Unawarded [GROWTH-FIXER-001] Marketing Strategy including Content

Status
Not open for further replies.
Secured
#31
Vince, we have very different definitions of experiments. In Growth Hacking, experiments would be something like: "Factom Case Studies/Ebook". This is an experiment and the analysis of it would be similar to the questions you wrote. Experiments are Growth Strategies, not insight strategies.

https://blog.hubspot.com/sales/growth-hacking-websites
https://www.pipefy.com/blog/pipefy-features/manage-growth-hacking-experiments-with-pipefy/
https://www.pipefy.com/templates/growth-hacking-experiments/
We do have different definitions, but it looks like we mean the same. Very simple example of the process I have in mind:
- Goal: Get more Developers to the community.
- Experiment: We get more Developers to the community by leading them to a landing page with Factom case studies.
- Tactic: Create Factom Case Studies. Run ad campaign on Developers with website visit to landing page.

I see your experiment as a tactic, it's how you reach the goal of your experiment. In the end, it looks like we mean the same. But this is a process we need to build with the committee and community and we need to create definitions that work for us.
 
Secured
#32
So that I understand costs better, yours for example is 5,600 FCT mostly covering your salary for the 3 months. I'm assuming working full time / exclusively on Factom marketing?
You are correct. It means working (at least) 40 hours a week on Factom marketing, not exclusively. For 3 months starting the day the Grant is received.

Will 100% of all data collected, analytics done, and insights achieved be put into the public for any future marketing initiatives to utilize?
Great question. Yes, definitely!
 
Secured
#33
Sorry, but 2 clear spreadsheets has not convinced me. Have you ever done this before? Could you provide the real data examples/reports/portfolio of your work?

Any things that we can look at and say “yes, probably it’s worth suits requested money for delivering this, let’s try it out”.
Looks like I misunderstood your question, apologies for that. Some of the results I'm most proud of that are also on my LinkedIn profile (where you'll also find references):

At Google Northern Europe's marketing team
- Map out and acquire agencies that are not registered for the Partners program in Northern Europe. I created a market map based on data analysis and managed a team of 6 people that were responsible for contacting. Resulted in a doubled market penetration within 9 months.
- Run an incentive program to increase results while creating scalable initiatives to minimize time spent in the future. After 6 months, we managed to double (2,4x) registration rate and increase revenue with $x million. Future time spent decreased with 40%+ (saving 100s of hours per year).

As freelancer online marketing
- Lowering Cost Per Acquisition, resulting in 3 times more leads with same investment.
- Improved organic search results, resulting in 10 times more visitors through Google Search.
- Helped a customer from idea to start in only 2.5 weeks (website, blog and webshop ready).
 
Secured
#34
Hi Vince. Would you say that the primary group you're looking to go after is developers? With Enterprise customers after that?

And these will be banner ads like Google Adwords you'll be experimenting with, correct?
We think there's 3 target audiences at the moment: developers, corporates and investors. This is co-created with the marketing committee and is a working document that can be changed continuously.

What I'll do to reach them is dependent on the experiment. It could indeed be via banner ads on Google Display Network which you run with Google AdWords (that recently rebranded to Google Ads). But if I need to be interviewing people in the centre of Amsterdam or if I need to be calling 100s of people to get my results for the experiment, I'll be doing that :)
 
Secured
#36
Thanks Vince. My concern is most developers are going to have ad blockers. You have other methods planned to reach them?
Fair point! There's tons of ways, a few that come up my mind:
  • Talk to them at events;
  • Create valuable content (blog posts/videos) that will be shared with influencers and media that they follow;
  • Talk at a conference they'll be visiting;
  • Start discussions with them directly via Reddit or Twitter;
  • Send LinkedIn messages via connection request;
  • Create buzz in their community with e.g. PR stunt or valuable content;
  • Buy native advertising (piece of content that doesn't look like an ad.
This is what came up my mind so quick. Some we maybe shouldn't do because it could create negative reactions or are not scalable, but I hope you get the point :) It's possible, we just have to be creative.
 
