Topic: Free Advertising, YES or NO - page 2. (Read 778 times)
I'm ok with that, in the end it's participant's choice. BMs should always give a clear note about that though.
Even though it is not a requirement it might improve your chances to get accepted so it is worth the risk. Also, with many casinos the users will already be wearing the signature of the campaign they want to join because it's a good way to promote their own referral link.
It will not improve your chances if you are a shit poster or you are tagged I, prefer not to wear the signature before I get accepted this is not to lose your current signature campaign if you are not accepted then you lose the campaign you previously had, manager understand this.
How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
I could easily argue for both sides but in the end, I'm not bothered with the end result...- We could be wearing a sig/avatar while not posting anything before getting accepted (regardless of the potential conversions from our previous posts).
- When we apply in such campaigns, we put ourselves out there and by doing so, there will be a risk of losing/wasting a small portion of our efforts for nothing (part of the system).
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted?
I do. 
...they're also the kinds of members that won't bother to express an opinion in a Meta poll. I suspect more people think it's a problem than you think.
You are probably right. 6 members have so far voted that they don't think it is OK. But I don't see 6 posts where users state that they are against such doings. As long as you did it based on your own will or you are not forced to do so then I think there's nothing wrong with that.
It's not your will if it's a requirement of the campaign and a rule. You are not being forced to do it but the rule makes you think: Will the manager even consider me if I don't update my signature like the other people did?Even though it is not a requirement it might improve your chances to get accepted so it is worth the risk.
It doesn't help at all. And it shouldn't. If the quality of your posts don't meet the personal requirements of the campaign manager, changing your signature details will not improve that. I have had this on my mind lately and decided to create this thread to see how everyone feels about it. It is about advertising in signature campaigns. To be more precise about the free advertising that some companies/projects receive.
Let me give you some more information about what I mean.
As you know, signature campaigns have their own rules that you need to obey to apply for their campaigns. One of these rules is often:
Wear the avatar and signature when you apply! The campaign managers don't force the users to wear the sigs before they get accepted, but the rule is still there, and many users do.
People start to apply, put on their sigs and avatars, and there are dozens of applications. Let us say that it takes a campaign manager an average of 2 days to select campaign participants. The campaign receives a total of 50 applications, and 50 users are wearing their sigs/avatars even before they have been accepted. (it is just an example). Out of these 50 users, 10 will be selected as participants of the campaign. That means that 40 users have been advertising a campaign for free for 2 days.
How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted?
Let me give you some more information about what I mean.
As you know, signature campaigns have their own rules that you need to obey to apply for their campaigns. One of these rules is often:
Wear the avatar and signature when you apply! The campaign managers don't force the users to wear the sigs before they get accepted, but the rule is still there, and many users do.
People start to apply, put on their sigs and avatars, and there are dozens of applications. Let us say that it takes a campaign manager an average of 2 days to select campaign participants. The campaign receives a total of 50 applications, and 50 users are wearing their sigs/avatars even before they have been accepted. (it is just an example). Out of these 50 users, 10 will be selected as participants of the campaign. That means that 40 users have been advertising a campaign for free for 2 days.
How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted?
This should not be compulsory and the manger should not give the benefit to those who have wear the signatures before.
The reason is not free advertising but let suppose a person is already in another campaign, but now he sees a better campaign and he changes signature and apply for it. If the new campaign does not accept him, he will lose his previous campaign too because he already changed his signature.
no one is forcing him to apply to another campaign though. its his free will.
but why don't he just apply and wear the signature and avatar later when he is confirmed accepted. it would not risk his position in his current campaign and then also get the chance to be accepted to the new one. as far as i know that is what other users are doing.
I understand this but i was only saying in case he wants to apply in a campaign where the manager is enforcing this rule or only accepting participants who are already wearing the signatures.
I have had this on my mind lately and decided to create this thread to see how everyone feels about it. It is about advertising in signature campaigns. To be more precise about the free advertising that some companies/projects receive.
