Topic: Where do we draw a line? Signature campaigns or shilling campaigns - page 4. (Read 1457 times)

There's a difference between a signature campaign and a shilling campaign but once a user registers for a project campaign he has no right whatsoever to say something bad against the project he's advertising or choose another provider above the same brand he is advertising if a user does that what's the purpose of the advertisement he signed up for?

Some users of this forum may say signature campaign just rents out your advertisement space in exchange for payment it's far more than that and we need to put ourselves into the shoes of brands that come to this forum for marketing.

I think now you understand what I meant when I shared my opinion.

I agree with this completely. And that's not what we're talking about here. It's funny, but not long ago I removed one participant from another campaign, and when he wrote to me that he could adjust his publishing style, this is the response he was sent.

In the campaigns I manage, more than 90% of participants have an idea of ​​the project whose signature they bear.

There is absolutely no connection between this and what is being discussed here.

You are free to say whatever you want, but when someone asked about which site you can find the best exchange rates on, and you start listing sites such as ExchangeSumo, Profinvestment and others... without mentioning BestChange, it seems at least strange. And of course in that case I don't think your participation in the campaign is of value.

From what i can see, i also agrees with icopress, if you're working for a company and you're being paid by them, then you have no right of saying bad about them, irrespective of the privilege that you have in making the promotion for them, they cant force you to say good things about them, what to post or where to post because the signature and avatar one is wearing already did that, but kicking against your employers product or service is not a good attempt and that alone shows you're promoting and also demoting the same organization you're working for even though you may not know.

Icopress in this is not mandating him to make a post concerning the brand or dictating where to post or not, he is only suggesting that its better to stay off any discussion that could tarnish the image of the service the participant is promoting than joining in the campaign against it, i think this is the aspect that the campaign rules are most effective that they are subjected to change, i don't think there's anything bad also in a campaign manager remembering his participant not to forget in giving their contribution on the AAN thread, this has nothing to do with that becoming a participant payment eligibility if he comment or not, but just a reminder and a choice.

This is exactly how it is supposed to be, but the irony is the reality. There are many people who do not understand what an open or a closed source code is. They also do not understand the basics of bitcoin, yet their accounts are grown and in active campaigns posting some generic texts that are somwhat related to an ongoing conversation in order to get paid weekly. More than 70% of the people that promotes different projects here do not test the projects and neither do they even visit the website. If you go to the gambling section which I believe you frequent because of the casino you promote, you will see many users on casino signatures but know nothing about gambling and probably do not even gamble.

You do not even have to be in the Wasabi campaign to know that it is open source, if you are in this Bitcoin forum, you ought to be aware of that information and more so when you are then a member of the said campaign. As a campaign participant, the bare minimum should be understanding the basics of what you are promoting.

I personally think it's a bit extreme. If the manager feels the members he hired are not “productive”, he could just remove them or make a reshuffle without raising dust.

If not mentioning/recommending the service one is having in their signature space is an issue and can get one booted out of the campaign, then how about constructive criticism of the service? Let's say the service I am advertising is having some issues, an open scam accusation etc. and I try to say something about it. Isn't that an automatic disqualification as well in that context??
Aren't we going to see cases where members fear to make comments about the service they are advertising because the fear has been instilled in them?

The next thing we shall see is all members recommending the service they are advertising in every related thread they come across for fear of being thrown out. Worse still, avoiding posting in competitors threads because boss might not be happy.  

When someone has joined a signature campaign then that member should understand that he/she is getting paid for applying a brands signature, avatar, and sometimes personal text on his/her profile. The brands want to get more attention via the posts of such users who are accepted in the campaigns which the brands are funding, and that's why they somehow hope to get more exposure via the posts as well.

If you believe that the signature you're applying on your profile fits into a list that you're mentioning then nothing is wrong in that. I won't say that you should mention that service in each post but when in some posts it can be mentioned then one should try to mention it. But, if you're making posts and not suggesting other services in the list then that's also okay because readers can easily spot the signature on your profile and understand that which service you're trying to promote.

