Is it feasible for the campus version to be good at it?

Whether any product presented in the field of knowledge services in the form of o2o+c2c has a high enough matching rate will be the key factor affecting the user experience, or in other words, whether the user's consulting needs can be solved in time will directly affect whether the user can use this product and whether the user's consulting needs can be solved in time. It depends on whether there are enough knowledge "sharers" on the platform to provide this service, that is to say, the number and enthusiasm of experience "sharers" who solve problems for users will determine whether the platform can operate healthily, and whether the "sharers" who share experiences can attract them to solve problems for others is very important. In my opinion, the reason lies in whether this platform can create additional value for the cognition of "sharers" and "overflowers". O2o+c2c products have some unique advantages and disadvantages. Its advantage is that it can solve problems for users, but its disadvantage is that it is difficult to share the knowledge of "sharing" with others again in the process of solving problems, that is, the sharing cost is high, and most financial institutions like us are impetuous at this high cost. In fact, to put it bluntly, there are already many overseas institutions specializing in studying abroad. They have a campus team that helped an overseas organization to do campus publicity a while ago, and the commission given is still very high. It can be seen that there is huge profit space here. These people who go abroad for consultation by overseas institutions make money by information asymmetry. Domestic students don't understand, they all arrange it themselves, and the charge is not necessarily. According to your model, the pricing cost of students is definitely lower than that of studying abroad. As long as there are a few successful cases that spread widely in the student market, word of mouth will still be faster.