Look, what is it? The Dunton anchor selected by Dongfang actually expressed his dissatisfaction with the company in public in the live broadcast room, which is unprecedented! This little brother, who has always been sunny and handsome in front of the camera, why did he suddenly explode emotionally? "The company never consults with the anchor in doing things, and I'm already very disappointed in the company!
Dunton's angry accusation really made the editor in front of the screen dumbfounded. What is it that makes the top anchors who have always been calm and calm unbearable?
Did the company offend him, or was the anchor too stressed and emotionally out of control? In the face of this reality show in the live broadcast room, the curiosity of the viewers was soaring, and they all asked the soul torture: "What happened between the company and the anchor?" "
To be honest, I was not surprised to see the Dunton anchor "rebelling" in public in the live broadcast room.
In recent years, the company has treated the anchor as a resource, and the anchor has used the company as a springboard, and both parties have taken what they need, which is a face-to-face transaction. The appearance of the bundle of interests is just the tacit understanding of adults. Whenever the company makes a wrong step and touches the interests of the anchor, it will turn its face ruthlessly every minute, and stage the workplace version of the "breakup master".
This time, Dunton "bombarded" the company in the live broadcast room, the reason was just that he was arranged by the company to bring goods to the new number, in the eyes of the head anchor of his level, this is simply "wearing small shoes" for him!
From the company's point of view, the opening of the new number is undoubtedly expanding the matrix of goods, which is beneficial to the company's development. But in the eyes of the anchor, this means that the traffic is thinned and the benefits are cut in disguise, which is naturally unbearable! One is annoyed and angry, and the other is pretending to be deaf and dumb, and a "war of the century" will inevitably break out between the anchor and the company.
In fact, this farce reflects the embarrassing situation of the current anchor and the live broadcast platform.
The anchor is popular, the income is high, and the status is also rising. The company no longer dares to call the "errand boys" they used to make their debut. However, if the platform wants to develop sustainably, it has to innovate and compete with the top anchors. This kind of wrestling between you and me has long become a tacit secret in the live broadcast industry. A few are happy and a few are sad, anchors and platforms are destined to be business partners who can only be separated from each other.
What's even sadder is that neither the company nor the streamer cares about the user's feelings.
In their eyes, users are just lambs to the slaughter, cold symbols summarized by data. Every calculation, every infighting, in the end, only the user is injured. The anchor was unhappy, dropped his mobile phone, and it was a big deal to change jobs.
The company lost money, cut the budget, and at most lay off employees. But what about users? In the face of the unpredictable live broadcast room, in the face of the frequently changing delivery team, he can only be sad alone in the dark night, and then silently recharge and reward the new account of idols.
In the final analysis, this "battle of the century" between Dunton and the company is just a small storm in the live broadcast of the rivers and lakes.
Wait until the next time the company raises the salary, and I can be sure that I can hook my shoulders and call my brother and sister. And the short-lived new accounts will eventually be replaced by more new accounts, and the cycle will start again and again until the last drop of blood of the users is squeezed out.
The love and hatred between the anchor and the company will eventually be run over by the giant wheel of capital and turned into the dust of history. And the ignorant melon-eating masses can only linger in the cracks, standing on tiptoe and looking forward to the arrival of the next top stream.
This farce is not a one-man show of the anchor, let alone the company's self-directed and self-acting, but should become a living report for all live broadcast practitioners.
Each and every one of us should learn from this tragic story. For anchors, no matter how high the traffic is, it is not as precious as conscience. For the company, no matter how big the profit is, it can't match the pricelessness of word-of-mouth. And for live broadcast fans, it is much more important to treat yourself as a human being than to follow any top idol.
So in the end, the editor wants to ask: In the wrestling field of the live broadcast room, who is the big winner in this chess game? Is it the anchor, the company, or the obscure masses of melon-eating people? Where will the calculations of anchors and companies push the live broadcast industry? What do you think about this?