Each campaign manager has their own criteria while managing a campaign and mostly they will follow what will work best for a company who are spending their money to get advertised here, when a campaign has less number of participants, lets say 10-20 then having no minimum required amount of post may get less exposure to the project so the company is lagging a week behind if everyone didn't make any post on that week.
Crypto market is become more competitive so all they want is to achieve quick results which justify the money they are paying for it.
Topic: Signature campaign post requirement (Read 241 times)
legendary
Activity: 2478
Merit: 4341
eXch.cx - Automatic crypto Swap Exchange.
I think I can't answer better than @Hhampuz did, but I will try to give my input. I think in past there was much more campaigns with pay per post system, but now only Chipmixer remains.
Don't think so, 777coin and Bitvest under my management pays per post although they have a minimum which is just 15 posts to stay active in the campaign. This minimum is just so the participate stay active as they mightn't have as huge capital as chipmixer to pay everybody irrespective of what you post still, they're one of the longest too and has probably the highest number of participants when combining both signature since they're from the same owner.
The project under my promotion (Best_change) also has a pay per post system, just as chipmixer they have a maximum although also implemented the minimum requirements. Do understand that this project having minimum are quite new and concerned on how their invested are bringing out returns, probably with time we could see them removing this minimum requirements as this is one of the campaign on the forum ready to improved.
I think I can't answer better than @Hhampuz did, but I will try to give my input. I think in past there was much more campaigns with pay per post system, but now only Chipmixer remains. And Chipmixer is quite unique campaign, maybe I should say exception from the rule and I'm not sure that's worth to compare them with other campaigns. Also, I think that much bigger payment rates is big factor which allow to keep pay per post system without forcing to make 20-30 posts weekly.
As said above, advertisers need that campaign would deliver result. They don't want to make things complicated. And unlike Chipmixer campaign, many campaigns runs for short time, from few weeks, up to few months. So, advertisers want maximum visibility. If users will make just 5 posts per week, it won't bring good visibility for advertisers.
Yeah, in terms of spam, pay per post campaign may be better, but that's not always case. For example Yobit campaign, they were pay per post campaign. And they allowed to make maybe up to 20 posts daily! And guess what, many users where trying to reach this quota. Imagine how much spam they produced...
As said above, advertisers need that campaign would deliver result. They don't want to make things complicated. And unlike Chipmixer campaign, many campaigns runs for short time, from few weeks, up to few months. So, advertisers want maximum visibility. If users will make just 5 posts per week, it won't bring good visibility for advertisers.
Yeah, in terms of spam, pay per post campaign may be better, but that's not always case. For example Yobit campaign, they were pay per post campaign. And they allowed to make maybe up to 20 posts daily! And guess what, many users where trying to reach this quota. Imagine how much spam they produced...
Wouldn’t it be good if every campaign manager follow the same rule? It would generate good quality post, less spam and more effective as good quality post would get more attention than low quality.
You cannot create a rule for all the campaigns for putting no minimum post requirement at the forum level. Few of the top rated managers may agree and implement this rule but then there are campaigns which are directly run by the companies without hiring managers, no one can force them to follow these rules.
Wouldn’t it be good if every campaign manager follow the same rule? It would generate good quality post, less spam and more effective as good quality post would get more attention than low quality.
You cannot create a rule for all the campaigns for putting no minimum post requirement at the forum level. Few of the top rated managers may agree and implement this rule but then there are campaigns which are directly run by the companies without hiring managers, no one can force them to follow these rules.
Although there is a logical explanation for why most signature campaigns require a minimum number of posts, as well as most, I have never liked this rule - because it is a kind of compulsion to do something that is not always possible. I believe that changing this rule would make all users feel much more comfortable and that the results for each advertiser would be much better than it is currently the case.
A long-term approach would probably pay off for them, but CM still has a unique way to make a profit (use the service and pay if you want and how much you want), so I believe funding is a major issue because no one copies the CM model on the forum.
Now I feel like what would happen if all the campaign had the similar rule as of Chipmixer?
A long-term approach would probably pay off for them, but CM still has a unique way to make a profit (use the service and pay if you want and how much you want), so I believe funding is a major issue because no one copies the CM model on the forum.
