Grant Discussion Marketing & Website Initiative Discussion

Secured
#1
(Note: This is not a protocol grant. We are simply using this system for increased transparency and engagement of the project, as well as having an additional project to test the viability of this way of updating and being transparent in grants)

This thread may be used to discuss anything related to the Marketing & Website Initiative and our updates to it in it's Grant Update thread. Thank you.
 
Secured
#3
In my opinion, in terms of promoting projects and sites on factomprotocol.org we should just look at things objectively and promote what is going to be best in terms of promoting the protocol.
That is likely to mean giving preference to big names that people outside the community will recognize. I think also means giving preference to the best content as well.

Hopefully, we should be able to objectively tell as a community whether one case study is better than another, or if one project or name sounds more impressive.
 
Secured
#6
@Julianft I definitely think its a good idea to see if we can build a list of either existing case studies or possible case studies which can be added to the site. As to determining which to offer prominence, I would agree its probably best for you guys to determine for the first version then once the site is live and we have more time we can focus as a community on contributing more.

In the long term, we could even sell prominence to help fund the foundation :)
 
Secured
#9
@KiwiWithLazerEyes Let me expand on what I laid out in the other post to help the visualization process

For this initial version, there will be
-a Home page
-a Protocol or Technology page that will include an overview of how the protocol works, and a selection of technologies on top of the protocol like decentralized identities.
-an Enterprise Solutions page
-an Ecosystem page
-and a Developers portal

The Enterprise solutions page is the main topic here. What I'm hoping to do right now is create a very standard page where each section on the page is a like "card" that can be rearranged and replaced pretty easily giving us more flexibility with the space. Not a plug for Lisk, they just have a nice website, but im talking about something like this.

1539830132665.png


But sections could be like "Enterprise Scanning Solutions" with a blurb about sphereons Kofax and if you clicked on it it could link out to sphereon's page on that even. If we go that route, you can see that is tremendously valuable space, and brings up some major issues for us to work through. Does that answer your question well enough?
 
Secured
#10
Yeah thanks, that does lay it out nicely.

It's definitely valuable space, but right now it shouldn't be overly complicated as we have only a handful of enterprise-ready solutions to be showcased. Personally, considering there's not so much discussion going on here, I'd have no issue with DBGrow using their discretion until a formal process is defined.

But if we insist on a more decentralized approach, how about offering a list of options to vote on? That would rank it from the top down as well.

Also, have you considered perhaps 4 - 5 'hero' cards and the last card being 'All Solutions', leading to an extensive (approved) list?
 
Secured
#11
@KiwiWithLazerEyes I am pretty okay with that, just thought it was necessary to give the option for community to have a stronger say :)

Because DBGrow has no proprietary work thats publicly available rn, I feel like we are a fairly impartial option for the time being on the enterprise solutions page. I will definitely be a little more forceful getting some community consensus when we get to open source tech :)

Ya I've batted that idea around a bit, I think it could be a really nice solutions, im not sure if its doable for a for a first round of the website if we're still shooting for releasing soon though, but lets talk that through when we get there. Thanks for the input!
 
Secured
#17
A public google form saved on the governance drive could be used for submitting details... Then it would all be in one place and everyone could see who submitted what at what date - to ensure nothing is being subverted.
I was thinking about that as well, but having a public Google form could potentially lead to spam, or at least it would be much easier to spam than a forum thread, e.g. If we do use a form for it, we should still have a well publicized link to the Google drive spreadsheet containing the results to ensure better visibility. I can't speak for others, but I have the feeling that things that go in the Google drive tend to get "burried" at some point, since there is a lot of information on there.
 
Secured
#19
Okay guys for now I'm just going to do this the quick and easy way, people can come to me to give me the material, and make a note in this chat that they have done that and what for so theres a little more transparency to the process. I understand that this is a big topic, but there are so few entities providing solutions, and this is a much longer conversation to have which shouldnt be the priority right now. So instead lets try to deal with any problems as they come up instead :) . I'm willing to take on the risk of trying to resolve conflict there for this short time period for the sake of efficiency.
 
