had shown us that filmmakers were spending significant dollars on payroll fees, legal fees and project management fees, so we decided that perhaps we could bundle web-based services at a lower fee. This meant that in addition to previous revenue models based on lead generation and advertising, we could add one-time and/or monthly fees for production services.
- All of this customer discovery resulted in our final business model canvas.Our customer segment would include all creative industries. Our value proposition would continue to be connecting people and projects based on trusted referrals, however we would drop production services (which wouldn’t scale across verticals and had competition, i.e. Scenios) and focus on building a better recommendation engine for network building based on activity within a users’ immediate and extended networks.We hoped this new value proposition would be so valuable that we could charge users a monthly subscription fee.