The "knowledge-based payment" platform leverages star effect to make money, but should not become an out-of-law place for celebrities to collect money

The so-called "knowledge payment" may be a false proposition, because the most popular questions on such platforms are more about entertainment gossip. Worse, the influence of the star effect may allow fans and "love beans" to reach an extremely unfair "deal" in a question-and-answer.

. The so-called "knowledge payment" may be a false proposition, because the most popular questions on such platforms are more about entertainment gossip. Worse, the influence of the star effect may allow fans and "love beans" to reach an extremely unfair "deal" in a question-and-answer.

Star effect makes "knowledge-based payment" platforms achieve rapid profits

. In an era when the Internet economy is surging, profit models have always been the core issue. In the booming new media environment, in order to be able to realize cash as soon as possible, many previously unheard models have appeared in the name of "innovation", such as the current popular "payment for knowledge".

It is hard to imagine that Wang Sicong relied on the four words "practice makes perfect" to reply to questions such as "how to identify green tea bitches" and still earned a net profit of 80,000 yuan after sharing the account with the platform. This is not the first time that Wang Sicong has made money through the online Q & A model. Last year, when the "Divide and Answer" app, known as a knowledge platform, was launched, Wang Sicong answered 32 questions in one go, making a profit of 170,000 yuan. However,"Fenda" suddenly disappeared for 47 days after becoming popular overnight. When it returned, Wang Sicong's name had been added to the list of investors.

The profit model of paid Internet question and answer platforms relies heavily on users 'curiosity about the respondents, and star effect is almost the most consistent monetization model. The profit-seeking requirement determines the "answer every question" model, but there is no limit on the type of question for the questioner, and there is no interference with the answer of the respondent. Therefore, in addition to Wang Sicong, Zheng Shuang responded to his predecessor's views because of the restrictions on payment, which attracted many people to spend money to watch; Hammer Technology CEO Luo Yonghao's Q & A pricing also increased from 500 to 2000; Innovation Works Chairman Kai-fu Lee's entrepreneurial answer was also popular. For a time,"payment for knowledge" seemed to have ushered in its own spring. A series of platforms such as Fenanswer, Weibo Q & A, Zhihu live, and Get rushed in first. The public opinion that "Fenanswer and Zhihu must have a battle" also revealed It is a new outlet for the Internet economy.

"Pay for knowledge" is a false proposition. The questioner is more concerned about gossip

. In fact, most of the questions on today's Q & A platform have little to do with knowledge. Entertainment gossip and celebrity privacy are the most attractive issues. Many media have criticized that today's "payment for knowledge" has just begun and has become a vassal of entertainment. However, what is even more worrying is that the so-called "payment for knowledge" is likely to be a false proposition. Before discussing the "knowledge payment" model in the Internet Q & A platform, it is necessary to first define the definition of knowledge itself.

Looking at the Q & A content on major platforms, even the so-called "expert answers" professional questions are just consulting services similar to the nature of training institutions. While the high-end consulting industry is in full swing today, the Internet is just copying the traditional consulting industry model. After that, a new retail market was opened. When consuming these expert answers, the question you may need to answer yourself is: Is it really knowledge that we spend money to buy? Or is it just a placebo labeled with knowledge?

Similar to blogs and microblogs that were once expected to promote democratization, film and television stars and publicly known celebrities are still the first main respondents to enter the Q & A platform. The identities of these "knowledge preachers" with their own fan bases explain the profit model of major "knowledge-based" platforms. The core of the profit model is not knowledge but the identity of the respondent. Therefore, the expectation that "knowledge payment" can promote the dissemination of knowledge or change the allocation of educational resources is almost nonsense.

In the "payment for knowledge" model that makes money under the banner of knowledge, the subject of the fee and the content it provides deserve careful review. Similarly, the acquisition of knowledge does not rely on consumption. After all, no one will believe that you can really get rich by spending 199 yuan listening to "The Road to Wealth" for a year.

Profits made by celebrities that violate the principle of good faith are "revocable"

On the surface, knowledge payment is like a fair and reasonable purchase and sales contract: unspecified people ask questions, and the person answers them, and thus earn income. Some people say that this is "Zhou Yu hits Huang Gai, one is willing to hit, and the other is willing to suffer." Is it okay? I'm afraid it still depends on how this "contract" is performed and whether it is legal. In fact, on this platform, many respondents (including celebrities) tend to have "entertaining" answers, which is far from the previous "knowledge" positioning. The celebrity side takes advantage of its advantageous position and violates the agreement to easily "collect money". Such a "contract" undoubtedly violates the principle of good faith and is also "obviously unfair." According to the law, such contracts are revocable.

If there is a "money-making" chaos in which stars borrow knowledge to pay, will anyone care? Of course there is, it is the Internet Q & A platform. The knowledge-based payment model operates on the platform, and the "income" after a star answers questions is distributed between the platform and the star in proportion. Regardless of the regulatory responsibilities entrusted to Internet platforms by national laws and administrative regulations, once there is a problem that harms unspecified public rights and interests, corresponding measures should be taken to "stop" it. As far as rights and obligations are consistent, since the platform has received "benefits", it should Strengthen management supervision, and should also bear joint and several liability in terms of damage compensation, rather than standing outside and watching the fire from afar.

Editor: Nancy