Secured
#21
@Julianft
What kind of issues cropped up and do we have an estimate on the impact on release timeline? As this will be the community website (and potentially subsidized with 2000FCT of grant pool funds) I feel it is appropriate to be apprised of what is impacting slippage more than just “issues cropped up”. As you’re well aware, our protocol is in dire need of a community website and a landing page through which interested parties can begin learning about the protocol without having to navigate 3-4 pages deep to get there.

I wholeheartedly support your efforts on the website and are moreso disappointed to hear a slip in the release timeline due to what I’m assuming is an issue with Factom Inc approving something on the website? If this is not the case, I’d appreciate an update to know what the reason is.

Keep up the great work guys. I’ve heard many positive things from the individuals who have been able to see the draft website and look forward to its release!

-Nolan
 
Secured
#22
Hi @nolan_vbif

Yes, the first version of the website will be delayed for hopefully just a little longer until we work through a couple of trademark issues with Factom Inc. We completely and entirely understand the importance of getting this website out, as well as the importance of handling many of these trademark concerns, and doing so as publicly and transparently as possible with the community. People on both sides are working hard to make this work, and I am trying to get some options and information out to the community as soon as possible. I hope to use that information we can get the community as a platform to launch a much larger discussion to figure out and formalize how we handle trademarks within the ecosystem. This is important for all of us to be on the same page with, and have clarity on moving forward as we utilize Factom for our businesses. Again, I thank everyone for their patience, I know we are all eager to have a website out that represents our ecosystem, protocol, and community.

Thank you
 
Secured
#24
***Continuing discussion from the #Operators-private channel on Discord***

A concern has been raised that there is a contact us form on the factomprotocol website. This website currently sends all submissions of the form to DBGrow as owners of the website.

This was not announced to other ANOs and there are concerns about the existence of the form.

Explanation:
I'll take the blame for the early launch; I had a massive client who wanted to do their own research on Factom and I didn't want them on the Inc website.

Discussion Points:
  1. Why weren't other ANOs informed about the website launch?
  2. What is the purpose of a contact us form?
  3. Do we want to have a contact us form on the website?
  4. Do we only want a mailing list?

My Take:
  1. The other ANOs weren't informed because I requested that the website was available for a client and the website was in a stable and operational state. This was not the right decision and I am sorry.
  2. The purpose of the form is to collect leads that we can share with the most relevant ANO for that customer.
  3. Being honest with myself, I don't think we should have a contact us form on the website at this point. We have not sorted out how leads will be shared and therefore it would be wrong to capture them at this time.
  4. A mailing list capture form would probably be better at this point because it would allow us to build a list of emails that we can do email marketing to for the protocol but we wouldn't be sending emails to individuals based on their leads. The emails could contain ANO announcements and those ANOs would be contacted by those interested in their offering.
 
Secured
#25
Hi Ben, thanks!

I responded more fully on the discord chat, but will quickly touch on the above points.

1. Ya its hard to balance the interests of everyone and theres not always a right way forward. As of now I'd say around half of the community is looped into the feedback process and the rest should know about the website from the posts and feedback conversations on discord, but it's unfortunate if any felt underrepresented as the goal is to represent everyone.

2. Yes. This was mostly put on at the request of ANOs much more knowledgeable than I with how to construct sales funnels, I will let them take on that conversation ;)

3. Same ^^

4. Same ^^

Overall we may have rushed certain aspects, and may be too careful on others. Things are fast paced and we are handling interests from many sides, as well as many different types of legal concerns that are relevant to our ecosystem and to decentralization, such as the delicate TM issues that bleed over into many aspects of the website and how we handle content, as well as trying to decentralize in a centralized world that has laws and protections built around the worlds centralized nature, for example handling data and confidentiality in distributing leads. We are working hard to get through these issues as fast as we can and get all of this out of DBGrow's hands and into the hands of entities like the marketing committee, as you know from our conversations :)
 
Secured
#26
100% disagree about not having a "contact us" form on the website. Yes, there are issues to sort out. Do you really want to tell someone that is interested on using the protocol (end user), "I'm sorry, we don't want your business right now"?

