Analysis of competing products of Jelly Social APP!

Some time ago, a social APP called Jelly suddenly became popular, but later announced the suspension of new user registration due to various factors. Why does Jelly experience such ups and downs?

I don’t know how many people still remember the clubhouse that was very popular at this time last year. I remember that it was also very aggressive at the beginning. The domestic investment circle and Internet circle were extremely excited during those days.

I wrote a simple analysis article at that time: After the experience, I found that the clubhouse scene was too small and its social attributes were very unstable. I guess its ceiling is obvious.

Now a year has passed, and no one has mentioned clubhouse anymore. The fun of writing this kind of analysis article is that the market verifies ideas faster than expected.

Let’s get back to today’s protagonist - Jelly, a social APP for super-acquaintances that can only add 50 people because of its face-shaping feature that has something to do with the metaverse. Just a few days after quickly topping the APPstore free list, the app hastily suspended new user registrations due to malicious attacks and experience issues.

When I took this screenshot, I seemed to see last year’s clubhouse.

What kind of social needs does jelly meet?

Apart from the face-shaping function and the 50-person friend limit, what is the difference between Jelly, which claims to be a "metaverse social platform," and WeChat?

To be honest, the 3D image of Jelly makes the Status and Tap functions quite amazing (the product managers of WeChat Status and Tap can copy their homework. If it were in this format, the data of WeChat Status and Tap functions would increase a lot, if WeChat really cares about this data, but I guess it probably doesn’t care that much).

Sharing location and mobile phone battery. With my limited imagination, I can’t think of any other social relationship that would share this information except for young couples in love.

When communicating with your Jelly friends, click "What are you doing". When the other party clicks the message (APN), the camera function of the mobile phone will be directly called up to reply by taking a photo. This is also amazing. Taking photos can indeed increase the desire to share and interact (take out a small notebook to take notes, this is really a little trick to narrow the social distance between people).

These small features are merely amazing, they are neither a necessity nor an experience ten times better than WeChat.

So, what kind of needs does jelly meet? Is this demand really necessary? How many people really have this kind of need? Are people with such needs really willing to pay? I believe that after answering these four questions, you will have your own judgment on the future of the jelly product.

Dimension 1: What are the demand scenarios for “jelly” and is it a rigid demand?

There are no so-called new needs in this world. People are simply using the latest technology to meet existing needs. So, returning to the essence of things, let us start thinking about this issue from people’s daily social demands.

It can be seen that the close friends social area divided by Jelly is to upgrade the classification of existing WeChat friends: social relationship pairs with closer relationships and more frequent interactions.

You asked whether there is such a social demand. The answer is yes. But if you ask whether WeChat can satisfy your needs, it definitely can. So when you enter a stock market, if your experience is not ten times better than in the past, why would users switch their original usage habits?

Dimension 2: How many users have a demand for "jelly"?

Through the universal communication formula and combined with personal usage experience, several important indicators are quite worrying.

First of all, Npop, that is, the target customer base may really not be large. In terms of existing product functions, the only ones who are really sticky and can remain active for a long time are probably young couples in the ambiguous or passionate stage.

Then there is Precover. I guess the churn rate of Jelly is not low now. On the one hand, it is because of the problem of experience stability: you have to know how terrible real-time communication is a server killer. If WeChat had not been born in Tencent, with QQ's many years of accumulation in the communication field, it would definitely not be able to withstand the crazy growth of users while ensuring the real-time communication experience. Coupled with the issues of background power consumption and 3D rendering that Jelly has been criticized for, the churn rate should not be low.

But there is one thing that is worth learning, that is, the Pspread here, that is, the conversion rate after the user actively spreads it must be very high. If your good friend/boyfriend/girlfriend sends you your APP, do you dare to ignore it?

Dimension three: Are people who need "jelly" willing to pay?

Another issue is the business model. It is not shameful to talk about making money, but it is strange not to talk about making money. Products that do not make money cannot survive, and servers cannot generate electricity with love.

Then there are only two business models for TOC products:

One is to make money from B-side merchants/enterprises.

The common first step is to expand the scale first. For products with network effects like WeChat and Facebook, the growth rate is exponential, and with traffic, they can directly monetize through advertising. Platform-type products like Meituan, Taobao, and Didi have a much slower growth rate, but they can still generate a wave of growth by quickly spending money. At the same time, these platform transaction-type products are very close to transactions and B-side merchants from the beginning, and the business model of transaction commissions is also very clear.

On this basis, the second step is often to cultivate a platform or ecosystem to grow various products to produce synergistic effects and kill two birds with one stone.

A typical example is WeChat's three-stage business model: the first stage: real-time communication meets the absolute rigid demand for asynchronous communication on mobile phones and continues to expand the user base; the second stage: building platforms, such as Moments, official accounts, video accounts, WeChat Pay, and mini-programs; the third stage: on the one hand, the platform can directly monetize traffic, such as Moments advertising, WeChat Pay payment fees, and so on.

On the other hand, the platform can also foster an ecosystem, such as the content creator ecosystem within the official video account, the merchant and developer ecosystem within the mini program, the service provider ecosystem within WeChat Pay, etc. The existence of the ecosystem will make the platform richer, and will also produce synergy effects between each other, and ultimately create a super high barrier to loss.

The other is to make money directly from C-end users by relying on hard-core capabilities : such as paid courses in some apps, advanced features of some products, etc.

As for jelly, according to the above analysis, it may be difficult to expand the size of the target customer base due to its applicable scenarios (how many young couples in love are there in the country); at the same time, it is not a trading platform and is far away from transactions and B-end merchants. It seems difficult to make money from B-end merchants in the short term.

What about the second way of making money from C-end users? Based on the current product capabilities, it seems unclear. Selling skins? Where can I show off after buying the skins? Selling advanced features, such as real-time sharing of geographic location, as a paid feature will definitely attract people to pay, but how many such people are there?

Through rational and logical analysis, I still think that Jelly may be another short-lived social product. I rub my hands and look forward to market verification~

Author: Add a moment

Source: Plus One Moment