Topic: signature campaign Vs review campaign (Read 565 times)

Running any kind of campaigns or marketing has always specific results. Signature campaigns will have different results to review and social media campaigns. But for a marketing manager, having those available campaigns will probably give you insights what's the most effective, where you can focus to improve and what's the best marketing approach on specific platform.

Review campaigns are for those new product release for others to be seen what are flaws, cons and pros of the current release, i can't say its good to have a review campaign here than to hire a writer, vlogger on a website/platform who has specific niche to make such reviews and have their own viewers and readers.
Social media campaigns are used for trends and hashtags, the more people talk about it the more it trends which give huge view/traffic to your social media posts and/or website.
Signature campaign is to have a consistent views for the products/service on this forum which give you regular traffic/views probably regular users as well.

So it's good to have review and socmed campaigns for a new release products and sig campaign for a consistent marketing particularly in this forum.

Both of these campaigns are great for marketing purposes. They each have their unique strengths, which can benefit the company in a positive way. I consider the signature campaign and the review campaign to be different in terms of their intended goals.

A signature campaign doesn't target campaign participants; it reaches out to all users on this forum. Bitcointalk is a forum with a shared interest, which is a fascination with Bitcoin and crypto. Some articles and posts here even manage to grab the attention of people outside the forum who search through Google or other search engine. This forum is an excellent platform for those looking to promote products to an audience interested in the world of crypto. That's why a signature campaign has a significant impact on companies using it for ongoing marketing activities.

On the other hand, a review campaign is useful for receiving direct feedback from users. Its primary purpose is to make corrections and improvements to services that have been launched or are in the pre-launch stage. Consumer perspectives are usually more accurate in attracting a larger user base compared to the viewpoint of a business owner. Since companies sell products or services to consumers, one of the factors that encourages consumers to stay longer is the comfort of using the related platform. In essence, a review campaign aims to make the platform better for users.

With YouTube's recent controversy over the ads, it's quite funny to see this though

It's better to advertise in this forum when we talk about mixer because you can't freely promoting a mixer in social medias where they have strict rules. Using a social media when promoting mixer is like destroy yourself since you've leave your trace somewhere.

Few months ago there was a casino that run a review campaign, it's possible someone could review the technical stuff, but only limited to in house games.

Again this depends on the type of service in question. If it is a gambling site, i don't think a review campaign is needed for that site as everyone is used to gambling and there is no technical stuff involved in it. Only a long-running signature campaigns for gambling sites is better.

When it comes to the mixer, a review campaign is also good not only to test the bugs in the site, but when people report positive views about the mixer, it increases the credibility of the mixers. A signature Campaign is no doubt necessary for mixers as well. For any project that wants to promote their business, a signature campaign is the minimum they should think of and allocate funds to it.

I'd argue that doing advertisement on this forum is better if you factor in the cost to advertise, not to mention the forum is already specialized in crypto so most users are likely interested in anything crypto-related. The cost to do a signature campaign or review campaign is significantly lower, you can probably do 6 months of the campaign here, compared to a 1 week to 1-month banner on those websites. CMIIW.

I think a signature campaign is the best for an advertisement and lure a new user to your platform and a review campaign can be used as a tool to know more about your platform based on user perspective and sometimes can improve your site too.

Doing both is actually a great idea.
oh you can also post your ad on a third-party platform like Google Ads when your site complies with their rules

Like i said in my previous post, i don't think a review campaign is an advertisement in itself, maybe for the period the review campaign lasts, it will expose your product to potential customers, but if you end the campaign there and leave it at that, it would not be long before people forget about your company and what they offer. Like you said, when people want to find out more about a service, they can go to the reviews held on it, but first of all it is advertisement that makes people find out about that particular service, before they go in search of more information, and it is signature campaigns that does that advertisement.

Both are good and will do wonders on the marketing of the platform, for a busy and highly optimized forum signature campaign is a perfect choice, it is effective for branding people tend to trust brands that they have always seen, Coke, McDonald and top brands do not have to advertise they have a stable consumers but they want to keep the brand awareness, they want people to embed their brand to the consciousness of the consumers.
On the review campaign, potential consumers will see the values and the features of the platform, and from there, they can decide if it is the right product to use for their needs.
They have specific goal and results so its worth it if the platform has these two campaigns.

I agree with the point that @Royse777 made, if you ask someone who visits this forum give me some examples of crypto based gambling sites and the first thing they are going to blurt out are Stake, Roobet, Duelbits and so on. They are not going to say BetMoose which is a Canadian mutual betting platform that I know about but very few people here might. Then there is also  the idea of constant bombardment with the banners so to keep the same thing in the users memory even if they dont use it at all.

Review campaigns serve a different purpose, I would like to add to my previous comment that after reading some comments in this thread I have felt that reviews are paid here and hence they are going to inorganic and having a biased opinion. That does not mean they dont help the project, but should be taken with a bit of salt for a consumer.

review campaign is supposed to be from people with a good technical background in order to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the service, but in the forum, review campaigns are closer to testing campaigns and giving a general feedback of the service or customer feedback than to being a detailed review, so there is no need for more than one review campaign at the end of the service except with profound changes occurring in the backend.

Not entirely; there's certainly a nuance to this. Although review campaigns are, well, for review, the outputs are not exclusively for the purpose that developers or owners will know which to improve in their services.

