Applying for a signature campaign isn’t like getting a real-life job--come on, you're making it harder for us!
Some participants in signature campaigns aren’t even actively promoting the signature they’re wearing. It’s just that--a signature campaign. You wear it so it’s visible to forum readers, but there’s no direct promotion involved. Plus, it's against the rules to shill for the company you're representing in your signature anyway if I'm not mistaken.
Just keep it chill while enjoying our participation in the forum.
It should be harder to be honest man. If it's made harder to get a spot in campaigns, maybe so many spammers won't be hired. I was always told getting a spot in a campaign is a privilege.
This is the "hard thing" I'm referring to.
So and so exchange or casino wants to promote their brand in the forum, in not more than 200 words, apply and tell how you would promote the company and help it to establish in the forum within 4 weeks.[/b]
When I say don't work hard, I don’t mean spamming—I mean enjoying the forum and being an organic poster. It’s up to the campaign managers to decide if you fit what they’re looking for. For example, if the signature campaign is for a casino, the manager will likely prioritize active gambling posters. But if it requires the poster to shill for the casino and constantly lurk in the ANN thread, it’s not good for the project. It starts to look like incentivized posts, which we all know is against the forum rules.
I’ve seen many gambling campaigns where members don’t even post in the casino’s ANN thread—Stake is a great example. They’ve been running a long time, and the company knows that exposure across different boards on the forum is much better than people just posting in one place.
IMO if you are promoting a brand in your sig space, you are in a sense vouching for that service. If you do not believe in the service, you shouldn't be promoting it just because they are willing to hire you. Just my thoughts at least on the issue.
I agree that something new needs to be used, not sure if the OPs thought is what needs done, but I wouldn't be opposed to something new.
Being aware and vouching for the service you’re promoting is important, but you don’t have to constantly show it. At least have knowledge about the project you’re promoting so you’re not left in the dark when it comes up in discussions. I’ve noticed this too—many campaigns on the forum are signature campaigns for a casino/sportsbook, and I’ve seen members staying in these campaigns even though they’re not gamblers.
When it comes to vouching for what you’re promoting, especially if you're in a signature for a gambling platform, it feels odd when some members post things like:
1-"Is gambling addictive?"
2-"Maybe we shouldn’t gamble because it ruins lives?"
3-"Honestly, I’ll never gamble, I’ll just keep the money I earn from my signature campaign earnings."
Posts like these seem annoying (to me), because it feels like the user is anti-gambling, yet they still choose to promote it. And then there’s the case of users whose religion considers gambling a sin, yet they’re part of a gambling signature campaign. How do you even explain that? It’s a contradiction that doesn’t sit well, and it raises questions about their sincerity in promoting the service.