Secured
#38
I agree 100% on these ones. Hackathons and events developers are at will be the primary means of attracting developers to this ecosystem. Not digital advertising.
It's also something we need to test. My approach would be creating experiment where I test multiple channels (online and offline), and let the data prove the point. If we get 100 registrations to Discord by talking at them at Hackathons and only 1 from Digital Advertising; point made. I would never want to exclude channels upfront :)
 
Secured
#39
Hi @Vince,

Thanks for your proposal and answering a lot of questions so far.

please also pay attention to the ROI of my grant in stead of the costs.
You mentioned this to @Valentin Ganev and I agree in principle, but the reality is it’s very difficult to determine the ROI of your proposal. How do you define ROI and when/how exactly should standing parties determine the grant has made a return?

In regard to the three explainer videos, there are some very reasonably priced content creators out there. How does your work compare to this quality/price?

https://www.fiverr.com/search/gigs?query=video marketing

Thanks
 
Secured
#40
I agree that decentralization is a multi-faceted concept. Even with that in mind, Factom has many benefits, but decentralization is definitely not it's forte:
  • we are a permissioned blockchain
  • we currently have no on-chain governance mechanism for determining who has the right to write to the blockchain (i.e. you have to go through an off-chain vetting process to become an ANO)
  • we have about 140-150 peers in the network (I think)
  • we are only now starting to decentralize development
I could go on...

I'm not saying any of the above properties is necessarily bad. Factom is not centralized post M3 and will be getting more decentralized with onboarding of further ANOs, core developers, the upcoming non-profit, etc. However, saying that Factom is "one of the most decentralized blockchain projects in existence" is plain wrong at this point and I stand by my statement. There are so many other advantages of the protocol that we should be listing before we get to the point of decentralization, when it comes to marketing materials:
  • stable pricing
  • utilizing the protocol without touching cryptocurrency
  • cheap & efficient tokenization platform
  • companies with vested interest building on the protocol
  • cheapest price per KB of data recorded (as far as I know)
  • language agnostic with libraries in Javascript, Python, Java, Go, etc.
My point is that decentralization definitely should not be on the list of marketing materials we advertise and there are much stronger selling points for the protocol right now.
Depends on what part of permissioned you are talking about.
  • Only 23 or so mining pools make up nearly all the rights to build blocks on Bitcoin.
  • Bitcoin mining pools are not equal. Only 3 to 5 mining pools have total control of the Bitcoin blockchain, should they care to exercise the hash power they have.
  • Factom has 25 parties today running 53 nodes, where 26 of them share the responsibility of building EACH block.
  • None of Factom's ANOs are more powerful than any other.
  • Factom is as open as Bitcoin as far as running nodes and more open about writing to the blockchain (users can write anything).
  • In contrast, over the last MONTH only 23 mining pools wrote blocks into Bitcoin. https://btc.com/stats/pool?pool_mode=month
  • Currently our onchain governance can be improved for sure. We still have 25 or so parties with ties to a community driving decisions. It would be very hard to determine how many people have direct input into decisions in other blockchains, and many are better than we are. But we are fixing that.
  • We only have a small number of nodes in our network. That may or may not change but that does not necessarily impact decentralization as much as security.
  • The development is mostly done by Factom Inc. right now. But that is also changing and the development team at Factom Inc. is very much involved with the operators and the community.
  • You didn't mention the censorship resistance built into Factom with the Commit/Reveal architecture.
  • The two token system that creates a wall between the crypto side (which needs improvement for decentralization) from the data writing side.
  • In the main use case of Factom, the right to write data is in the hands of EVERYONE. The Federated servers do not know what is to be written at the time that they commit to writing, and the writing of the data can be done by any of the Federated Servers once the data is revealed.
  • Determining what that data is, and what it means, and what chain it is to be written in is in the User's hands.
 
Secured
#41
Hi @Vince,

You mentioned this to @Valentin Ganev and I agree in principle, but the reality is it’s very difficult to determine the ROI of your proposal. How do you define ROI and when/how exactly should standing parties determine the grant has made a return?
Hi Benjamin, thanks for your questions.

I know it's hard to calculate ROI at the moment. What is possible though is to estimate the worth of a grant. Us creating a strategy, process, assets and actually executing is worth more than creating 1 animation video. By taking the estimated gain of investment minus costs (devided by costs makes ROI) is in my opinion a better way to calculate than purely looking at price.