Most of the campaigns require posting x amount of post to be eligible for payment. Most of the campaigns require at least 20 posts per week to get paid while only Chipmixer has the benefit of no minimum post.
Why other campaign managers don't follow the same rule? Would that be less effective? I don't think so.
Why other campaign managers don't follow the same rule? Would that be less effective? I don't think so.
To a campaign that is planning to just run for about a week or two or perhaps a month, that might be less effective. They badly want to be seen and therefore promoted within a shorter period of time.
There are many campaigns that will test the waters first. They will run for a couple of weeks, make an assessment of the effectivity of the campaign, and then decide whether to continue or not. A Chipmixer approach may not be the best kind in this case.
Quote
Wouldn’t it be good if every campaign manager follow the same rule? It would generate good quality post, less spam and more effective as good quality post would get more attention than low quality.
I guess the campaign manager does not have the sole say as to how the campaign would run. The manager would probably lay all the options and perhaps discuss with the company how they would go about the campaign.
I think a wider visibility is a consideration. In which case, 25 posts might be preferred more than 10. That's simply maximizing the cost and the limited time.
Regardless which move is "better", in the end, it's their campaign. Chances are that they know what they're doing and they know what's best for their business.
Fortunately, if it's the case that we don't agree to their requirements, we have the freedom to simply leave and join another campaign that has requirements that fits you better. Typical capitalism.
Fortunately, if it's the case that we don't agree to their requirements, we have the freedom to simply leave and join another campaign that has requirements that fits you better. Typical capitalism.
All depends with the company since majority of them do really mind off about max exposure which means they would really be requiring those post count quota and also campaign manager does have also the right on altering things or changing up but that would still really be requiring some permission
on the company that he do work for if they would really be agreeing into that set-up.
In the case of chipmixer and the number of applicants then it is somehow understandable that they dont care for exposure but rather on the post quality on where its member do gives and thats why ending up that no post minimum for you to be eligible with the payment.
Following the same rule?
Depends on a certain manager but usually they do stick out with minimum post count for you to be eligible with the payment and if you had missed
just because of some personal reasons then its up to you if you do quit on the campaign or the manager would kick you for missing those weeks.
on the company that he do work for if they would really be agreeing into that set-up.
In the case of chipmixer and the number of applicants then it is somehow understandable that they dont care for exposure but rather on the post quality on where its member do gives and thats why ending up that no post minimum for you to be eligible with the payment.
Following the same rule?
Depends on a certain manager but usually they do stick out with minimum post count for you to be eligible with the payment and if you had missed
just because of some personal reasons then its up to you if you do quit on the campaign or the manager would kick you for missing those weeks.
legendary
Activity: 2478
Merit: 4341
eXch.cx - Automatic crypto Swap Exchange.
Don't compare small companies just starting up to companies that were already counting in millions from the early days of operation. Chipmixer got millions in commission from their customer so they have all it take to pay the promoters promoting them like their signature campaign running on the forum without caring how the promoters post but the average new projects wants every penny they invest to be productive.
I'm still new to the business of campaign management so I might not have much to contribute in regards to the issue at hand, so don't know for others but I get contacted with them (new projects) already figured it all out. They have the number of posts they want, how much they're willing to invest and how long they intend running the campaign.
Sadly I haven't been able to implement my ideas as much as I can but always try the best I can to reduced he workload to some extend. Not many new projects have enough funds to spare or they don't just want to waste funds as they'll have other things that they'll need the funds to tackle in order to grow their brand to one of the tops.
I'm still new to the business of campaign management so I might not have much to contribute in regards to the issue at hand, so don't know for others but I get contacted with them (new projects) already figured it all out. They have the number of posts they want, how much they're willing to invest and how long they intend running the campaign.
Sadly I haven't been able to implement my ideas as much as I can but always try the best I can to reduced he workload to some extend. Not many new projects have enough funds to spare or they don't just want to waste funds as they'll have other things that they'll need the funds to tackle in order to grow their brand to one of the tops.
It's all about getting the service's advertisement signature viewed as much as possible as any given time, so the people behind the businesses would want participants who can advertise them effectively and not someone who will make 1-2 posts per week. That doesn't benefit them.
