Free Advertising, YES or NO

[NavI_027]

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?

As long as you did it based on your own will or you are not forced to do so then I think there's nothing wrong with that. Actually, prospective participants tend to do it simply because they want to impress the manager. Yeah I know CM still depends on one's activity, merit and everything but he is more interested to those applications with "Wear signature: Yes" than "Wear signature: Will do after getting accepted" most of the time. However, such act gives no guarantee but only an increase to your chance .

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

That's not the point I think. Whether it is required or not, there is no specific rule for that thus you can do it freely.

[FinneysTrueVision]

Even though it is not a requirement it might improve your chances to get accepted so it is worth the risk. Also, with many casinos the users will already be wearing the signature of the campaign they want to join because it's a good way to promote their own referral link.

[FIFA worldcup]

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? 

This should not be compulsory and the manger should not give the benefit to those who have wear the signatures before.
The reason is not free advertising but let suppose a person is already in another campaign, but now he sees a better campaign and he changes signature and apply for it. If the new campaign does not accept him, he will lose his previous campaign too because he already changed his signature.

[electronicash]

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? 

This should not be compulsory and the manger should not give the benefit to those who have wear the signatures before.
The reason is not free advertising but let suppose a person is already in another campaign, but now he sees a better campaign and he changes signature and apply for it. If the new campaign does not accept him, he will lose his previous campaign too because he already changed his signature.

no one is forcing him to apply to another campaign though. its his free will.

but why don't he just apply and wear the signature and avatar later when he is confirmed accepted. it would not risk his position in his current campaign and then also get the chance to be accepted to the new one. as far as i know that is what other users are doing.

[FIFA worldcup]

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? 

This should not be compulsory and the manger should not give the benefit to those who have wear the signatures before.
The reason is not free advertising but let suppose a person is already in another campaign, but now he sees a better campaign and he changes signature and apply for it. If the new campaign does not accept him, he will lose his previous campaign too because he already changed his signature.

no one is forcing him to apply to another campaign though. its his free will.

but why don't he just apply and wear the signature and avatar later when he is confirmed accepted. it would not risk his position in his current campaign and then also get the chance to be accepted to the new one. as far as i know that is what other users are doing.

I understand this but i was only saying in case he wants to apply in a campaign where the manager is enforcing this rule or only accepting participants who are already wearing the signatures.

[Pmalek]

...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.

You are probably right. 6 members have so far voted that they don't think it is OK. But I don't see 6 posts where users state that they are against such doings.

As long as you did it based on your own will or you are not forced to do so then I think there's nothing wrong with that.

It's not your will if it's a requirement of the campaign and a rule. You are not being forced to do it but the rule makes you think: Will the manager even consider me if I don't update my signature like the other people did?

Even though it is not a requirement it might improve your chances to get accepted so it is worth the risk.

It doesn't help at all. And it shouldn't. If the quality of your posts don't meet the personal requirements of the campaign manager, changing your signature details will not improve that.  

[SFR10]

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?

I could easily argue for both sides but in the end, I'm not bothered with the end result...
<sup>- We could be wearing a sig/avatar while not posting anything before getting accepted (regardless of the potential conversions from our previous posts).
- When we apply in such campaigns, we put ourselves out there and by doing so, there will be a risk of losing/wasting a small portion of our efforts for nothing (part of the system).</sup>

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

I do.

[pilosopotasyo]

Even though it is not a requirement it might improve your chances to get accepted so it is worth the risk. Also, with many casinos the users will already be wearing the signature of the campaign they want to join because it's a good way to promote their own referral link.

It will not improve your chances if you are a shit poster or you are tagged I, prefer not to wear the signature before I get accepted this is not to lose your current signature campaign if you are not accepted then you lose the campaign you previously had, manager understand this.

[libert19]

I'm ok with that, in the end it's participant's choice. BMs should always give a clear note about that though.

[Hhampuz]

I usually have this rule in my campaign threads and It's mainly just a copy/paste thing that I never changed from way back.. AFAIK I've never enforced this rule though. As a matter of fact sometimes I try and work with the users applying to make sure they get paid in their current campaign before they switch over (if they are in a campaign when applying). Not sure how others do it though..

[cryptovigi]

I fell out of circulation a bit, but previously I applied to many campaigns and I have seen many times that applying users simply wrote "Will wear signature and avatar once accepted" or something similar and many of them got a spot in the campaign so I don't think it is the most important for good campaign manager. Finding a good candidate is much more valuable than two days of free advertising by a shitposter ...

[Twentyonepaylots]

I fell out of circulation a bit, but previously I applied to many campaigns and I have seen many times that applying users simply wrote "Will wear signature and avatar once accepted" or something similar and many of them got a spot in the campaign so I don't think it is the most important for good campaign manager. Finding a good candidate is much more valuable than two days of free advertising by a shitposter ...

