📝[Discussion topic] Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns📝

[examplens]

I always wondered if anyone had ever done an analysis of the effect of a signature campaign. yes, some brands have definitely become much more recognizable because of sig. campaign, these are mostly those campaigns that have lasted or last for a long period.
I've seen a lot of campaigns that last only a couple of weeks or less, whether it is possible to make some results in such a short time? especially if we know that most influential posters have already been in long therm campaign, it is probably quite difficult to find quality-visible posters for a two-week campaign.

I would really like to see an honest experience of the signature campaigns from the owner or campaign managers. What are the effects and what improvement of business has resulted from it?

[snipie]

There is some confusion about the Stake.com Signature Campaign. The BM changed the Thread to [FULL], but it still says there are two available slots.

[FULL]Stake.com Signature Campaign l 2 Spots Open

I guess the remaining slots were filled.

Responding @bullrun here instead of the official topic:
There were 2 spots announced then it was increased to 5 but apparently only 2 were eligible and they joined the campaign, so I assume the title was modified to FULL without removing 2 available slots.
I will contact OP about this.

Edit: Stake campaign title fixed. Thanks for pointing this out

[LTU_btc]

Yes this is right, it is not even a particularly high payout. Then why those poor risk their reputation in such a fraudster campaign? I can't think that they all don't know about 1xbit reputation or how to use the forum.
As anyone joining the campaign got tagged by just joining the campaign, the manager has no option but to accept those users. I don't know if he accepts users tagged from other accusations.
When i see some of them have no trade activity and their trust page is neutreul but for the negative feedback they received from joining 1xbit signature campaign, i can conclude how much ignorance plays important role for those poor users.
Do you really think it's worth adding to OP list of honest campaign ?

I don't like 1xbit at all, but I don't see reasons why their campaign shouldn't be listed. We all know how bad their reputation is, but their campaign isn't scam. Participants get paid for their posts. It's same like we had Yobit and some other services with bad reputation listed.
Users get red tag for joining campaign and I couldn't care less about it. Maybe they didn't knew about such penalty - but it's their fault. They have to make research before starting to advertise something.

[decodx]

Continuing the discussion from the main thread about the new 1xbit campaign...

Do you really think it's worth adding to OP list of honest campaign ?

Since the campaign was set to last only a week, I wouldn't include it on the list. This will only help a scam casino to continue their dishonest behavior toward the community.
I pity those who unknowingly submit their applications there, as they will surely get a negative tag right away.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

but their campaign isn't scam. Participants get paid for their posts. It's same like we had Yobit and some other services with bad reputation listed.
Users get red tag for joining campaign and I couldn't care less about it. Maybe they didn't knew about such penalty - but it's their fault. They have to make research before starting to advertise something.

The main point is that the folks behind 1xbit are scammers, so they should not get any sort of publicity at all. Anyone who has been around knows how much of a scam the casino is. Let's not try pretending like the mods that turn blind eyes to scam threads regardless of how many times they are posted.

We can make the decision not to publish their campaigns. It's not like members are tied up by the no scam moderation policy like the forum mods and admins.

[examplens]

Users get red tag for joining campaign and I couldn't care less about it. Maybe they didn't knew about such penalty - but it's their fault. They have to make research before starting to advertise something.

Users should need to be warned if there any risk to be tagged just because of joining in specific signature campaign.
I am judging by myself, I didn't always check deeply what kind of campaign it was. Especially if it's a solid campaign where there is great interest, so while I explore all the places are filled.
simply, some users read, only a certain part of the forum and are not up to date with all possible known problems. everyone deserves to correct a mistake.

[coupable]

but their campaign isn't scam. Participants get paid for their posts. It's same like we had Yobit and some other services with bad reputation listed.
Users get red tag for joining campaign and I couldn't care less about it. Maybe they didn't knew about such penalty - but it's their fault. They have to make research before starting to advertise something.

The main point is that the folks behind 1xbit are scammers, so they should not get any sort of publicity at all. Anyone who has been around knows how much of a scam the casino is. Let's not try pretending like the mods that turn blind eyes to scam threads regardless of how many times they are posted.

We can make the decision not to publish their campaigns. It's not like members are tied up by the no scam moderation policy like the forum mods and admins.

I can't get your point here. If scams are not moderated by the forum, why you accuse mods that they turn blind eye to topics promoting scams?  The only time i remember admins interfered was in Yobit signature campaign which had all participants had temporary signature ban but this was because The campaign set a strange rule of counting endless limit of posts and the campaign was paying per post basis; those who were banned had at least one report for one of the posts he mad while wearing Yobit campaign. I remember Yobit campaign hired manager Yahoo to run the campaign without any issues for all the users who joined it. Why it's not the same with 1xbit casino especially as the signature campaign isn't a scam itself ?