Chipmixer is very different. They are already well established, not so many competitors as good as them and to some extent, I feel like they are just running the campaign longer just for the sake of the Bitcointalk community
Chipmixer is very different. They are already well established, not so many competitors as good as them and to some extent, I feel like they are just running the campaign longer just for the sake of the Bitcointalk community
The easy answer is: Because it sells.
ChipMixer is great in so many ways, having been here and running their campaign for so long being one of them. I myself managed a bunch of campaigns in the past with a payperpost system. However, as new players enter the space and inquire about campaigns they are often result oriented. It's tough for me as a manager to tell them "Yeah so we'll get 20 people who will make anything from 1-25 posts each week and you'll end up spending anything between $400-$4000". They want something easy and they want to know it'll run like clockwork - it really is that simple.
ChipMixer is great in so many ways, having been here and running their campaign for so long being one of them. I myself managed a bunch of campaigns in the past with a payperpost system. However, as new players enter the space and inquire about campaigns they are often result oriented. It's tough for me as a manager to tell them "Yeah so we'll get 20 people who will make anything from 1-25 posts each week and you'll end up spending anything between $400-$4000". They want something easy and they want to know it'll run like clockwork - it really is that simple.
In other words, they want consistency. They want to know how much they are going to pay per week and how much attention they are going to receive from the signatures.
It seems to me chipmixer don't have a problem like that because they are literally shitting money, so spending a few more or a few less bucks isn't really going to make a difference and since they pay the participants handsomely, they already know that the participants will do their best to make more posts.
Most services that do signature campaigns are only wanting to get their money's worth, and I don't think most of them are getting it from pay-per-post campaigns knowing that the ratio of quality posters to meh posters is extremely low. ChipMixer makes it happen because the standard they have placed on the campaign is extremely high that it doesn't matter how much people post per week as people would still read what they have to say and the advertisement still goes around.
The easy answer is: Because it sells.
ChipMixer is great in so many ways, having been here and running their campaign for so long being one of them. I myself managed a bunch of campaigns in the past with a payperpost system. However, as new players enter the space and inquire about campaigns they are often result oriented. It's tough for me as a manager to tell them "Yeah so we'll get 20 people who will make anything from 1-25 posts each week and you'll end up spending anything between $400-$4000". They want something easy and they want to know it'll run like clockwork - it really is that simple.
ChipMixer is great in so many ways, having been here and running their campaign for so long being one of them. I myself managed a bunch of campaigns in the past with a payperpost system. However, as new players enter the space and inquire about campaigns they are often result oriented. It's tough for me as a manager to tell them "Yeah so we'll get 20 people who will make anything from 1-25 posts each week and you'll end up spending anything between $400-$4000". They want something easy and they want to know it'll run like clockwork - it really is that simple.
I like your suggestion but it is campaign managers like CryptopreneurBrainboss, Hhampuz and Yahoo62278 that can give perfect answer to your question. They may not give any reason because that is their own rules campaign participants must follow. I noticed they too are acheiving what they want as spammers and low quality posters will be removed from there campaigns, some poor posters are even blacklisted. Your suggestion will help participates to have more comfort and convenience while posting, but not that the rules also set by other campaign managers is not making them achieving their aims as poor posters are filtered out.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 2327
Marketing Campaign Manager |Telegram ID- @LT_Mouse
Most of the campaigns require posting x amount of post to be eligible for payment. Most of the campaigns require at least 20 posts per week to get paid while only Chipmixer has the benefit of no minimum post.
Why other campaign managers don't follow the same rule? Would that be less effective? I don't think so.
Recently, in last few weeks, I really got hard time to maintain the minimum 20 posts and missed 6/7 weeks out of 10 if I'm correct. Now I feel like what would happen if all the campaign had the similar rule as of Chipmixer?
Wouldn’t it be good if every campaign manager follow the same rule? It would generate good quality post, less spam and more effective as good quality post would get more attention than low quality.
Why other campaign managers don't follow the same rule? Would that be less effective? I don't think so.
Recently, in last few weeks, I really got hard time to maintain the minimum 20 posts and missed 6/7 weeks out of 10 if I'm correct. Now I feel like what would happen if all the campaign had the similar rule as of Chipmixer?
Wouldn’t it be good if every campaign manager follow the same rule? It would generate good quality post, less spam and more effective as good quality post would get more attention than low quality.
Jump to: