Free Advertising, YES or NO

[Pmalek]

I have had this on my mind lately and decided to create this thread to see how everyone feels about it. It is about advertising in signature campaigns. To be more precise about the free advertising that some companies/projects receive.

Let me give you some more information about what I mean.

As you know, signature campaigns have their own rules that you need to obey to apply for their campaigns. One of these rules is often:
Wear the avatar and signature when you apply! The campaign managers don't force the users to wear the sigs before they get accepted, but the rule is still there, and many users do.

People start to apply, put on their sigs and avatars, and there are dozens of applications. Let us say that it takes a campaign manager an average of 2 days to select campaign participants. The campaign receives a total of 50 applications, and 50 users are wearing their sigs/avatars even before they have been accepted. (it is just an example). Out of these 50 users, 10 will be selected as participants of the campaign. That means that 40 users have been advertising a campaign for free for 2 days.

How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted? 

[actmyname]

Let the market choose what the right decision is. If the laborers/workers decide that the wages are worth the potential of exploitation, then that is their rational (presumably) action given their circumstances.

It is free advertising, but shouldn't you be a great poster when you're applying to a signature campaign anyway?

[/quote]Look, let me tell you this. There's a simple explanation to why I pooped my pants last Thursday. It wasn't because I had the tacos - I love that place - no it was because I got too nervous and you know I get the sweats. Yeah, the sweats, they're really bad; it's almost so bad that my pants get soaked and I need to start changing them but anyway that's getting too off-topic. All I'm saying is, I gotta get back to that Taco Bell. Those were some great burritos. [quote author="

[OcTradism]

It depends on manager and applicants.

If participants think they are truly good quality, and confident on their competitive, and don't want to promote free before get acceptance announcement, they can not wear avatar and signature.

If they think that wear avatar and signature can give them some advantages, they can wear it.

Some managers count posts since the application posts if people wear avatar and signature at the time then get acceptances later.

It is freedom.

[Upgrade00]

That's a rule that many managers state in their requirements, but do not always enforce, maybe due to the fact that the users applying for their campaign may be currently wearing some other signature of some other campaign, and taking that off would mean they would lose their current spot without any guarantee of getting into the new one they are applying for.
Some may use it as a means to check for bugs in the sig codes when launching a campaign. While some actually try to exploit the participants.

Whether or not the rules are fair when enforced, the employer (and managers) reserves the right to make them and the applicants can aswell reject them by not applying.

I think this thread should be in service discussion board, not Meta.

[LoyceV]

It's a free market: the campaign manager can ask anything, and the participant can choose whether or not to join.

Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted?

This is better though.

[bL4nkcode]

If the user's confident when applying and to get accepted, I guess 2 days of wait isn't a matter.

And I didn't see any complaints yet with this reason (with only 2-3 days of wait), I guess this doesn't matter to them.

Also some users applied without wearing signatures just giving a note on application post and get accepted, and that could be applied to anyone though.

[YOSHIE]

How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?

There are two options of the OP question.
1. Applicants are in a sig campaign, of course not using sig, wait for him to be accepted and then he will replace it.
2. The applicant is 'not' in the campaign / is single, meaning he is free to do what he wants, including installing sig & avatar, free advertising.

Conclusion: (I don't mind).

In general, managers choose campaign participants, not based on who is wearing a sig or avatar. The proof: many participants were accepted, from other campaigns, that's the point.

If chosen or not, by the campaign manager is not one thing to regret, even though within 1-2 days using free advertising sig & avatar.

[erikoy]

Yes it is counted and consider as free advertisement since one is not being paid yet. The bounty manager already knows about it but they keep it that way because it is the promotion for the project which bounty manager wanted to keep it up for longer and higher pay for that project.The better promotion it gets, the better pay and longer promotion it could get.

My few cents here in advertising for free does not really affect me as a user. Later on of the application the signature will be remove if not accepted. And if ever I gets accepted then it will not a free advertisement anymore because I will get paid.

There is nothing to worry about it as long as you advertise related cryptocurrency to which most of the users here wanted an improvement with it. I will be happy that I was able to help a project to advertise. Whatever improvement or success being done to that project it means also an improvement to cryptocurrency to which most of us here wanted a development in the world of cryptocurrency to get into the next level compared to what it achieved now.

So free advertisement will be okay for me at least I was helping that project and the users tha are promoting will get higher chances of getting payment. The success of other here is also our success. So let us help one another. But, still receiving few cents of reward still best than doing a free ads.

[Rikafip]

How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted? 

I don't think that should be requirement, to wear signature and avatar before you are  accepted, but not necessarily for the "free service reason". When they start new campaign, goal for both campaign and manager is to get as best members as possible into the campaign (I guess), and quality members are usually in some other campaign, making them less likely to apply if they could loose their spot in the current campaign. So imho it's not the bad idea to be somewhat more lenient in that regard.

But as others said, its always up to manager, and you can choose not to apply if you don't like the rules.

[Casdinyard]

As you know, signature campaigns have their own rules that you need to obey to apply for their campaigns. One of these rules is often:
Wear the avatar and signature when you apply! The campaign managers don't force the users to wear the sigs before they get accepted, but the rule is still there, and many users do.

For most of the time, all I do is update and would just change the signature once and only upon acceptance. The argument is simple.

If you answered no to free advertising, meaning you'd only change once you are part and accepted:
If you were a good poster, a helpful one to the community, and most of your activities isn't a burst post nor a short unnecessary one, then most campaign managers would often take you to join and be part of what campaign they manage. It isn't about when to put such requirement, sometimes you must put your shoes higher if you are a great user in the community. You promote them, you are the influencer, you are to be part of the campaign. Take it as they only pay you by advertising them.

