Continue with the marketing videos grant?

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed BI Foundation BI Foundation Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining BuildingIM BuildingIM Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers Crypto Logic Crypto Logic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow David Chapman De Facto De Facto Factom Inc. Factom Inc. Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashnStore HashnStore LUCIAP LUCIAP LayerTech LayerTech Matter of Fact Matter of Fact Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Prestige IT Prestige IT RewardChain RewardChain Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed None

Should we continue with the Factomize Marketing Videos grant?


Have not voted

Authority Nodes Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Cube3 Cube3 Factom Inc. Factom Inc. HashnStore HashnStore VBIF VBIF

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Secured
#1
I've received feedback regarding the Factomize marketing videos grant and want to get additional insight from ANOs as I take usage of the community grant pool funds very seriously. The community voted for the scripts and the grant proposal provided eight videos this artist had done previously so the community could get a feel for the quality they would receive for the price. We delivered the first video and I've received feedback in private that questions the quality, voice over, and script. It is my opinion that what was delivered was inline with the grant proposal and may even exceed the quality of the demo videos but as one person who provided feedback said,
its much easier to critique a final project than a work in progress
which is a fair statement.

As such, I am creating a poll to see if those who voted on the grant would like us to continue with it. If we continue, we will use the same voice actor, scripts, and the quality will be about the same. If we decide to end the grant, I will negotiate with the company and return unused funds to the community in some manner.

This poll will be open for only 48 hours as I'd like to get an answer to the company ASAP.

Please note I will not be upset if the vote asks us not to continue. If the community isn't happy with the quality of the video, that's completely understandable and such feedback is valuable. We should hold ourselves to a certain standard and if something doesn't meet that standard, we should act accordingly.

Thank you.
 
Secured
#5
All of it.

I'll negotiate with the company (I pay them per video and we've started on the second one) and will personally cover anything I'm not able to recoup.
I would not feel comfortable with this. If i were to vote no, it would only be if you returned the remaining funds. No one can reasonably expect you to pay out of pocket for work commissioned by the community.
 
Secured
#6
I would say the animation could be improved, and I agree that the voice over does sound off. Perhaps it may be beneficial to see how they do with one more video before terminating the agreement, then we would have a chance to bring up the concerns we have and see what the company can do to address them.
 
Secured
#8
I would not feel comfortable with this. If i were to vote no, it would only be if you returned the remaining funds. No one can reasonably expect you to pay out of pocket for work commissioned by the community.
We would not accept David to pay out of pocket eiter.

Regarding the video, the narrators voice is a bit hard to understand as it is low pitched and he speaks without much variation in his tone. ideally we would like a new person to narrate but if its not an option we would still like to see the videos produced.

Animation is not great but.... is good enough for the price. It has our support to move forward.
 
Secured
#10
I vote for marketing grants because I want marketing experts to handle the things I don't have the bandwidth and skills to handle, such as video making and script writing. I honestly, personally, don't even want to review scripts before the video is made, though I think it's great you posted them for the community so people who do want to be involved can provide input.

Given the small price tag of this grant and the number of videos produced, I'd rather you proceed to finish out the grant. Since there are five videos to be produced an iterative process seems beneficial where the community gets to review a finished video, provide input and the next video takes the input into consideration to fine-tune the content and approach. If this is more work and more costly than what was originally envisioned I'd be fine with reducing the number of videos to 3-4 instead of five. I think spending 500 FCT on some trial and error content is fine as we'll get videos out of it and a lot of lessons learned that can be applied going forward.
 
Secured
#11
I would say the animation could be improved, and I agree that the voice over does sound off. Perhaps it may be beneficial to see how they do with one more video before terminating the agreement, then we would have a chance to bring up the concerns we have and see what the company can do to address them.
Since there are five videos to be produced an iterative process seems beneficial where the community gets to review a finished video, provide input and the next video takes the input into consideration to fine-tune the content and approach. If this is more work and more costly than what was originally envisioned I'd be fine with reducing the number of videos to 3-4 instead of five. I think spending 500 FCT on some trial and error content is fine as we'll get videos out of it and a lot of lessons learned that can be applied going forward.
Minor changes for future videos are doable such as the feedback to use the branding criteria. But "Improve the quality of the animations" or "Use a different voice actor" are not in the cards as either would increase the price substantially. If the community wants to take the videos and edit them after the fact with a new voice over, that may be viable.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#12
David, unless you are looking to cancel, the grant should run through. We probably shouldn't set the precedent of cancelling grants without cause. I have mentioned in the past that I worry about micromanagement from the community. Cancelling from the Community side, in this case, should not be done. As usual, you are bending over backwards for the Community. If you want out, say so. Otherwise, I look forward to the future videos.
 
Secured
#15
Minor changes for future videos are doable such as the feedback to use the branding criteria. But "Improve the quality of the animations" or "Use a different voice actor" are not in the cards as either would increase the price substantially. If the community wants to take the videos and edit them after the fact with a new voice over, that may be viable.
Understood. I'll be voting to continue the grant. Incorporate whatever feedback is feasible and we'll see what we get in the end.
 
Secured
#17
Hi, I think this has been worthwhile exercise. OK neither the video or the voice over are spot-on but you tend to get what you pay for (except for ANOs and guides who are real value for money;)) So I would prefer an improvement if it was possible, if that means we get 2 or 3 videos rather than 5 then so be it. We should not forget that these videos are our outward face and they do need to represent all the brilliant and hard work that has been put in by everyone concerned. So I vote for providing the video company with feedback and seeing what could be done. If the answer is no then maybe we re-think. As for David paying for any of this I disagree, we all went into it together.
 
Secured
#18
Hi, I think this has been worthwhile exercise. OK neither the video or the voice over are spot-on but you tend to get what you pay for (except for ANOs and guides who are real value for money;)) So I would prefer an improvement if it was possible, if that means we get 2 or 3 videos rather than 5 then so be it. We should not forget that these videos are our outward face and they do need to represent all the brilliant and hard work that has been put in by everyone concerned. So I vote for providing the video company with feedback and seeing what could be done. If the answer is no then maybe we re-think. As for David paying for any of this I disagree, we all went into it together.
The answer is no. This isn't a matter of paying more for higher quality with this company. This is the quality of video this company provides.

I agree with your point that the community needs to set a standard. Are these videos within this standard? That's for all of you to decide.
 
Secured
#20
The answer is no. This isn't a matter of paying more for higher quality with this company. This is the quality of video this company provides.

I agree with your point that the community needs to set a standard. Are these videos within this standard? That's for all of you to decide.
The standing parties voted it in for this price, so they have already voiced their opinion. It would be ridiculous to expect really high quality videos/voice overs for 600$ a piece. As the grant has been awarded I believe most people voting should have asked themselves the question what the value would be for that price and they voted in favor.
 
Secured
#22
Heck, I like the video. I'm looking at 1) Does it make an interesting point? 2) Can a reasonably novice individual understand the point? 3) Can one follow the logic? 4) Does it cover a unique aspect to Factom's value proposition?

Yes on all those points, in my opinion, and it serves well as a part of a constant stream of information to the public.

Not going to pretend that's all there is to consider, but it was what I was looking for, and I like it for those reasons.
 
Secured
#23
While in general I think we should be aiming for high quality, I would say the first video is mostly on par with what I expected given the budget.

If the next videos could address some of the concerns with the first one (such as voice over) that would be great, but I think given the general lack of such material, these videos will be an improvement over the status quo. We need to start somewhere.
 
Secured
#24
While I appreciate the concerns that have been mentioned (the only thing that really stood out to me tbh was the quality of the black explainer text, I do recommend this part is worked on going forward) - I fully support the continuation of the grant. I agree with Paul that overall it does what it needs to and adds value. Thank you for making this happen @David Chapman.