The standing parties, and everyone in the community, will be able to determine the return by looking at the documents and processes that are made. There will be documents where I'll clearly mention which activities have been taken and what the result was. Even if it was visiting a hackathon, I'll tell you why I was there and what I got out of it. So that's an easy way. Plus I'm pretty sure that after 3 months there will be clearly more marketing activities, which is easy to see.

In regard to the three explainer videos, there are some very reasonably priced content creators out there. How does your work compare to this quality/price?
To answer this question, I can relate to the grant proposal for an animation video by the marketing committee. There will be a RFP when this one's accepted and we made a proposal for that. You can find it here. I mention this because we're competing with the person who can create 5 videos for approx $3.000 and HyperCube that asks around $16.000. We ask $11.250.

If you look at our quality here, you'll see that we're focused storytelling and that it delivers a message because the animation, storyline, speed, tone of voice and sound come together. If we look at the 5 videos for 500 FCT here, I personally see an animated powerpoint presentation. I don't see a story that could give me a feeling like "holy shit, this factom protocol is doing incredible work and I should be part of it". However, he could create 15 videos for the 1 we create and if only 1 is better than ours - it's incredible value for money :) Last one's HyperCube, you can find their examples on the website. I think their quality is quite similar, maybe a bit better, and they have more experience with creating videos for blockchain projects. It's up to the standing parties to decide if that makes it worth the $5k extra.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#42
Depends on what part of permissioned you are talking about.
  • Only 23 or so mining pools make up nearly all the rights to build blocks on Bitcoin.
  • Bitcoin mining pools are not equal. Only 3 to 5 mining pools have total control of the Bitcoin blockchain, should they care to exercise the hash power they have.
  • Factom has 25 parties today running 53 nodes, where 26 of them share the responsibility of building EACH block.
  • None of Factom's ANOs are more powerful than any other.
  • Factom is as open as Bitcoin as far as running nodes and more open about writing to the blockchain (users can write anything).
  • In contrast, over the last MONTH only 23 mining pools wrote blocks into Bitcoin. https://btc.com/stats/pool?pool_mode=month
  • Currently our onchain governance can be improved for sure. We still have 25 or so parties with ties to a community driving decisions. It would be very hard to determine how many people have direct input into decisions in other blockchains, and many are better than we are. But we are fixing that.
  • We only have a small number of nodes in our network. That may or may not change but that does not necessarily impact decentralization as much as security.
  • The development is mostly done by Factom Inc. right now. But that is also changing and the development team at Factom Inc. is very much involved with the operators and the community.
  • You didn't mention the censorship resistance built into Factom with the Commit/Reveal architecture.
  • The two token system that creates a wall between the crypto side (which needs improvement for decentralization) from the data writing side.
  • In the main use case of Factom, the right to write data is in the hands of EVERYONE. The Federated servers do not know what is to be written at the time that they commit to writing, and the writing of the data can be done by any of the Federated Servers once the data is revealed.
  • Determining what that data is, and what it means, and what chain it is to be written in is in the User's hands.
@Valentin Ganev What this shows is that we're all learning here and we can't expect anyone to have it all right from the start. This is a community and team effort in a lot of ways hence why feedback, criticism and different opinions are necessary for us to improve. So Yes, you make mistakes, I make mistakes, Paul make mistakes. Do we let each other get deeper into our mistakes or do we simply communicate? That's how you get better.
 
Secured
#43
@liveanddie

Do we let each other get deeper into our mistakes or do we simply communicate? That's how you get better.
I think I have been communicating quite openly in this thread and actually brought up a number of points, which could IMO: a/ improve the marketing materials that have been prepared already; b/ make the current proposal more attractive. If anything, comments such as "2 'mistakes' in a 17 pages document" and "these are not billboards on the highway" demonstrate a lack of desire for fruitful communication and improvement much more than anything I've said in this thread.

What this shows is that we're all learning here and we can't expect anyone to have it all right from the start.
I don't think Paul's comments are in contrast to anything I've said in this thread. What they show is that there are arguments for Factom being decentralized. I already stated the same on multiple occasions. However, that doesn't mean that Factom is "one of the most decentralized blockchains projects in existence", and I still stand by my statement that we should push for different USPs when marketing the protocol. The fact that decentralization and data sharing are prominently featured as USPs in the materials for the campaign prepared by Vince, in conjunction with the marketing committee, at least to me shows that the campaign is prioritizing the wrong benefits of the protocol and is not the best choice from a strategic perspective.

In my opinion, for a successful marketing strategy, we need the people sitting behind it to have a very nuanced understanding of the protocol and I believe the materials presented here do not demonstrate such an understanding.
======

Please consider that the asking price is more than 7+ months of ANO income (not profits) at the average ~40% efficiency! ANOs must be available 24/7/365 in case of failures of the network and must respond within 2 hours of a stall, otherwise risk being removed from the Authority Set. In addition to this, they have considerable expenses maintaining their infrastructure. When I weigh this and also some of the grants I mentioned earlier against this proposal, the numbers don't add up. For that asking price, I would expect a campaign executed by a dedicated team of seasoned marketing specialists, who have an in-depth appreciation of the USPs of the protocol. Given the current discussion, I don't have a lot of reasons to believe that this is what we will be getting out of this proposal.

One more point, about ROI: the current grant proposal doesn't guarantee any tangible ROI on the experiments, aside from making the experiments' data public. So, it's possible that after running these 15 experiments, we do not get any further traction for the protocol, but we have burned through a lot of money. Hence, my original suggestion about a performance-based payment at the end of the grant, which is based on measurable success criteria of these experiments. This suggestion was also discarded by Vince.

Overall I realize that you are a very big proponent of this grant and you go to great lengths to advocate for it, here and on Discord. I appreciate that. It usually results in good discussions, such as this one.

Please don't get me wrong: I realize that the protocol is in dire need of more marketing, but that doesn't mean that we have to blindly approve a marketing grant just because it might lead to a bit more visibility for the protocol. In the current bear market, it's anyways extremely difficult to attract new people. In addition to this, with so many things going on at the moment, I believe in 3 months time we might be in a better position to do a bigger marketing campaign.

In the end, I just don't feel that the current proposal is good value for money and with the this grant round being seriously oversubscribed, I find it very hard to come around to support this application.
 
Secured
#44
I think I have been communicating quite openly in this thread and actually brought up a number of points, which could IMO: a/ improve the marketing materials that have been prepared already; b/ make the current proposal more attractive. If anything, comments such as "2 'mistakes' in a 17 pages document" and "these are not billboards on the highway" demonstrate a lack of desire for fruitful communication and improvement much more than anything I've said in this thread.
Well I would challenge your approach with "That's a 17 page document created by a person who's only been active in the community since a month or two ago". And who has also been working quite closely with the marketing committee and other ANOs. Delivering Paid Campaigns and a Persona presentation and an initial strategy.

Food for thought: The core devs who are going to get their grants are going to spend maybe 3 months getting acquainted to the code before actually starting providing value. Here we will get a lot of value in the first 3 months and exponential after that. You seem biased towards product dev, looking at it very differently than this here while it's actually the same.

And this "I noticed several unfortunate mistakes in some of the work you have done already" as what the hell do you expect? Do you think "seasoned" marketers would get it right from the start when it comes to USPs and selling points or do you think there is a learning curve? Do you realize that it's the exact same process for core devs? They need to get acquainted to the code before they can start delivering value? Have you already worked with marketing people that got everything right from the start? There's obviously initial discussions and debates that happen over focus USPs, testing different USPs and properly getting the full picture. This is not just a 3 months job, this is exactly similar to core dev work!!!!!!!!

Those are details that won't be an issue in a few months! The value is the expertise, processes and dedication.

Please consider that the asking price is more than 7+ months of ANO income (not profits) at the average ~40% efficiency! ANOs must be available 24/7/365 in case of failures of the network and must respond within 2 hours of a stall, otherwise risk being removed from the Authority Set. In addition to this, they have considerable expenses maintaining their infrastructure. When I weigh this and also some of the grants I mentioned earlier against this proposal, the numbers don't add up. For that asking price, I would expect a campaign executed by a dedicated team of seasoned marketing specialists, who have an in-depth appreciation of the USPs of the protocol. Given the current discussion, I don't have a lot of reasons to believe that this is what we will be getting out of this proposal.
This is a completely different discussion and I don't think we should get into it right now. ANOs don't provide additional value by running the servers, they ensure the value already provided keeps being provided. So yea, you'll end up with a 0$ worth of FCT if that's the way of thinking.

