product manager

In 2019, I developed a short video social APP for overseas markets. At that time, I did some comparative analysis on the user behaviors of Tiktok and Douyin. Here are some notes from that time.

1. About short videos and live broadcasts

For domestic users, short videos and live broadcasts are both used to create content, so short videos and live broadcasts are both content forms.

For overseas users, short videos and live broadcasts are first and foremost a means of communication. Short videos are first and foremost text messages, except that they send videos. Live broadcasts are first and foremost a phone call, except that they can synchronize video images, whether it is one-to-one or one-to-many.

This is why there are many social apps based on short videos and live communications overseas, while in China, most of them are products that produce short videos and serve to better produce live broadcasts.

2. About fans

For domestic users, fans are money, and the number of followers is the key number used for monetization.

For overseas users, especially European and American users (TikTok's user base is generally younger), fans are friends, and this is a number worth showing off. A large number of younger users on TikTok are generally proud of having many friends.

3. About live broadcast and live broadcast gifts

Domestic live broadcasts are all about content. They are mainly about selling art and goods. The pictures are beautiful, there are all kinds of temptations, and they are very elaborate.

Live streaming overseas, including TikTok, is truly a “communication tool.”

First of all, in terms of the total amount of live broadcasts, it cannot be compared with Douyin.

Then, the most common thing is a woman chatting with a group of men. Picture? Temptation? What is that? Just chatting casually. Such, giving gifts, very rare.

Occasionally, there are performers performing for money, but their quality and popularity are far from those of domestic live broadcasts. The gift-giving situation is also generally incomparable to that of domestic live broadcasts.

Every time I talk to investors. They always ask me: What problem does your product solve?

I go to apply for a job, go to an interview, and then I often tell people that I made such a product and solved such a problem.

People are confused: "Which aspect of the product are you good at? Front-end? Back-end? Or are you just good at solving problems?"

This has happened several times.

I really don’t understand why God couldn’t unify the standards and interfaces when creating this world. . . . .

I'm certainly good at problem solving.

What is the product used for? Isn’t it just for solving problems and meeting needs? ! !

In addition, I am not only good at solving problems, I am also good at asking questions. For making products, doing growth, doing data analysis, etc., the ability to ask questions is more important than solving problems.

I have been doing product architecture for many years. A key word in summary: What determines how to do it.

Therefore, if you want to build a good product architecture, you must fundamentally understand the essence of what you want to do.

Two ideas to solve the problem:

• Allocate resources to users

• Allocate resources to users

A few days ago, a classmate asked this question in a classmate group: There are eight people working in two shifts, a 12-hour system, and one person often works the day shift. Five people are required to be on duty every day. How to schedule the shifts? I am waiting online urgently. Can I ask for an expert? . (Note: A regular day shift means only day shift. If there are five people on duty every day, it means a total of five people on day shift plus night shift)

This is how I understand it:

Allocate resources to users. (Day shift and black shift count as resources)

Another classmate explained it this way:

Allocate resources to users, that is, day shift and black shift,

Two very typical ideas.

One is user-centered and allocates resources to users.

The other is resource-centered and allocates resources to users.

These are also two common ideas when making products.

User-centered products tend to have a better user experience.

Resource-centered products tend to make the most efficient use of resources.

It doesn't matter whether it's good or bad, it depends on which one is suitable for the specific scenario.

Tian Ji's horse racing was a defeat.

We all know the story of Tian Ji’s horse racing.

The dismounted horse versus the mounted horse, the mounted horse versus the middle horse, the middle horse versus the dismounted horse. In the end it was three to two, and the one without the better horse won.

"Tian Ji Horse Racing" is so smart. So clever that we have been following him for thousands of years.

Therefore, with "Tian Ji Horse Racing", you can win even if you don't have a good horse.

Therefore, as long as there is "Tian Ji Horse Racing", it will be enough.

A good horse? What is that? It takes time and money.

However, the core competitiveness of an enterprise will not be "Tian Ji horse racing" after all. Therefore, those who pursue "Tian Ji Horse Racing" will eventually lose.

After all, we still need "good horses" to win users and the market.

The core idea in "Sun Tzu's Art of War" is one sentence: To be in an invincible position without losing the enemy's defeat.

To put it simply, it is: use the right combination to win with the unexpected.

The prerequisite for winning by surprise is to achieve justice. Otherwise, winning by surprise becomes a pure gamble.

Whether we are making products or businesses, we still need to raise a "good horse" to be invincible before we can consider "Tian Ji horse racing" to win by surprise.