[decodx]

but their campaign isn't scam. Participants get paid for their posts. It's same like we had Yobit and some other services with bad reputation listed.
Users get red tag for joining campaign and I couldn't care less about it. Maybe they didn't knew about such penalty - but it's their fault. They have to make research before starting to advertise something.

The main point is that the folks behind 1xbit are scammers, so they should not get any sort of publicity at all. Anyone who has been around knows how much of a scam the casino is. Let's not try pretending like the mods that turn blind eyes to scam threads regardless of how many times they are posted.

We can make the decision not to publish their campaigns. It's not like members are tied up by the no scam moderation policy like the forum mods and admins.

I can't get your point here. If scams are not moderated by the forum, why you accuse mods that they turn blind eye to topics promoting scams?  The only time i remember admins interfered was in Yobit signature campaign which had all participants had temporary signature ban but this was because The campaign set a strange rule of counting endless limit of posts and the campaign was paying per post basis; those who were banned had at least one report for one of the posts he mad while wearing Yobit campaign. I remember Yobit campaign hired manager Yahoo to run the campaign without any issues for all the users who joined it. Why it's not the same with 1xbit casino especially as the signature campaign isn't a scam itself ?

One argument might be that the 1xbit campaigns are not managed by a respected campaign manager or a forum member. They are run by the same person who promotes scam casino on the forum. They accept almost everyone into their campaign and don't care about the quality of the posts. It has been reported in multiple instances that they have accepted well-known spammers, shills, and scammers. So in the end, their campaigns negatively impact the entire forum community.

[icopress]

So guys.

Within 24 hours I will announce a campaign that will last four weeks in test mode, (rather large and on behalf of a fairly well-known brand). I would like to hear from you guys what, in your opinion, the conditions of the campaign should be in order for it to be ideal. Please be objective because we live in the real world.

I ask because if we can build easy and trusting relationships from the very beginning, then the action will last for a long time.

[icopress]

- write where you want (well, maybe with the reasonable exception of some sections, like off-topic, bounty section)
- total freedom for locals participants (some campaigns only accept English posts)
- no mandatory weekly quota for the minimum number of posts
- no mandatory posting in specific sections (as is often the case in gambling campaigns)
- the presence of both a full-fledged campaign (signature + avatar), and just an avatar campaign, recently there have already been 2 such campaigns, including yours, and this is a good option to attract additional good posters.

Damn, I thought you could add something! You just described the type of campaigns I run! 

[JeromeTash]

So guys.

Within 24 hours I will announce a campaign that will last four weeks in test mode, (rather large and on behalf of a fairly well-known brand). I would like to hear from you guys what, in your opinion, the conditions of the campaign should be in order for it to be ideal. Please be objective because we live in the real world.

I ask because if we can build easy and trusting relationships from the very beginning, then the action will last for a long time.

Given that the brand would want its signatures to appear in boards of interest (I mean, you can't advertise a service that accepts only bitcoin in altcoins section) it's understandable if there were boards where post would or would not be counted, but It would be awesome if at least the accept weekly minimum post limit was low or no limit at all.

Most of the campaign requirements are pretty much ideal both for the participants and the clients.

[Rikafip]

So guys.

Within 24 hours I will announce a campaign that will last four weeks in test mode, (rather large and on behalf of a fairly well-known brand). I would like to hear from you guys what, in your opinion, the conditions of the campaign should be in order for it to be ideal. Please be objective because we live in the real world.

Looking at the rules of the campaign that you are already running, you covered almost every complain that I have when look at many other campaigns (no minimum quota, no forcing to write in certain boards etc) but one thing that I think would improve your next campaign is to open it for lower rank members too, more specifically Member and Full Member ranks.

I know that there are no many quality new members that are climbing up those lower ranks, but I am sure that there would be at least few good ones that you could get on board. You don't have to set up a specific quota on how many of those can join, but it wouldn't hurt to keep it open for them, just in case some hidden gem appears. Tbh, I am surprised that more campaigns are not allowing lower ranks, seeing how hard is to fill campaigns with quality high rank members.

[icopress]

[...]

Actually, I make exceptions for such nuggets ... for example, for n0nce, when he was a full member, the designer created an individual signature. Also, if you know names that I should look out for, feel free to post them here. What's more, I'm currently reviewing other campaign spreadsheets and adding names to my draft to send out invitations. I don't think there are many managers on the forum who care so much about the prestige of the campaign.