I've worked with a ton of agencies and I can tell you that this grant smells fucking great. You have a beast and his partner ready to grind fucking hard. Do you realize that if we don't invest here and only invest in product, we're going to see an ever decreasing price? We need to attract new buyers, new interest and we need our ANOs to learn to do the same. Otherwise you're going to dump your FCTs on yourselves.

One more point, about ROI: the current grant proposal doesn't guarantee any tangible ROI on the experiments, aside from making the experiments' data public. So, it's possible that after running these 15 experiments, we do not get any further traction for the protocol, but we have burned through a lot of money. Hence, my original suggestion about a performance-based payment at the end of the grant, which is based on measurable success criteria of these experiments. This suggestion was also discarded by Vince.

Overall I realize that you are a very big proponent of this grant and you go to great lengths to advocate for it, here and on Discord. I appreciate that. It usually results in good discussions, such as this one.

Please don't get me wrong: I realize that the protocol is in dire need of more marketing, but that doesn't mean that we have to blindly approve a marketing grant just because it might lead to a bit more visibility for the protocol. In the current bear market, it's anyways extremely difficult to attract new people. In addition to this, with so many things going on at the moment, I believe in 3 months time we might be in a better position to do a bigger marketing campaign.

In the end, I just don't feel that the current proposal is good value for money and with the this grant round being seriously oversubscribed, I find it very hard to come around to support this application.
The possibility of not getting any results/insights from this is as low as the probability of not getting results from core devs. The only way this would happen is if Vince is blatantly lying here.

Note that I agree with you on multiple things like:
  1. The price of this grant can be lowered so it makes it easier to be accepted by the ANOs and so Vince can start winning some reputation points. I was pushing for this but it's not my grant obviously
  2. A pledge from Vince to only sell x% of the grant to show his dedication and belief in the protocol
  3. It doesn't mean we have to blindly accept this grant, again, I'm with you here and this is not what I'm pushing for. It's just that we have a really good opportunity here (maybe a bit too expensive) and it would be a shame to pass on it with the almost non existent marketing expertise available
No offence meant by the way Valentin. I'm just rough like that. You started off your discussion by poking holes at things that get better with communication and time. Then ended it with suggestions, some good ones, others that show no marketing expertise.

That's my biggest issue with the Factom Protocol Design right now. It's like the Marketing Department is given orders by the Tech department which is an instant failure in any agency.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#46
Thank you @liveanddie, you articulate the points I would like the make way better than I can.

I've worked with a ton of agencies and I can tell you that this grant smells fucking great. You have a beast and his partner ready to grind fucking hard.
Amen.

2. A pledge from Vince to only sell x% of the grant to show his dedication and belief in the protocol
I checked with Laurens and we'll sell 50% of the Grant spread over the 3 month period. The other 50% will be kept at least for 6 months. We damn believe in the protocol. Especially when we can get our hands dirty on the marketing :)
 
Secured
#47
Thank you @liveanddie, you articulate the points I would like the make way better than I can.


Amen.


I checked with Laurens and we'll sell 50% of the Grant spread over the 3 month period. The other 50% will be kept at least for 6 months. We damn believe in the protocol. Especially when we can get our hands dirty on the marketing :)
At least for 6 months after the 3 months? or 6 months timeline total?
 
Secured
#49
As the discussion phase is about to end, I would like to thank everyone for their questions or reading with us. Whether or not the Grant will be approved, I'm glad we had these discussions and hopefully it raised a new sound that wasn't here before. And I hope I taught you a new way of looking at marketing :)

If any ANO wants a free online webinar about this systematic experiment approach of growth marketing; feel free to let me know. I'm happy to explain to you in more detail why Growth Hacking is such a succesful method at fast-growing companies.

Good luck voting!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.