Topic: Loyalty of the participants to their campaign? - page 2. (Read 642 times)
It's a free market, members can leave whenever they want. If you don't want people leaving your campaign, you should pay them better.
This has happened a few times in my micro campaign. I was wondering if I should actually leave a 7 day Neutral trust warning on their profile letting other managers know about these user's fickle-mindedness when it comes to participating in a signature campaign.
I mean I get it, if you want to jump ship, at least wait for the round to end.
I also understand that the campaign I am running is paying very little but still. There could be some control in this matter.
I mean I get it, if you want to jump ship, at least wait for the round to end.
I also understand that the campaign I am running is paying very little but still. There could be some control in this matter.
For a member to transfer from one campaign to another from time to time, it can quickly say so much about that person's personality and motif. As you've said they are disloyal. I don't think it's the manager's loss if a participant wishes to withdraw their participation on a certain campaign. I think as a manager, you don't need people who are disloyal instead you need people who will work hard to promote the campaign and have the courtesy to stay during the whole duration of the campaign because they were chosen among hundreds of other participants. If a member is in a campaign just for the pay, then that person is not deserving of the spot. I guess managers are greatly aware of these people.
Some of the participants of one campaign are jumping to other campaign and the reason are; if they got ranked up and there is no available spots in his/her current campaign they want to be paid suited for their rank.
And also some of them are looking for huge payment (gold digger) that is not good a behavior of one participant of any campaign they are the members who are only looking for income and not helping our society.
Eventhough this is not prohibited because all the managers cant controll all their participants of what they want to do but this shows they disrepect or unloyal to the manager as well as in the project (campaign).
And also some of them are looking for huge payment (gold digger) that is not good a behavior of one participant of any campaign they are the members who are only looking for income and not helping our society.
Eventhough this is not prohibited because all the managers cant controll all their participants of what they want to do but this shows they disrepect or unloyal to the manager as well as in the project (campaign).
Like with all other work. Find good people. Trust system and merit should be there for that reason.
There is zero impact on the campaign manager when someone leaves
I've only shortly been a signature campaign manager, and I can telll you it was a lot of work to select a candidate. Or more accurately: it was a lot of work shifting through dozens of accounts that get rejected.If they quickly leave for a campaign that pays more, that's just work lost.
My question is, why do managers allow it? After all, if I was hypothetically a manager, I want to be able to rely on my participants. The participants also rely on their managers and demand loyalty. Should not the managers do something against it?
What would you suggest to do against it? The only thing that could work, is having a long payment period, increasing the financial risk when a participant leaves.My previous signature campaign was my first, I joined as Full Member, and stayed in there until the site closed about 1.5 years later. This is my second, and I don't plan to leave.
As hilariousandco puts it:
Slots for this are like gold dust and most people who are lucky enough to be on it aren't going to be looking to give up their slot any time soon.
Your opinion?
You should move this thread to the Services Discussion, you'll find it HERE.
There is zero impact on the campaign manager when someone leaves, they don't have to pay them for the period. If campaign managers want to reduce the turn over they should reduce the number of people they allow in and raise the rates. This will keep people from leaving and ensure there's a long line at the door for the next open spot.
The thing is there's no written rule about that which allows users to jump from another campaign without finishing their previous one. It also depends on who's the manager on the particular campaign since some may allow it and some may not which can lead to being blacklisted but from what I observed most managers allows it as long as you will inform them beforehand.
So in short it is more like an etiquette here not a rule which is must.
So in short it is more like an etiquette here not a rule which is must.
Managers allow it because they can't control the signature space of users they accept in the campaign. When leaving a campaign users should always notify the campaign manager about it and not just leave without any notice. I think managers only check the list every week depending when the campaign pays out so it shouldn't be too much of a hassle for them to remove one or more users from the list.
Sorry, can a mod please move it into the meta section? Thanks
You could just do it yourself by clicking the "move topic" on the lower left of the page.
First of all this shouldn't be posted on this board. Maybe this would be suited on Meta section
Sorry, can a mod please move it into the meta section? Thanks
First of all this shouldn't be posted on this board. Maybe this would be suited on Meta section
Edit: Done, thanks to ralle14.
I read a few campaign threads and realized that many participants are jumping from campaign to campaign.A behavior like this I call very disloyal, because if the manager makes the effort to check the participants, which I totally understand, then they should be fair enough and not participate in another campaign by the next best opportunity. After all, they "sign" a "contract" that they should actually stick to. I always read "I'll do my best ... blabla", but what they really want to say is that they just want to get the money and if there is something better, they're gone.
I can understand that when there are problems with the manager, they change a campaign, but most of the time, the participants simply switch because a new campagne has started where they only get a few dollars more. Of course, I also noticed that many who are constantly changing the campaign are "shitposter".
My question is, why do managers allow it? After all, if I was hypothetically a manager, I want to be able to rely on my participants. The participants also rely on their managers and demand loyalty. Should not the managers do something against it?
Your opinion?
First of all this shouldn't be posted on this board. Maybe this would be suited on Meta section regarding on what you do have observed on loyalty matters of people when joining campaigns.I do agree on this thing about loyalty of participants but you wont able to stop these behavior since people would really always after on much better offers and when they do see it on other campaigns.They don't really mind if they do leave and don't think on the chance being given by managers on selecting them. I can understand that when there are problems with the manager, they change a campaign, but most of the time, the participants simply switch because a new campagne has started where they only get a few dollars more. Of course, I also noticed that many who are constantly changing the campaign are "shitposter".
My question is, why do managers allow it? After all, if I was hypothetically a manager, I want to be able to rely on my participants. The participants also rely on their managers and demand loyalty. Should not the managers do something against it?
Your opinion?
I read a few campaign threads and realized that many participants are jumping from campaign to campaign.A behavior like this I call very disloyal, because if the manager makes the effort to check the participants, which I totally understand, then they should be fair enough and not participate in another campaign by the next best opportunity. After all, they "sign" a "contract" that they should actually stick to. I always read "I'll do my best ... blabla", but what they really want to say is that they just want to get the money and if there is something better, they're gone.
I can understand that when there are problems with the manager, they change a campaign, but most of the time, the participants simply switch because a new campagne has started where they only get a few dollars more. Of course, I also noticed that many who are constantly changing the campaign are "shitposter".
My question is, why do managers allow it? After all, if I was hypothetically a manager, I want to be able to rely on my participants. The participants also rely on their managers and demand loyalty. Should not the managers do something against it?
Your opinion?
I can understand that when there are problems with the manager, they change a campaign, but most of the time, the participants simply switch because a new campagne has started where they only get a few dollars more. Of course, I also noticed that many who are constantly changing the campaign are "shitposter".
My question is, why do managers allow it? After all, if I was hypothetically a manager, I want to be able to rely on my participants. The participants also rely on their managers and demand loyalty. Should not the managers do something against it?
Your opinion?
Jump to: