pinarello: sorry, but since all you can do is just trolling and bullying (your annoying fighting against dgex (20+ posts), against emule (10+ posts), against marketing (5+posts)), then just welcome to the ignore list.
If you cannot read the googledoc, where are ALL payments from and for the NxtMarketing, then is is not my fault, it is quite simple to click at the link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgAGADgnQcrtdHRrV3V3Z1lzOXVEMWtqdElUaEtqV1E#gid=15There was no partial payment from community funds, everything came from private donators
I am the only one guy who created a list of conferences, who created a list of people of conferences, who is constantly inviting people to the conferences and also who was trying to start to get the funding for the conferences. On the other hand is the only one guy who constantly cirtisez all that comes to the marketing etc
And you must learn to talk in less
I and more we
I have made a video,
I have made an article,
I have made an document
I have…. And repost it over and over
Sure if people ask critical questions about your expenses they get on your ignore list.
I know you wish to go to Amsterdam, I know you wish to go to Berlin, but we have talented people whom live there.
And if that is trolling ok fine
edit: I asume you will pay for yourself IF you go.
Pin
Bit late, but I think relevant.
I have no problems with someone being critical about funds, but as regards to marketing a critical mistake is made: it's treated the same as a technical funding.
When you fund a technical or development effort, it's easy to put measurable parameters: "If we spend X, we expect to get Y" and that is cold hard fact.
With marketing, especially at the start, this is very hard to do, and sometimes downright silly. Anyone who has any experience looking at marketing analytics knows that at some point you just can't say: "X happened because of Y".
That means that sometimes money is spent unnneccessarily. That's what bad marketeers do! And most people, I am sad to say, tend to judge marketing and PR by that standard.
The
other side is, that marketing gets subjected to over-auditing.
I believe in this case, this is happening. I'll be blunt: if people want hard facts on what the result of marketing efforts like LTB minutes and conferences would be, you won't be able to get them. I can tell you that if you don't get good people out there, Nxt has a major problem.
Take the Miami conference. If you'd have audited Nifty and JustaBit up front about numbers, that would have been silly. Even now, when we know that they have made very good contacts, it's still silly. All they can say at this moment is that things are in the pipeline. If you take the hard line now, you'd say: "you don't get funding, because you don't have results". And that would mean they wouldn't be able to
get those results.
I sense a large amount of distrust towards the marketing efforts from some corners. Distrust is something different from critical questions.
I'll be blunt once more: marketing
at this point needs trust up front. That means funding without too many questions, based on the fact that you know some people who know what they are doing are taking care of it. I put it to you that some developers in here would get blind funding because of their reputation and there wouldn't be as many questions asked as there are of marketing.
Also, from a "division of power" perspective, I would be less than happy if the person who does the audit also is the person who takes the end decision about actual spending. That is putting jury and judge together.
I'm not going to beg for PR funds, but I do want people to know that I really dislike being put in a place where I feel I have to defend my talents and job and explain I'm not evil.
