Please answer honestly.
In my answer, I will
(mainly) limit myself to the financial aspects. It goes without saying that other factors such as the selection of available boards, the duration of the campaign and/or the provider itself play a major role in a successful campaign. Especially the last point should not be forgotten. Because no matter how well the signature campaign may be designed, if the provider has a bad reputation, it will be difficult to find good participants
(see e.g. x1bit and other failed campaigns in the past).
Now to your question: This is not so easy to answer, because one would have to examine first of all what the host of the campaign would like to achieve:
(1) Is it about creating a signature campaign that only achieves attention through the pure quantity of posts?
(2) Or is it also about targeting the best posters of the forum and placing signatures as prominently as possible?
If the former is desired, I think your currently chosen
BTC payment per post is quite reasonable. The price of Bitcoin fluctuates a lot (
still), but users can roughly calculate the value of their compensation at a certain Bitcoin price. Nevertheless, you have to be aware that if the Bitcoin price drops or the
BTC payment per post is lower than the compensation of other campaigns, quality posters will likely follow the money and switch to a campaign where they can earn a higher amount.
However, if the latter is desired, it will be difficult to pay a fixed Bitcoin price that is attractive at all times. Unless, of course, you set the fixed Bitcoin price at such a high level that it significantly exceeds the other ongoing campaigns. But then you quickly face problems like CM in the past, where you have to reduce the amounts at some point because they became too high.
So, why are participants of signature campaigns more inclined to follow the
(fast) money instead of staying with a campaign where you might earn a little less today, but a little more in the future? In my opinion, this is mainly due to the fact that as a participant of a signature campaign you have to deal with a few uncertainties:
- Even if you trust Bitcoin, you never know what the price will be in the future. So many users think: The more BTC I get today, the better.
- You usually don't know how long a campaign runs and if it's still running in the future. So even if the BTC price goes up in a few months/years, will I still be in this campaign?
- You might be removed from the campaign, without notice or you won't be able to post, when the BTC price goes up.
So how would I design a campaign that is as attractive as possible?
- A fixed $ amount per post which is slightly higher than the ongoing campaigns, converted every week at the current rate. Many projects are likely to hold their marketing funds in $ or stables anyway, so fluctuating BTC prices will likely not affect them any way.
- As much information as possible about the runtime of the campaign (if you can offer an attractive runtime here, users are more inclined to accept a lower weekly payment).
- Fair rules regarding the avatar slot (IMHO a very good way to make the campaign more attractive).
- Fair post rules that doesn't exclude 90% of the available boards, e.g. locals etc.
Can easily work out some scenarios with Excel and some formulas and play around to see what you and the company you work with like the most. Then post the table with the payrates in the first post of your ANN et voilá.
Quite interesting approach @tyKiwanuka. Actually the perfect marketing tool for a bounty manager to make an offer to possible clients. That way they can see straight away how much
BTC they have to set aside as a marketing budget
(if they hold their funds in BTC).
If these ranges are designed in a fair way, competitive enough compared to other campaigns and communicated well in the OP of the campaign, I think it could work out pretty well and attract plenty of users.