Obtaining end-users is arguably the single most important goal of the protocol right now. And we are going to potentially pass on people interested in using the protocol???

I'd like to politely suggest we all take a step-back and look at this from a high level.

Thank you
 
Secured
#27
I'm looking here https://ethereum.org/ and I don't see a Contact Us form. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think not having that hasn't really been a blocker for Ethereum to acquire interest from customers and speculators/investors. As such, I don't think having this form on the website is necessary for customer acquisition.

As I mentioned previously, every serious customer would have dedicated resources for research of the protocol and I think the easy and fair solution is to have contact information for each ANO. The customer can choose which ANOs they want to contact themselves.
 
Secured
#29
I'm looking here https://ethereum.org/ and I don't see a Contact Us form. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think not having that hasn't really been a blocker for Ethereum to acquire interest from customers and speculators/investors. As such, I don't think having this form on the website is necessary for customer acquisition.
There will be end-users that go to our website. They will want information. They will want to talk to a person. If they don't have someone to talk to, they will leave. Unfortunately, that's how ti works.

As I mentioned previously, every serious customer would have dedicated resources for research of the protocol and I think the easy and fair solution is to have contact information for each ANO. The customer can choose which ANOs they want to contact themselves.
Asking a potential end-user to look through all the ANOs and make an educated guess is a serious barrier to entry. This will drastically lower conversion rates. We need the simplest, cleanest sales funnel possible. That means a contact form that is prominently displayed.

What I don't think is fair is to have a single entity having access to all the leads that are generated in the meantime due the inclusion of the website on CMC.
Agree. But we need a stop-gap solution. Every ANO needs to put the protocol first. That means NOT passing on potential end-user leads even if they aren't the one getting the lead. Therefore, I'd like to suggest that the interim solution be that we give the leads to either:

1. Factom Inc
2. Sphereon
 
Secured
#30
There will be end-users that go to our website. They will want information. They will want to talk to a person. If they don't have someone to talk to, they will leave. Unfortunately, that's how ti works.
I think that's not how it always works. I gave an example: Ethereum does not have a contact form on their protocol website, yet they are doing fine. I believe that most decentralized protocols do not have such a form on their website (I could be wrong, though, I haven't checked). IMO the content on that website and how it's presented is much more important than a Contact Us form and will be the driving factor of interest.

Asking a potential end-user to look through all the ANOs and make an educated guess is a serious barrier to entry. This will drastically lower conversion rates. We need the simplest, cleanest sales funnel possible. That means a contact form that is prominently displayed.
IMO, navigation of the information about all ANOs can be solved by organizing the content on the website in an efficient way (e.g. grouping ANOs into categories; I'm sure there's a bunch of additional things that can help). I want to repeat that, in my experience, any seriously interested end user should have no problem spending 15-20 minutes researching the ANOs. Actually, as a customer, I would much rather choose who I work with directly myself, rather than submitting a form on a website and then getting back a reply: "Hey, you can get in touch with A, B or C." Why should I trust the entity that referred me to A, B or C instead of my own judgement?

Agree. But we need a stop-gap solution. Every ANO needs to put the protocol first. That means NOT passing on potential end-user leads even if they aren't the one getting the lead. Therefore, I'd like to suggest that the interim solution be that we give the leads to either:
1. Factom Inc
2. Sphereon
I would agree with giving leads to Factom Inc and Sphereon as a stop gap (if they are OK with that, of course), but with a single entity controlling all incoming requests there is no way to ensure that this is what is happening.

Overall, I admit I don't know what is the best solution. I suggested one alternative, maybe it's good, maybe it isn't. However, I know that one ANO having access to all the potential leads that have been generated over the last week or two -- from what is supposed to be a neutral website describing the protocol -- is not something that was discussed or agreed upon.

As such, my suggestion would be to remove the Contact Us form from the website, until we have a clear idea about how leads will be handled.