If you answered yes to free advertising, meaning you'd change even you aren't part nor accepted:
If you were just being active and having some quality communication with other users here in the forum, it would be fine to just put any campaign's signature. What would you gonna do if you were vacant for a long time and having a hard time being accepted by the managers? Then just be a good poster, a good user, then soon time will come to you.

Hence, what's the point of having a doubt when to change your signature nor avatar? For me, neither yes or a no. It doesn't matter. Campaigns were just perks. I kept in mind the ideology of "good quality posts matter"... patience, then the light would soon shine upon you.

[Botnake]

For me it doesn't matter, that's the rule of some campaign, wear signature and apply then you wait for the result.
It doesn't cost me much so I don't really care at all, besides, I can even wear signature even if I'm not getting paid, but it's still better if you get paid.

Not a big deal, in short.

[notblox1]

People start to apply, put on their sigs and avatars, and there are dozens of applications. Let us say that it takes a campaign manager an average of 2 days to select campaign participants. The campaign receives a total of 50 applications, and 50 users are wearing their sigs/avatars even before they have been accepted. (it is just an example). Out of these 50 users, 10 will be selected as participants of the campaign. That means that 40 users have been advertising a campaign for free for 2 days.

There are several reasons why this is happening.
One is that members who apply for new campaign want to be accepted and they are not participating in any other campaign at that moment and they think this will help them
People who are in some other campaign usually apply with note that signature and avatar will be changed if they are accepted. (That is what I would do if you ask me)

I didn't saw many managers demanding from anyone to have signatures and avatars before they receive confirmation or before they are listed in spreadsheet.

However, you can use your signature space as you like, as long as you respect forum rules, so I can advertise my own website or business for free 

[Lucius]

I don't see anything wrong with someone having a signature and an avatar as one of the qualifying conditions for a particular signature campaign - some campaign managers won't even consider candidates who don't meet that requirement. The problem arises when a user is already a participant in a campaign and wants to compete for a place in another campaign, but I think most campaigns' managers have understanding and do not require someone to add signature and avatar before being accepted.

I think that it is much more important for the user to be aware of what he is advertising through his profile, and whether he will promote something for one or two days for free is less important.

[Pffrt]

First, I would suggest you to move the thread to service discussion.
It's campaign managers choice how they want their applicants. I think it's easy way for them, otherwise, it may take long time to ensure everyone is wearing the signature and avatar. On the other hand, it's personal decision of every member how they want to apply. If they can't comply with the rules, they shouldn't apply at all and if everyone feels like it doesn't worth applying with wearing signature ad avatar, I think at some point, CM will be forced to allow users to apply without wearing signature and avatar.

[acroman08]

-snip
How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted?  

I don't mind. I am trying to join their campaign and wearing their signature by the time I apply is just another way of showing that I am interested in joining their campaign. it's not like I am losing something if I wear their signature for two days without getting paid. besides, you can put "I'll wear appropriate signature once accepted" if you are not comfortable wearing their signature before you get accepted. I see a lot of members doing this and still getting accepted in the campaign

[mk4]

I'd probably categorize it as a "problem", but it's a really really small problem that it's more of a slight annoyance and I don't think it's even worth discussing in my opinion unless you're trying to apply in a couple of campaigns at the same time.

But yea, if it's a huge problem for you, let the campaign be affected by not applying. But it looks like people don't mind it that much.

[Pmalek]

First, I would suggest you to move the thread to service discussion.

I think it is a good fit for Meta. It is related to the forum and the opinions that forum members have about this particular topic. Service Discussion would also work but I prefer to leave it here.
There haven't been that many responses so far. 10 users voted that they don't mind while 5 individuals think it is not OK to advertise a service before getting accepted.
I didn't post my own opinion so here it is. I voted No, I don't think it is OK. If it was a signature I would be interested in wearing even without getting paid for it, sure, I would. But if I am applying for a campaign, I would rather add the signature if and when I get accepted.

[NeuroticFish]

As long as this happens only for a short while (max 2, maybe 3 days) it's not a big issue. I've seen worse (long ago).
I think that the campaigns paying in their own token not listed anywhere are the real issue. There people work for free without knowing/acknowledging that!

My vote for the situation as OP described it is "I don't mind".

[The Sceptical Chymist]

It is free advertising, but shouldn't you be a great poster when you're applying to a signature campaign anyway?

Ideally you should be, but we all know that isn't the reality when it comes to campaign applications.  And even good posters get rejected from campaigns for various reasons.  LOL at your hidden text, btw.

OP, I've noticed this in the past and I don't think it's fair that some campaigns require applicants to have the signature and/or avatar and/or personal message in place before they get accepted, especially when the campaign manager takes his sweet time reviewing applications.  Lutpin used to be guilty of this if I remember correctly, and if I'm wrong I apologize for sticking him out.  I have a feeling that campaign owners/managers know precisely the effect of this requirement is, and that's why I don't think it's fair.

In addition, if you have to have all the advertising in place in your profile at the time of application, you're basically limited to how many campaigns you can apply to at one time (assuming multiple campaigns have the same requirement).

But it looks like people don't mind it that much.

Most campaign applicants are shitposters, let's be honest.  They're the type that don't like to complain too loudly lest they damage their chances of getting a spot in a campaign--and they're also the kinds of members that won't bother to express an opinion in a Meta poll.  I suspect more people think it's a problem than you think.

[gentlemand]

It's everyone choice to comply or not but I think it's a weird requirement and it feels a bit low rent to me.

It might screw up people who are already in campaigns and aren't accepted for the new one. If they figure out you've removed it for any period of time you can be booted or not paid. They shouldn't be meddling with people until after they're recruited.