Icopress and all other reputed managers of the forum are doing a great job by managing the campaigns and it isn't a simple job by any means. If they want the participants to mention a service that they are advertising then I think a participants should have no obligation in that. But as far as I know, they haven't forced anyone to shill a service in each post to get paid, they simply say that whenever you're mentioning a list of similar brands then also consider mentioning the one that you're applying on your signature space. That would help that brand to get some attention nothing else.

I understand with Icopress, even if it is not a rule, it should be ethical to recommend what you promote when the need arises. But then, there are some exceptions such as; a situation where the signature participant doesn't actually know that wazabbi is an open source wallet. It is very possible and if that is the case, I wouldn't blame the signature campaign participate.

For we to treat this matter honestly, we need to address another rule which is fast becoming a trend among some managers. The rule of making it compulsory for signature campaign participants to use the service they are promoting. I saw it in the mixer campaigns. If the signature campaign participants of wazabbi are compulsorily made to use the service, everyone of them will know that it is an open source wallet.

After testing the service, if you can't recommend it, it means you shouldn't promote it at all. So, it is just a two way something. Even me as a manager, I will not be comfortable seeing you wearing a signature of one service and recommend the nearest competitors of that service. It might be like an ambassador of Nike advertising addidas.

If you talk about ethics, if you are promoting a service through your signature, it deserves to be mentioned when you recommend a similar service. I understood the point icopress mentioned. It's something we could consider as the gray side of the member. But, you shouldn't be outraged because they did it. You could have PM the user just like Yahoo said.

This is not something that happens every day. So, sending a PM to one of your participants won't be a bad idea. I understand that it's like I work for Samsung but I suggest users buy Apple products. That is all about ethics.

I thought of that after I made my last post here--since it isn't likely that multiple participants are going to do what the member icopress called out, a PM would have sufficed instead of making a post that sends a strong (and obviously somewhat controversial) message to every person who's in one of icopress's campaigns.

And yahoo62278, you've got it right that campaigns are all about the money and I don't think I've ever seen a manager try to micromanage people's posts like this.  I'd also agree with whoever said there are a certain percentage of campaigners who don't even know what kind of service/product they're renting out their sig space to.  Most members just try to get into the highest-paying campaign they can and don't care what's being advertised and don't even care to even know exactly what it is. 

I disagree with that to an extent.  Renting out your signature space is simply a financial transaction, and unless there's a rule in the campaign that you can't express your own opinion about competitors, members should be able to do so.  Bashing whatever it is you're advertising is another story, but praising a competitor?  Eh.

Props to @OP for bringing the discussion.

Very agree with Poker Player and yahoo62278, it's either the manager need to fire the participants or let know the participants through PMs.

I guess so, but it's easy to notice it, when it comes to wallet and privacy topics, pay attention on their posts.

They're not a same brand though.

Most of the campaign participants are well-known members and experts in knowledge about bitcoin and wallets. Since the statement was made public, are we going to doubt their answer? maybe their answers are not as objective as before

Of course this is a difficult condition for managers and participants, hopefully participants can be wise and maintain objective answers to questions about wallets, because they are role models in this forum

[Guide] Factors to consider before joining paid signature campaigns.

Thank you for pointing that out and in future include the link or quote in a way people interested in reading more can get access to the thread or any other threads on the forum. Some people might have missed the thread when it was created but as it gets mentions they should be able to get access to the thread so they can contribute too.

As for the topic at hand, I side with Icopress on his decision, I'm a manager too so I understand his point. Why should anyone advertise something they can't recommended to others, I understand signature aren't typically an endorsement of the projects that we're wearing but it's an advertisement and for you to continue getting the privilege of advertising that project or product, you should contribute to the growth of the product being advertised. You're not advertising a scam so what's holding you back from presenting that product as the option in the market. Your employer is spending money weekly it's just unfairly to be adverting a competitor, ask yourself if you were in their position how will you feel.

If you have a favourite platforms that's a competitor to your current campaign, you can basically give a shout to the both of them and let the user decide on which one to use but it just doesn't make sense you're giving a 100% validation to a competitor. You can't be a brand ambassador for Nike and publicly say Adidas is the best but you can give your recommendation on both and leave it for the user to choose. Whether we like it or not, we're brand ambassadors for the brands we're promoting on the forum. No campaign manager should force you to shill a project but as adults that we all should be on the forum, you should know the right thing to do and lastly don't join a campaign you don't agree with.