Some users wear the signature beforehand because they think they will highly selected once the manager sees they are already wearing the signature or the avatar when in fact it does not. The manager has the right to select the participants whom he sees a good advertiser for the campaign. And there are confident participants who removes their signature when they see a new campaign though they already have an existing one, once they got rejected they will just put back the signature of their first campaign. such a shame.

[LTU_btc]

I don't think it's something wrong to give free advertising when applying. But personally, when I apply to campaigns, I don't change my avatar and signature. It's not because that I'm in other campaign at this time. It's because there is guarantee that manager will accept me. So, then I would have to remove that signature and avatar and add old one. It's not needed extra task. It's not something difficult, but when I'm on mobile, it's not very comfortable to copy/paste these signature codes, download avatar. I update my signature only when I get confirmation from manager that I'm accepted.

[Pmalek]

I usually have this rule in my campaign threads and It's mainly just a copy/paste thing that I never changed from way back.. AFAIK I've never enforced this rule though.

From my own experience, no you haven't. We have worked together in several campaigns and I was accepted in each and every one of them without putting on the signature beforehand.

Just so everyone is on the same page, this has nothing to do with a specific campaign manager, nor am I targeting anyone with this thread. It is just a rule that I have noticed in almost all campaigns.

Based on the votes, the results strongly suggest that users don't mind.
20 (66.7%) users have no problem wearing a signature.
 9 (30%) members think it is not OK to put it on before being accepted in the campaign.

[actmyname]

It might screw up people who are already in campaigns and aren't accepted for the new one.

This makes sense to me, though. If you aim to switch campaigns, then clearly you're confident in your writing skills, to a degree where you're willing to take an interim period to establish yourself in a (probably) better campaign. Interestingly enough, from a service provider standpoint, it's actually worse for them to add these requirements as it does remove some incentive to apply to the campaign, especially if you write quality posts. Though, I don't think that the best posters here switch campaigns that often.

[FIFA worldcup]

It might screw up people who are already in campaigns and aren't accepted for the new one.

This makes sense to me, though. If you aim to switch campaigns, then clearly you're confident in your writing skills, to a degree where you're willing to take an interim period to establish yourself in a (probably) better campaign. Interestingly enough, from a service provider standpoint, it's actually worse for them to add these requirements as it does remove some incentive to apply to the campaign, especially if you write quality posts. Though, I don't think that the best posters here switch campaigns that often.

You are never sure if the new high paying campaign last for a week or month or more. Moving to other campaign is a risk itself even if you are selected.

Secondly, people does not mind if they wear signatures before being accepted, they only care if they can get into the campaign somehow and wear the signature in advance only for the hope to get selected.

[gentlemand]

If you aim to switch campaigns, then clearly you're confident in your writing skills, to a degree where you're willing to take an interim period to establish yourself in a (probably) better campaign.

Judging by the drooling zombies who mindlessly apply for everything I'm not so sure that applies.

Interestingly enough, from a service provider standpoint, it's actually worse for them to add these requirements as it does remove some incentive to apply to the campaign, especially if you write quality posts. Though, I don't think that the best posters here switch campaigns that often.

Yes. I absolutely would be discouraged from considering switching if this requirement was upheld. I'd have a probe of something else if it was risk free and no further. And some campaigns take on a pretty ragged bunch or have very peculiar and unspoken requirements so even if I was confident in my own soaring genius, that may not be recognised by them.

[actmyname]

Judging by the drooling zombies who mindlessly apply for everything I'm not so sure that applies.

Well, humans aren't exactly ideals, right? That's why we always use rational agents in our strategic planning.

Shitposters aside, the intent of making such a rule can be seen as reasonable.

Yes. I absolutely would be discouraged from considering switching if this requirement was upheld. I'd have a probe of something else if it was risk free and no further. And some campaigns take on a pretty ragged bunch or have very peculiar and unspoken requirements so even if I was confident in my own soaring genius, that may not be recognised by them.

Another case of how status quo thinking with signature campaigns has made it worse.

[UserU]

IMHO, I would not wear the signature unless I'm accepted, because I have to earn a spot.

Wouldn't be fair if I'm advertising for a service I wouldn't even be using without some sort of compensation given this is a populous Bitcoin forum.

[OcTradism]

If the campaign rule does not require to wear avatar and signature, people can not wear it.
Stay with rules, it is all people must bear in mind.

If rule does require it but you don't wear it, your application will not be taken into consideration.

Free advertisement or not, who do kind it. If we take into account most of forum users don't make posts or make less posts if they are not in campaigns. I say most, not all.