Let me give you some more information about what I mean.
As you know, signature campaigns have their own rules that you need to obey to apply for their campaigns. One of these rules is often:
Wear the avatar and signature when you apply! The campaign managers don't force the users to wear the sigs before they get accepted, but the rule is still there, and many users do.
People start to apply, put on their sigs and avatars, and there are dozens of applications. Let us say that it takes a campaign manager an average of 2 days to select campaign participants. The campaign receives a total of 50 applications, and 50 users are wearing their sigs/avatars even before they have been accepted. (it is just an example). Out of these 50 users, 10 will be selected as participants of the campaign. That means that 40 users have been advertising a campaign for free for 2 days.
How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted?
Let me give you some more information about what I mean.
As you know, signature campaigns have their own rules that you need to obey to apply for their campaigns. One of these rules is often:
Wear the avatar and signature when you apply! The campaign managers don't force the users to wear the sigs before they get accepted, but the rule is still there, and many users do.
People start to apply, put on their sigs and avatars, and there are dozens of applications. Let us say that it takes a campaign manager an average of 2 days to select campaign participants. The campaign receives a total of 50 applications, and 50 users are wearing their sigs/avatars even before they have been accepted. (it is just an example). Out of these 50 users, 10 will be selected as participants of the campaign. That means that 40 users have been advertising a campaign for free for 2 days.
How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted?
This should not be compulsory and the manger should not give the benefit to those who have wear the signatures before.
The reason is not free advertising but let suppose a person is already in another campaign, but now he sees a better campaign and he changes signature and apply for it. If the new campaign does not accept him, he will lose his previous campaign too because he already changed his signature.
no one is forcing him to apply to another campaign though. its his free will.
but why don't he just apply and wear the signature and avatar later when he is confirmed accepted. it would not risk his position in his current campaign and then also get the chance to be accepted to the new one. as far as i know that is what other users are doing.
I have had this on my mind lately and decided to create this thread to see how everyone feels about it. It is about advertising in signature campaigns. To be more precise about the free advertising that some companies/projects receive.
Let me give you some more information about what I mean.
As you know, signature campaigns have their own rules that you need to obey to apply for their campaigns. One of these rules is often:
Wear the avatar and signature when you apply! The campaign managers don't force the users to wear the sigs before they get accepted, but the rule is still there, and many users do.
People start to apply, put on their sigs and avatars, and there are dozens of applications. Let us say that it takes a campaign manager an average of 2 days to select campaign participants. The campaign receives a total of 50 applications, and 50 users are wearing their sigs/avatars even before they have been accepted. (it is just an example). Out of these 50 users, 10 will be selected as participants of the campaign. That means that 40 users have been advertising a campaign for free for 2 days.
How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted?
Let me give you some more information about what I mean.
As you know, signature campaigns have their own rules that you need to obey to apply for their campaigns. One of these rules is often:
Wear the avatar and signature when you apply! The campaign managers don't force the users to wear the sigs before they get accepted, but the rule is still there, and many users do.
People start to apply, put on their sigs and avatars, and there are dozens of applications. Let us say that it takes a campaign manager an average of 2 days to select campaign participants. The campaign receives a total of 50 applications, and 50 users are wearing their sigs/avatars even before they have been accepted. (it is just an example). Out of these 50 users, 10 will be selected as participants of the campaign. That means that 40 users have been advertising a campaign for free for 2 days.
How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted?
This should not be compulsory and the manger should not give the benefit to those who have wear the signatures before.
The reason is not free advertising but let suppose a person is already in another campaign, but now he sees a better campaign and he changes signature and apply for it. If the new campaign does not accept him, he will lose his previous campaign too because he already changed his signature.
Even though it is not a requirement it might improve your chances to get accepted so it is worth the risk. Also, with many casinos the users will already be wearing the signature of the campaign they want to join because it's a good way to promote their own referral link.
