Topic: Do you think that some signature campaigns prioritize clients in some cases? - page 2. (Read 418 times)

Sometimes the board in which you post is more valuable than the quality of your posts. In the end, signature campaigns aim to obtain a financial return and not support content on quality (a secondary goal), and therefore if a person publishes in a board where no one else posts  (local board/Mining boards), the chance of the ad/signature appearing is higher from some other boards.

Therefore, the quality of the posts is not the only criterion for selecting a member, but rather one of the most important criteria.

I think it's understandable, the purpose of signature campaign is promoting the project isn't? Clients usually more familiar with the sites and have better knowledge rather than average person. As long as the clients isn't his alts, there's no problem IMO.

Merit and activity is just a requirements, it doesn't make the campaign manager reach the final decisions, it just show you're quite active. Accepting participants due to high merit and activity alone is wrong. Let's imagine someone applied casino campaign, he have 1000+ merits in the last 120 days but all of his posts in local board, the campaign doesn't accept local board. This mean, that's user doesn't even got any merit outside local board and he isn't familiar with gambling and global board.

There are probably various factors involved, but what is certain is that merit to activity ratio is not the main barometer. It has to be the posts.

For instance, a signature campaign is launched promoting a casino. Somebody applies with low activity but abundant merit, albeit earned mostly in sections, boards, and threads like reputation, scam accusation, meta, wall observer, local, off-topic, and so on.

I haven't been a manager myself, but if I were in the shoes of the manager, I won't be picking him/her. I would be picking somebody else who's got high activity but very low merit but who is so active and constructive in gambling discussions. After all, it is where I want my brand to be most visible.

In my observation, merit is not that easily earned in gambling discussions.

I'm not a bounty manager but based on my observation When there are only 1 or 2 spots left in a decent signature the bounty manager will check the best participants based on their qualifications and how the campaign will be served better and how the members behave by checking his reputation in the forum


There are a lot of good posters that don't have the required merits but they are qualified because of their activity and trustworthiness


Yes because it will have help the cause of the campaign if you're a bounty manager you only want people who can promote the project effectively with a good reputation


It's a big factor the manager will not pay spammers it will harm the reputation of the manager

I don't think they prioritize clients, but even if they did, it's for the best interest of the business that is being advertised. Different campaign managers have different preferences on posting styles. Some prefer local board posters, others prefer people who post in boards where there is no room for spam such as Development & Technical Discussion.

In some cases, managers also evaluate the results of previous campaigns of the same type (say a casino campaign). If it shows poor results such as site traffic that is not boosted, then there is nothing wrong with looking for "new" participants in the hope of getting better results even if they have to ignore general campaign requirements eg. merits.
Whatever the reason, the interests of the client (the brand) should be a priority.

And the manager of the campaign is looking for a certain "tone" of posts or other things.
Do they lean a bit to the left politically or a bit to the right?
Do they tend to not start new topics and only reply?
Are they from the EU or US or Asia and although they are looking for posters from all over they want more from area "X"
And so on.

So although good posts are important I can see having a lot more criteria.

-Dave

although I haven't joined the campaign yet. but I'm studying the reasons people get rejected and accepted.

some time ago or few days ago I saw a new campaign for gambling sites. and it takes around 32 people to register.

then many registrants came, even many senior members and legends and full members and members did not miss it.

but when the announcement was received it turned out that there were several senior members who were not accepted. and even many member accounts are accepted.
then I search for accounts that are not accepted.
apparently because of a campaign about gambling. then the senior members who are not accepted are those who rarely post on the gambling board or have never. then of course not accepted.

then i see the accepted account. oh it turns out they are active in gambling discussions.

so the determining factor in this regard that I learned is . before registering like we have to be active on the board which will be in accordance with the campaign that opens vacancies.
e.g. a new token or altcoins project campaign. then we have to make interactions on the altcoins board. so when the manager checks the account. will be seen at the top of our posts according to the campaign that is being run.

Well, as I said before:


But I did think that would be the main statistic to look at.

Do you mind sharing what other factors are taken into account, and if there are any more important ones than that?

While idk, I'm pretty sure this isn't outside the realm of possibility. Taking a heavy user of your platform(hence the company making good amounts of money from that specific user) under your campaign can be some sort of PR move. Something like eCommerce sites handing over gift cards or item discounts to their loyal customers.

I think it definitely happens, though I'm not sure how common it is. A few years ago I remember seeing a pretty reputable campaign for a gambling site accept someone who I considered to be a spammer. I later found out that they were either a mod on that gambling site or a very active player (can't remember which one specifically), so it might make sense for the site owner to want to keep them happy.

Purely looking at merit ratios isn't a great indicator though. It's way easier to get merits in some boards compared to others.


The person paying for the campaign might know and can ask the campaign manager to accept specific people.

How would the campaign manager know who is a customer? If they judge looking at user's posts and the user tends to write a lot about the business then sure, there might be some objective value in accepting that person over someone else. But having an expectation that they'll spend the money with said business - I really doubt it.

IIRC there are (or were) some campaigns that paid participants via their sites, so they can probably expect spending, but then every participant is essentially a customer in that situation so it wouldn't make much of a difference in selecting whom to accept.

Well, first of all I'm not sure if this thread belongs to this board, if you think it doesn't, tell me and I'll move it or report it.

The title is not quite accurate either because due to the maximum number of characters I have not been able to put everything I wanted.

It has happened to me sometimes that when I have seen the people accepted in signature campaings I have not understood very well why certain people have been accepted and not others. This has happened to me only when there are vacancies, like 1 or 2 and with decent signature campaigns, I don't mean the crappy spam like 1xBit and others like that.

In the decent signature campaigns, as I said, sometimes I have seen members with little merits in relation to the activity, for example, chosen over people who have a much better ratio, and I think the main reason could be that it is taken into account that they are customers of the business. Probably at least part of what they are going to earn in the signature campaign they are going to spend in the business (or even more if it is a casino).

I don't know what you think about this. It is clear to me that the campaign managers will not only take into account the merits in relation to the activity, but also if they post on certain boards for example and other factors.

As I say, this has only happened to me in certain cases, in campaigns that I consider decent and that, in general, have quality posters.

Is this my guess or do you think I might be right?