Allow me to surprise you:

You don't even have anything to say against Icopress even though you are cautious enough in your construction. I must also say that I love what he did, people are ugly in thoughts, and they need to be guided at times. You don't have to wait to be told what is wrong or right all the time as an adult and also as a sensitive person, so it is not all things that must be written by the campaign managers under a campaign before people know what is right and what is not right to do.

You don't just collect a company's money and nonchalantly praise another company that is a competitor. Who does that? That's not fair.

But people like to collect a company's money and do not even care about their success, that is what I see here, and it is bad. Once you are campaigning for a company, whether you like it or not, you are part of their team. So, why then act like you are not? I think the campaign managers feel the burden better than people who are just keen to collect the money and not the progress of the company. So I know how he feels.

This isn't new. And it's not a Meta "problem", it fits better in Reputation or Service Discussion.

I've seen a campaign manager complain about posts in spam megathreads. My take: just don't pay those posts, but you shouldn't tell someone where he can or can't post.
I've seen demands not to discuss the Russia/Ukraine-situation, because the service wants to remain neutral. Bitcointalk allows this, as part of it's mission to be as free as possible. Just like Bitcointalk allows users to choose which campaigns to ignore. I wouldn't want to be in a campaign where the campaign manager tells me what I can or can't post. I'm totally fine not getting paid for posts that don't qualify, but I am not going to adjust my posting based on the signature I wear.

TL;DR: I don't see a problem here. It's a free market. If you don't like it, leave the campaign. If the campaign manager doesn't like it, don't pay for the posts or remove the user from the campaign. It's not a big deal.

Can you link to the post in question?
I think Hatchy has a point: this sounds like someone who has no idea what he's advertising. I saw another one recently:

As a person that has been on the forum for nearly 10 years now and also managed my fair share of campaigns, I feel like all managers should already know that a large % of people in campaigns don't care about the product they are advertising for. They care about getting their account in a campaign and getting paid, that's it mostly. If a campaign asks for 30 posts a week, they do 30 posts and not 1 more usually.

Managers are not allowed to tell users to make posts in this thread or that thread, they all know this. They do not even care to try and help out the company they are advertising for in most cases, they just want paid at the end of the campaign week. They will even leave a campaign for an extra dollar a week if they can.

@icopress I can see your reasoning, but I probably wouldn't have mentioned it. Send the user a message and save yourself the drama. I don't get upset when users mention hire royse or you to manager a campaign and not mention me. Feels like the same thing to me.

That is simply untrue and what you call an unwritten rule is something you made up. It's much simpler than that:


The signature campaigns operate under a free market regime. I don't know what supposed problem there is here, and I'm telling you that I was expelled from that same campaign for leaving a red tag to a Wasabi worker. You could also have applied that same argument and with more reason in my case. But the thing is as simple as that you are free to go to another campaign whenever you want and the manager can fire you if he sees that you do something that does not favor the company that has hired him to advertise.


This is a bit O/T but Lightlord is at it again.

It's quite reasonable, you are "hired" as a campaign participant as "indirectly/directly promoter" of that service/product, but you instead suggest the product of its competitors when you can also mention that product/service you are wearing as suggestions.
It's more like an SEO optimized article blog of top 10 xxx, mentioning other and your products but the difference is you have a link(signature campaign) to your product in "part" of your post.

In this forum, it's like an unwritten rule that "promoters" should do in a forum that avoid advertisements in their posts...

There is already forum rule about that, let me quote it with bold part.

Shilling campaign is different for a single post/reply that engage discussion, answers a question and suggest a signature campaign-related product, its reasonable for a "campaign participant". Unless the poster blatantly spamming that product in off-topic way of posting.

Well, you are the manager and your statement speaks for itself as far as what you expect from the participants you manage, no?  A lot of those members are deathly afraid of losing a spot in a campaign or pissing off a campaign manager, so they'll avoid doing what you were so outraged about even if you didn't explicitly tell them to.  Doubt me?  Remember lightlord's campaigns and his failure to pay the participants?  Very few of them even said a word about it, and there were even some who'd defend him in spite of them being in the process of being fucked over.  Just saying that as a campaign manager, even a statement that doesn't include any new requirements might very well do so simply because of the power they wield.