[Rikafip]

Actually, I make exceptions for such nuggets ... for example, for n0nce, when he was a full member, the designer created an individual signature.

Good to hear that you are willing to go extra length for a quality lower ranked member, even though finding another member of n0nce quality won't be an easy task.

Also, if you know names that I should look out for, feel free to post them here.

Can't say that I noticed someone extraordinary lately, but if I do I'll let you know.

What's more, I'm currently reviewing other campaign spreadsheets and adding names to my draft to send out invitations. I don't think there are many managers on the forum who care so much about the prestige of the campaign.

Kudos for the effort. Since you are on the lookout for a quality members, have you tried doing the same for lower ranked ones via The future of Bitcointalk: Low Ranking Top Merit earners in the past 30 days. Majority of names there are probably merit farmers, but there might a couple of genuine talents.

[CLS63]

I think that every signature campaign participant can write a review about the thing they introduce. It doesn't have to be a very detailed review. But at least people can learn about what they are introducing by doing this and this can increase the visibility of the thing being introduced on the forum. Reviews don't have to be only positive. We need to be able to see the positive and negative sides of that thing from an impartial point of view.

[notblox1]

Within 24 hours I will announce a campaign that will last four weeks in test mode, (rather large and on behalf of a fairly well-known brand). I would like to hear from you guys what, in your opinion, the conditions of the campaign should be in order for it to be ideal. Please be objective because we live in the real world.

I think best campaign should enable members to make any amount of posts they want, not limited with minimum number posted for each week, because I can be busy sometimes and I can't write in forum.
Making bonus payments each week for members with best post would be great and that would motivate them to write better quality posts.
I would like to have personal text below avatar available so I can write anything I want if it is not against current signature campaign.
Good campaigns should be longer term, and I would accept lower payment if manager can guarantee that campaign will be active for few months.

[dragonvslinux]

So guys.

Within 24 hours I will announce a campaign that will last four weeks in test mode, (rather large and on behalf of a fairly well-known brand). I would like to hear from you guys what, in your opinion, the conditions of the campaign should be in order for it to be ideal. Please be objective because we live in the real world.

I ask because if we can build easy and trusting relationships from the very beginning, then the action will last for a long time.

Haven't done a sig campaign for a while, as they are mostly for casinos/gambling in order to attract degenerate gamblers to their cause. Super pleased that Wasabi Wallet has come to bitcointalk, and that posts aren't required in gambling sections. Hopefully a long-time relationship can be fostered, similar to mixing websites like Chip Mixer that benefit from long-term sig campaigns.

I otherwise think bonuses for most merited participants would be an interesting dynamic, rather than those who max out the campaign getting paid the most, in order to encourage quality of posting not just quantity.

[logfiles]

I otherwise think bonuses for most merited participants would be an interesting dynamic, rather than those who max out the campaign getting paid the most, in order to encourage quality of posting not just quantity.

Relying on most merited alone can get boring and sometimes unfair.

We do have users here who could just make a few lines or a meme in the Bitcoin wall observer thread, and that would be enough for them to earn 20-30 merits per week, while someone who made constructive posts in other threads could get just 10 merits or even none.

[yhiaali3]

Good campaigns should be longer term, and I would accept lower payment if manager can guarantee that campaign will be active for few months.

I agree with you that good campaigns should be long, also I accept that the payment is less if the campaign is longer, when the campaign is long and there is no minimum number of posts the participants feel comfortable and the quality of the posts is higher because they will not be in a race against time.
But I think that the length of the campaign is not determined by the campaign manager, but by the advertising company. The campaign manager can, of course, request that the campaign be long, but the advertising company does not have to agree to the request because it may have a limited budget for the campaign.

[joker_josue]

I otherwise think bonuses for most merited participants would be an interesting dynamic, rather than those who max out the campaign getting paid the most, in order to encourage quality of posting not just quantity.

Relying on most merited alone can get boring and sometimes unfair.

We do have users here who could just make a few lines or a meme in the Bitcoin wall observer thread, and that would be enough for them to earn 20-30 merits per week, while someone who made constructive posts in other threads could get just 10 merits or even none.

That's right.

This type of control would only be possible if there were specific rules for attributing merits. Fortunately, that doesn't exist, and it's up to each user to assign merits to the posts they think they should.
What for one user may deserve merit, for another may not. So relying on this to get rewards in campaigns can give a false sense of quality.

The job of a campaign manager, turns out to be a bit like that, to check the quality of posts from registered users. Maybe for the first few weeks, being more attentive to the type of posts that users he doesn't know.