How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
As long as you did it based on your own will or you are not forced to do so then I think there's nothing wrong with that. Actually, prospective participants tend to do it simply because they want to impress the manager. Yeah I know CM still depends on one's activity, merit and everything but he is more interested to those applications with "Wear signature: Yes" than "Wear signature: Will do after getting accepted" most of the time. However, such act gives no guarantee but only an increase to your chance 
. Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted?
That's not the point I think. Whether it is required or not, there is no specific rule for that thus you can do it freely. 
It's everyone choice to comply or not but I think it's a weird requirement and it feels a bit low rent to me.
It might screw up people who are already in campaigns and aren't accepted for the new one. If they figure out you've removed it for any period of time you can be booted or not paid. They shouldn't be meddling with people until after they're recruited.
It might screw up people who are already in campaigns and aren't accepted for the new one. If they figure out you've removed it for any period of time you can be booted or not paid. They shouldn't be meddling with people until after they're recruited.
It is free advertising, but shouldn't you be a great poster when you're applying to a signature campaign anyway? 
Ideally you should be, but we all know that isn't the reality when it comes to campaign applications. And even good posters get rejected from campaigns for various reasons. LOL at your hidden text, btw.OP, I've noticed this in the past and I don't think it's fair that some campaigns require applicants to have the signature and/or avatar and/or personal message in place before they get accepted, especially when the campaign manager takes his sweet time reviewing applications. Lutpin used to be guilty of this if I remember correctly, and if I'm wrong I apologize for sticking him out. I have a feeling that campaign owners/managers know precisely the effect of this requirement is, and that's why I don't think it's fair.
In addition, if you have to have all the advertising in place in your profile at the time of application, you're basically limited to how many campaigns you can apply to at one time (assuming multiple campaigns have the same requirement).
But it looks like people don't mind it that much.
Most campaign applicants are shitposters, let's be honest. They're the type that don't like to complain too loudly lest they damage their chances of getting a spot in a campaign--and they're also the kinds of members that won't bother to express an opinion in a Meta poll. I suspect more people think it's a problem than you think. 
As long as this happens only for a short while (max 2, maybe 3 days) it's not a big issue. I've seen worse (long ago).
I think that the campaigns paying in their own token not listed anywhere are the real issue. There people work for free without knowing/acknowledging that!
My vote for the situation as OP described it is "I don't mind".
I think that the campaigns paying in their own token not listed anywhere are the real issue. There people work for free without knowing/acknowledging that!
My vote for the situation as OP described it is "I don't mind".
First, I would suggest you to move the thread to service discussion.
I think it is a good fit for Meta. It is related to the forum and the opinions that forum members have about this particular topic. Service Discussion would also work but I prefer to leave it here.There haven't been that many responses so far. 10 users voted that they don't mind while 5 individuals think it is not OK to advertise a service before getting accepted.
I didn't post my own opinion so here it is. I voted No, I don't think it is OK. If it was a signature I would be interested in wearing even without getting paid for it, sure, I would. But if I am applying for a campaign, I would rather add the signature if and when I get accepted.
I'd probably categorize it as a "problem", but it's a really really small problem that it's more of a slight annoyance and I don't think it's even worth discussing in my opinion unless you're trying to apply in a couple of campaigns at the same time.
But yea, if it's a huge problem for you, let the campaign be affected by not applying. But it looks like people don't mind it that much.
But yea, if it's a huge problem for you, let the campaign be affected by not applying. But it looks like people don't mind it that much.
-snip
How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted?
How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted?
I don't mind. I am trying to join their campaign and wearing their signature by the time I apply is just another way of showing that I am interested in joining their campaign. it's not like I am losing something if I wear their signature for two days without getting paid. besides, you can put "I'll wear appropriate signature once accepted" if you are not comfortable wearing their signature before you get accepted. I see a lot of members doing this and still getting accepted in the campaign
First, I would suggest you to move the thread to service discussion.
