I think the biggest problem I had with clubhouse was everyone treated it as a place to grow their brand and personal network via some weird combination of bragging about what they’re doing and soapboxing.

The sheer number of introductions I had to sit and listen to any time I joined one…it was absolutely baffling. We’re talking sometimes 15 minutes of just sitting there as every person introduced themselves, every project they are working on, their experience, their favorite shows, their workout routine, etc.

The one time I actually found a conversation about gear talk (film/video) it was just a couple of folks who were new to the industry all trying to power network with each other. It was weird. Podcast ones were just people treating it like their podcast.

I'm curious if when someone joined Clubhouse had a huge effect on their experience. I don't remember too much of this when I joined in Dec 2020, but maybe it was already there and I was just in different rooms.

When did you join?

I got my invite January of 2021 (just pulled up the app for the first time in easily a year and was still logged in).

Ah ok, then maybe we were just in different rooms, I think even at that point it was less of a clubhouse and starting to become more of a bar with multiple rooms, DJs, outside areas, conference room, etc :-D

Not sure if the metaphor works because warehouse parties are way cooler than elitist parties in all fairness.

haha, fair point, maybe warehouse wasn't the best example. I think maybe it's not about whether one is cool or not but what one expects. I would go to a clubhouse to have an exclusive conversation with 10-20 people about a specific topic, I probalby wouldn't want to have that same conversation with 10-20 people I met in a huge warehouse party. I might like to dance amongst the masses and thrive in the anonymity, but would have a different feel.

I assume they mean an unadvertised warehouse party, where you only know about it by being part of a group.

That is pretty much most real warehouse parties.

ah, I may have flubbed the analogy, maybe what I meant was more from dinner party to massive dance party but still wanting to have a dinner party conversation.

> The question I ask is how to build an online space that is exclusive, without the draw to make it for the masses?

Google+ kind of accomplished this with Circles; a way to create invite-only communities within the larger platform. A few of the social media sites have bolted on something similar, but none have really designed around it like Google+ did.

Yeah, I wonder if how Google+ did it, still attaches the overall brand with the masses. Aka, Google+ wanted everyone to use Google+, just subsegment within it. Almost as if everyone lives in the same house but there are millions of rooms.

I'm curious about the brand that says, "Nope, we're an online platform just for 10,000 people" or "who make this much money" or "who are in these communities."

I wonder what examples already exist, if any, that tie the whole brand to a specific online exclusivity.

Isn't that what subreddits are?

Maybe, I think they are still rooms in a much larger house (Reddit) vs being an exclusive house in itself. Also, I don't know much about subreddit membership, are some private and invite only?

Yeah, I think so?

Otherwise I think you just end up with niche forums like this one or discord channels and whatnot.

But Google+ failed, so I don't know if they did accomplish this, to be honest.

Well find a price people are willing to pay for it. You probably reach a point where you need to pay all this elite but the listeners cant be milked any more and you need more people to maintain the pyramid.

That s why no one can do it: if you want to speak to Warren Buffet you ll be more successful having something that interests him to say, and no amount of trying to cheat reality can hide for long that asymetry: there was nothing in it for the VIP but milking you.

I remember being in rooms where celebrities from one subculture were talking with celebrities of another culture. Maybe not so different than why some people would attend the TED conference or Davos.

I'm not saying I should necessarily be in the room lol. Just that maybe there is a way to limit it where there is a level of assumed parity among participants. For example, maybe Warren Buffett would like to talk with the guy behind moneyball from The Oakland A's about the influence of statistics on sports. I think yes it could dilute too much, I just don't think it necessarily has to.