I guess it is a general practice that whenever we consider a certain site, whether that's a gambling site, mixer, exchange, and so on, we do a little research. We search like "is blah blah a legit platform?" or "blah blah reviews" or "is blah blah trustworthy?". The need for reviews comes in because of this. A product, site, platform, and whatnot that doesn't have reviews will likely to be discarded. While it may not be immediately brushed aside as untrustworthy, it is left out because there's no easy way to know. Risk is normally attached to something that people haven't tried yet.

I used to be paid writing review articles. Although the constant reminder was to write an honest-to-goodness review, another purpose is for the product or service to be visible whenever somebody searches for it. Feedbacks are necessary. In worse cases, fake or biased reviews are bought. Some review sites are even known to accept bribes. But the common ground is that owners want their products to be reviewed. That's done after polishing and launching it. In a way, they're expecting good words.

To a certain extent, reviews are also advertisement or marketing.

From what I see on review thread I'll say the possibility of those users using  those platforms they review are far less than the percentage you gave them. Most of the reviews remarks are similar which just goes to show people are copying from what others above them have said to write theirs. I haven't participated in a review campaign and I don't think I'll do that in the future either unless it's a service I don't know how it works and what to try them out. Majority of the review participate don't use the platform they review after the campaign is over, they're just after the money the projects are paying.

Also I just feel review shouldn't be paid upfront, let the users use their funds for the review and those with authentic feedback get payback or payment should be based on your remarks and not a general payrate irrespective of how your feedback is. Review campaign does no impactive marketing for the project but just to get users feedback on how theirs platforms are.

Signature Campaign is a better promotional campaign than review campaign, the visibility in signature campaign is more than that of review campaign and the impact as well. Just as others have side both serve their different purpose so obviously both has their benefits but if you're looking to promote your project go for signature campaigns and if you're looking for a direct feedback on your platforms go for review campaign. Signature Campaign gives your project more exposure and you can also get free reviews from users that use them (both the participate of the campaign and others).

Well, a review campaign may help the project to enhance its functionality and remove any bugs found but I also think that review campaigns on bitcointalk help the ordinary end user like us to understand the project and decide whether to use it or not, based upon the opinions of people who review the service/product.
Sometimes these reviews also help as an in-depth tutorial on how to use the service and the pros and cons associated with it. If I wanted to use any product and it has a review campaign, I will always go through it before actually using the product.

Review campaign doesn't count as advertisement, if you want to advertise your business here and you launch a review campaign to get honest feedback, take note that if you pull the plug there, it won't be long before people forget about your company and what you offer; the review campaign is to get feeback in order to provide the best service to your customers.

Signature campaign is were the advertisement begins, members will advertise your company with posts they make and with every single post they have made in the forum, until they take the signatures off. If your company's name is everywhere in the signature and avatar of a lot of member's, week in and week out, people will use your services if what you offer is great and if you had made adjustments to your product after the review campaign, that is if you organized one.

1) campaign manager's perspective, managing the reviews campaign will be easier, and the number of posts he will read will be fewer.
2) Users: it is less valuable as you can get $50 from the reviews campaign, but signatures campaigns pay more. as a user, if the choice is between a reviews campaign and a signatures campaign, you will choose the signatures campaign because it means more payments to you.
3) project owner, the number of people who visit the forum without logging in is large, and in the reviews campaign you lose all these potential users, which is possible in the signature campaign.

The campaign manager does less work on review campaigns, users get paid less and the project gets fewer views and therefore fewer clicks.

It's not about signature participants using the product, it's more about bringing people through signature participants that may use your product. In advertising industry, we see popular people advertising the products, they don't use the products they promote but through them product gets known to the masses.

As most already said, there is no need to compare things that serves completely different purpose. I see review campaign more like a way to buy some positive comments about service, like paid shilling. But I'm not really sure how much in helps to attract users.
I think you're wrong about signature campaigns. It's not about to attract campaign participants to use service. It doesn't makes much sense and it would be too expensive. It's more about giving visibility to brand, like billboards in streets or ad banners on websites.

Probably it's just some random numbers from his head as I doubt that someone has research about these things.
I agree with you about using service that I advertise in signature because I want to know what I'm advertising.

Review campaigns aim to obtain information from users, such as testing a new feature. The user tests the product once or several times and may stop doing so. As for the signature campaign, it is an advertisement for the service. You may advertise a service and you have not tried it because the target is the audience.
If you are paying people to try your service as an advertisement for the service, you are lying about the number of users who will stop advertising for you if the service stops. This is different from signature campaigns, where you can continue to use them even if they do not pay you.

This is like you asking the obvious, it's practical in the number of reviews you see on the forum compared to the number of campaigns you see. If campaigns don't pay more, you will definitely be seeing more reviews as the companies are not in for wasting money and time, they are in for a serious business, real marketing and more conversion possibilities.

A reviewer is just one person and it doesn't matter if they use the product or not, and their review might only be written once in a single section of the forum which limits the number of viewers. But a campaigner might be one yet has multiple presences at many sections of the forum, sharing the project link and thereby propagating the message as much as possible. This could cause a single campaigner to attract over 100 accounts opening in just a few months. I hope you see what is naturally productive among the two.