It's campaign managers choice how they want their applicants. I think it's easy way for them, otherwise, it may take long time to ensure everyone is wearing the signature and avatar. On the other hand, it's personal decision of every member how they want to apply. If they can't comply with the rules, they shouldn't apply at all and if everyone feels like it doesn't worth applying with wearing signature ad avatar, I think at some point, CM will be forced to allow users to apply without wearing signature and avatar.
It's campaign managers choice how they want their applicants. I think it's easy way for them, otherwise, it may take long time to ensure everyone is wearing the signature and avatar. On the other hand, it's personal decision of every member how they want to apply. If they can't comply with the rules, they shouldn't apply at all and if everyone feels like it doesn't worth applying with wearing signature ad avatar, I think at some point, CM will be forced to allow users to apply without wearing signature and avatar.
I don't see anything wrong with someone having a signature and an avatar as one of the qualifying conditions for a particular signature campaign - some campaign managers won't even consider candidates who don't meet that requirement. The problem arises when a user is already a participant in a campaign and wants to compete for a place in another campaign, but I think most campaigns' managers have understanding and do not require someone to add signature and avatar before being accepted.
I think that it is much more important for the user to be aware of what he is advertising through his profile, and whether he will promote something for one or two days for free is less important.
I think that it is much more important for the user to be aware of what he is advertising through his profile, and whether he will promote something for one or two days for free is less important.
People start to apply, put on their sigs and avatars, and there are dozens of applications. Let us say that it takes a campaign manager an average of 2 days to select campaign participants. The campaign receives a total of 50 applications, and 50 users are wearing their sigs/avatars even before they have been accepted. (it is just an example). Out of these 50 users, 10 will be selected as participants of the campaign. That means that 40 users have been advertising a campaign for free for 2 days.
There are several reasons why this is happening.
One is that members who apply for new campaign want to be accepted and they are not participating in any other campaign at that moment and they think this will help them
People who are in some other campaign usually apply with note that signature and avatar will be changed if they are accepted. (That is what I would do if you ask me)
I didn't saw many managers demanding from anyone to have signatures and avatars before they receive confirmation or before they are listed in spreadsheet.
However, you can use your signature space as you like, as long as you respect forum rules, so I can advertise my own website or business for free
For me it doesn't matter, that's the rule of some campaign, wear signature and apply then you wait for the result.
It doesn't cost me much so I don't really care at all, besides, I can even wear signature even if I'm not getting paid, but it's still better if you get paid.
Not a big deal, in short.
It doesn't cost me much so I don't really care at all, besides, I can even wear signature even if I'm not getting paid, but it's still better if you get paid.
Not a big deal, in short.
As you know, signature campaigns have their own rules that you need to obey to apply for their campaigns. One of these rules is often:
Wear the avatar and signature when you apply! The campaign managers don't force the users to wear the sigs before they get accepted, but the rule is still there, and many users do.
Wear the avatar and signature when you apply! The campaign managers don't force the users to wear the sigs before they get accepted, but the rule is still there, and many users do.
For most of the time, all I do is update and would just change the signature once and only upon acceptance. The argument is simple.
If you answered no to free advertising, meaning you'd only change once you are part and accepted:
If you were a good poster, a helpful one to the community, and most of your activities isn't a burst post nor a short unnecessary one, then most campaign managers would often take you to join and be part of what campaign they manage. It isn't about when to put such requirement, sometimes you must put your shoes higher if you are a great user in the community. You promote them, you are the influencer, you are to be part of the campaign. Take it as they only pay you by advertising them.
If you answered yes to free advertising, meaning you'd change even you aren't part nor accepted:
If you were just being active and having some quality communication with other users here in the forum, it would be fine to just put any campaign's signature. What would you gonna do if you were vacant for a long time and having a hard time being accepted by the managers? Then just be a good poster, a good user, then soon time will come to you.
Hence, what's the point of having a doubt when to change your signature nor avatar? For me, neither yes or a no. It doesn't matter. Campaigns were just perks. I kept in mind the ideology of "good quality posts matter"... patience, then the light would soon shine upon you.
Jump to: