Create a second marketing committee?

Unrestricted Public Thread

  • Viewed BI Foundation BI Foundation Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining BuildingIM BuildingIM Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers Core Committee Crypto Vikings Crypto Vikings Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow David Chapman De Facto De Facto Documentation Committee Exchange Committee Factom Inc. Factom Inc. Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable Guides HashnStore HashnStore LUCIAP LUCIAP LayerTech Legal Working Group Marketing Committee 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 Syncroblock Syncroblock
Secured
#1
I applied for the Marketing Committee but it was decided I should not be allowed to join. That's fine and within their right and I'm not contesting their decision. The problem is, Factomize has a host of marketing development projects under design, development and planned AND I personally engage in a host of marketing initiatives and plan on many more. Having a group of marketing-type people I can efficiently communicate with during design and development of software and regarding initiatives would be helpful.

As such, I request permission to create a second Factom Protocol Marketing Committee. Yes, in some ways it would be competitive and in my opinion, that's valuable for decentralization purposes.

I would be willing to chair the committee myself and am open to an additional chair from the community.

Thank you for your consideration.
 
Secured
#3
David,

I think you are well within your powers to create a second marketing committee. I think the issue will be in garnering community support & essentially having two protocol-sanctioned marketing committees. Needless to say our protocol marketing (or lack thereof) has been one of the major points of contention in the past. To have two marketing committees may appear rather odd to an outsider unless there was reasoning behind it. Just my thought, but if we had more information as to the reasoning for your exclusion or perhaps a way to discuss possible COAs to meet your intentions as well as those of the existing marketing committee would be helpful in our supporting this effort.
 
Secured
#5
I know @Colin Campbell and others expressed interest in forming a committee to handle events such as exhibitions and summits. I still feel strongly there is a need for this kind of marketing to promote the Factom®️ Protocol. I hate calling it internal and external marketing since this is not what it is but is it possible to have two committees where one handles the messaging, website, and widespread promotion of the protocol (existing) and one who handles more direct interaction through engagements and exhibitions? David, if we are taking this in the opposite direction of what you are thinking, please enlighten us with what your thoughts are on the direction of the existing committee and where you’d like to see your committee going? Looking for information here and not trying to devolve into some pissing match. 😎
 
Secured
#6
A clear, concise marketing plan for the protocol needs to exist.
Two different marketing factions doing their own thing can easily create mixed messaging. That's not good.

In regards to David not being allowed on the marketing committee:
People involved with the protocol are going to have disputes, that's just the way it is. People don't have to like each other, but they should strive to have an effective working relationship with each other. Most importantly though, they need to put the protocol first.

Is the protocol being "put first" by not having David on the committee? I have a hard time seeing how he would not make a bunch of positive contributions considering he runs Factomize.

Maybe someone from the marketing committee could explain the logic/rationale?

As of right now, I support reconciliation instead of the two committee approach.

Thank you
 
Secured
#10
I know @Colin Campbell and others expressed interest in forming a committee to handle events such as exhibitions and summits. I still feel strongly there is a need for this kind of marketing to promote the Factom®️ Protocol. I hate calling it internal and external marketing since this is not what it is but is it possible to have two committees where one handles the messaging, website, and widespread promotion of the protocol (existing) and one who handles more direct interaction through engagements and exhibitions? David, if we are taking this in the opposite direction of what you are thinking, please enlighten us with what your thoughts are on the direction of the existing committee and where you’d like to see your committee going? Looking for information here and not trying to devolve into some pissing match. 😎
While engagements and exhibitions were not my primary thought, members would certainly be welcome to work on such projects. I don't know the direction of the existing committee so can't comment there.
 
Secured
#11
On behalf of the members of the Marketing Committee:

We have a significant appreciation for David’s ideas, work ethic, and capacity to produce tangible results for the community. His constant work related to the maintenance and development of the Factomize forum is just one example of the value that he provides to the Factom ecosystem.

We would like to inform the community that the Marketing Committee had a thorough discussion of David’s candidacy to become a member of the Committee as part of our regularly scheduled bi-weekly meeting yesterday. There were 10 voting members present, plus the marketing grant sponsor. All ten voting members voted unanimously (10-0) against David’s membership due to various reasons, the most common ones being his relatively recent resignation from the Marketing Committee in September 2018 and some ensuing unpleasant public exchanges.

The Marketing Committee has spent a lot of time and energy over the last three months building a strongly positive and effective working relationship between the current members of the committee and has recently started to gain traction. If David was to be reelected as a member, there could potentially be a significant negative effect on Committee.

The Marketing Committee have been and will continue to work directly with David—or with any other member of the community—to support tasks, inform direction, promote and market the protocol.
 
Secured
#12
As I mentioned in my first post, I am not contesting the decision nor do I seek any sort of reconciliation. I think it's important that committees and working groups be able to decide who is within their midst. The question becomes, when someone is excluded who feels they can contribute more to the protocol by being part of such a committee (for the record, I resigned prior to Factomize becoming a development ANO), what is the solution?

I suspected I wouldn't be approved and the best solution I could come up with was forming a second marketing committee. So I state again, Factomize has a host of marketing development projects under design, development and planned AND I personally engage in a host of marketing initiatives and plan on many more. Having a group of marketing-type people I can efficiently communicate with during design and development of software and regarding initiatives would be helpful.

As such, I request permission to create a second Factom Protocol Marketing Committee.
 
Secured
#13
One thing I do have to get off my chest. Ben, it was a pretty harsh move of you when I asked you about joining the marketing committee and you expressed your concerns about interpersonal issues to which I then responded that I'd pass if my presence would cause an issue. You then responded that you wanted me on the committee (with an exclamation mark) so I decided to apply.

And we ended up with a unanimous decision.

I'm pretty darn tough but that one stings.

Honesty is subversive.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#14
As I mentioned in my first post, I am not contesting the decision nor do I seek any sort of reconciliation.
We were responding to the requests from others for us to comment on the decision we made (Matt, Alistair, Sam, etc). I should have made that clearer when I posted the Committee's response.

The rest of the post is as Ben Jeater, not as a member of the marketing committee.

You then responded that you wanted me on the committee so I decided to apply.

And we ended up with a unanimous decision.

That one stings.

Yes, David, I did support your application in discussions via DM. During those conversations, I asked if you would (in the interest of community harmony) be willing to extend an olive branch by apologising to those in the committee who felt you were overly critical and defaming towards them.

Your response was that you had nothing to apologise for and that you would not apply if an apology was asked for; this was a significant contributing factor to my change of mind.

I am sorry that my change of mind hurt you, that was not my intention. If this will be an ongoing issue, then I am happy to have a conversation about it (with or without mediation) to ensure that we work through this pain and can continue to do what is best for the community.

Regarding the topic of creating a second marketing committee:
I think creating competition for the time of community members to contribute to a committee is a misstep at this point; the community doesn't have that much spare capacity. If the community was to decide there should be two committees then we have to make a decision about how that will work.

I personally feel that if we were to have two committees it will require an agreement between the two groups to ensure that work is not being duplicated and alignment with messaging, branding, and tools. If the community feels that creating this alignment would be too time-consuming and difficult, then there are still three options:
  1. The two Committees just go at it individually
  2. Each Committee makes proposals to the community about what activities they will perform and the community decides if they support those activities.
 
Secured
#15
Ben, specifically, I said I had nothing to apologize for that I didn't already apologize for. I did make a mistake, owned it, apologized for it, and the apology was graciously accepted by the person.

In your own words, you thought it was best that I apologize for an "imagined slight". No, I'm not going to do that.

If I apologize to someone, they will know I am sincere. If I apologized when I didn't mean it, I'd be lying. I'll take people not liking me over people thinking I'm not trustworthy any day of the week. Unfortunately, in our society, people tend to value liars and fakeness over honesty.

I value honesty and integrity which is one of the main reasons I'm so passionate about the Factom Protocol.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#16
I regret that I cannot support the creation of a second marketing committee. I really want your additional ideas and enthusiasm to be put to work on marketing, but I think it would create too much confusion if the only way to do that would be to create a second committee.

However, if you have some actionable ideas in an area that you do not currently feel is being covered by the marketing committee and you need resources to execute those ideas, then I would be more than willing to consider any marketing grant proposal made by Factomize. Unfortunately I cannot help you if you need marketing minds to communicate with.
 
Secured
#17
We are not able to support this either at this time, due to the issues related to potential overlap, confusion etc.

On the other side we do absolutely want your ideas and enthusiasm to be able to further the protocol unhindered, and would appreciate if you figured out another way to utilize these great traits of yours. We would happily consider and support marketing grant proposals by Factomize, or even a coalition of ANOs if you found a way forward by working together with other ANOs under such an informal structure instead.
--
We do also think that the committee structure needs to be reworked as it now are just sanctioned by ANOs and not factom governance. With better processes and framework in place this might not have been an issue (for instance we don't know if it is right that a committee should be able to unilaterally prevent community members to become member. Maybe the ANOs should vote on membership if a person are not allowed to join?)
 
Secured
#18
I am also of the opinion that having two marketing committees at this point in time is not the optimal strategy.

I would, however, encourage you and Factomize to apply for any marketing related funding in the next grant round, as suggested by others. I don't believe that all marketing funding from the grant pool should be exclusively dedicated to the Marketing Committee, so I hope that multiple grant applications will result in a healthy competition, while also contributing to the decentralization you referred to earlier.
 
Secured
#19
I don't like to say no to anyone, and I do believe in @David Chapman ability to add to Factom's standing in the community.

So I'll say that I support David's committee.

There are many marketing efforts in all the major protocols, and across all the companies involved. If having a committee makes David's processes and plans more open to the community (as he is going to execute them anyway) then I see no downside here.

David and I have butted heads as much as any two people in the community. Still I have faith that David and I will always agree to put the Protocol first.
 
Secured
#20
Without friction no shine. I also believe that we need people like David, Matt, Paul etc in an ecosystem like ours. We don't always have to agree, sometimes it might mean butting heads a little, but yes the protocol should always come first.

I am not sure about a second committee tbh. What I have hoped was that the committees would be inclusive and mainly focused on what people can bring to the table. Yes there is some history here, but I am unsure if that should mean he could not be a valuable asset to the committee or go at the expense of the committee as long as everybody puts the protocol first.
 
Secured
#21
Without friction no shine.
Or fiction leads to two committees. It isn't like they can't talk to each other anyway, and I doubt they will have the same focus.

I don't view committees as authoritative or sacred.

Committees are vehicles in the world of our protocol that give us platforms for transparency, gateways for participation, and incubators for ideas. And we have room in our protocol garage for more than two vehicles; everyone should not be required to pile into one vehicle.
 
Secured
#23
If David is unable to join the original marketing committee for contextual reasons that go beyond his acumen and work ethic, then I am fully in support of the development of a second marketing committee.

I don't believe the confusion or overlap that -could- arise between committees would be as significant or otherwise problem-worthy as is currently perceived. I think that, with some time, it's even possible that both committees join together (increasingly more likely as time elapses and the Factom community grows).

In my mind, as a general community member, David is about as important of a mind and mouth as there is in this community, and I know that his dedication to promoting the protocol is one of his passions.
 
Secured
#24
Hello everyone. My name is Anthony Elia and I would like to participate in any capacity available. Unfortunately I am not a developer, but maybe I can help in other ways. Possibly the marketing aspect being discussed.

A little bit about me....

I started Crypto Cribs last summer, which is a novel idea at best right now, selling/marketing Real Estate in exchange for Bitcoin. I came to the realization not long ago that the bitcoin blockchain will need to be leveraged somehow, not creating all these new ICO blockchains. This led to my next idea of BlockDeed (which will be an application on top of Factom issuing title and deed) and subsequently finding Factom again and diving much deeper into the Factom Protocol than I ever had previously. Pretty sure the last two years has led up to me being on this Forum.

I'm also a co-organizer of Womenontheblock.io. We have put on two conferences thus far, with the last one being last month in Singapore with NEM as our main sponsor. The next conference will be Mothers day, here in NYC...maybe we can get Laurie Pyle on a keynote or panel?

Currently working with a startup, FinanceDA, a Science Blockchain incubator out of Santa Monica. We can market direct to token traders using our tokenbot on telegram, slack and facebook messenger. Although, I realize the marketing will be focused around the protocol and the Anchoring features, as it should.

You guys have certainly been around longer than I have, but I can introduce you to exchanges, or more Podcasts. Paul, I dont think I've heard you on "Off the chain" with Anthony Pompliano yet. Im sure they would love to speak with you. they have a fast growing audience!

Anyways, if there is any way I can help or fit in, please let me know.

Regards,

Anthony