I have given you my opinion on this before if I recall correctly.
You can do this, and its all well thought out and well meaning but...
No info provided through this guarantees any action by those that should utilize this information.
What you are essentially doing with this is trying to teach, those that dont yet know how to crawl, how to fly an airplane.
Ill be completely honest. I prefer "yelling" at our frontend devs for not doing the bare minimum, free stuff, over putting this type of effort behind a proposal like this.
@crimsonclad set a good precedent on how things should be done lately with Hiveblocks on Twitter.
Making dapp founders look bad in comparison to what an unpaid volunteer that runs no Hive dapps is doing, I always consider a better encouragement than a well researched strategy recommendation.
One has the power of emotional and ego appeal. A marketing strategy recommendation they can just ignore.
Just my thoughts. I wish you all the luck though.
The shame game is a dead end IMO.
The fact of the matter is that most devs do not know marketing. Similar to how most marketers don't know development. You can yell at a bunch of entrepreneurial marketers all you want about refactoring a database, and it will never get done. Conversely, shout all you want at devs to get their marketing going, and it's not going to happen.
Sure, you get some unicorns out there who can do both. It's RARE and it's energy sapping to be burning both ends like that.
Rather than rely on unicorns, any competent centralized org would have their dev team do dev stuff and their marketing team do marketing stuff, with a management layer to coordinate the output.
Obviously Hive isn't that, so we need to come up with our own approach. I see this @strategizer proposal as a way for the marketing minds of Hive to rally around something they can start to add value to, rather that standing around hoping that devs will do it/lead it. Once pieces of this start to crystallize, folks that are unicorns, folks that know how to communicate between dev/marketing, or even devs who know some marketing but won't spend cycles on the 'tough stuff' can begin to use the output.
The information is still critical though. A further step, I agree, is a plan to action it. (Aka hire pilots.) Just because there's a risk that the info won't be leveraged to it max potential isn't an excuse to not do it at all.
Thankyou for the intelligent rebuttal! 😁
We agree completely, it is unreasonable to expect teams that are not optimized for marketing and often limited for resources to be able to excel at both marketing and development of cutting edge technology.
Some of the proposals for dApps that are already funded do direct some funds towards marketing, so we need to take steps to try to prevent duplication of effort. However, I am not aware of any of the projects intending to carry out the kind of research that we intend for Strategizer, so they should all be able to benefit in ways that help them to optimize their existing plans.
Cheers!
I suspect most "marketing plans" are "let's put some words out there on X and see what happens (if we remember)" or "make Hive posts." The latter is cool if your Total Addressable Market is Hive users. That's not a really sustainable TAM though, especially if nothing is being done to grow Hive itself.
The former is just... not typically effective. Unless you're hammering it all day, every day, doing non-scalable work like crim or anomadsoul do to get into Spaces, learning the algo, networking, designing smart conversion funnels ('cause all Twitter is TOFU marketing, and all apps (including dApps) need the full funnel)... and we know that is pulling teeth to get projects to begrudgingly author one half-decent tweet a week (which is like going to the gym for 5 minutes a week and hoping to see results).
Me neither! I've earmarked and advocated for market research for WOO (I believe @bookerman is happy to share our general content marketing plan publicly, if anyone is interested. I'll check with him again to be sure if anyone requests though), but it's not cheap and we're pretty bootstrapped as it is.
Thanks for your comment. I can see where you are coming from, but at the same time I think it's a bit harsh to suggest that dApp operators are incapable of understanding how to run their project in ways that lead to growth - even with significant help.
If Hive's whales mostly want businesses to grow on Hive and to bring money in to the system instead of it constantly leaving, then there's no way around the fact that the projects need to become as directed towards growth as possible - which requires access to good data.
The proposal here is intended to advise everyone on Hive, including the people who vote for proposals, so that there is some way to understand whether projects are heading in helpful directions.
It's definitely true that dApps can all ignore everything that is discovered/shared, but I'd be pretty surprised if they did that. I spoke to several of the big dApp operators before writing the proposal and they all said essentially the same thing, that they really need something like this proposal in order to help their own strategy.
As with the Ignite proposal and other marketing proposals, there is no way to know whether the results will be powerful or not, without going ahead and trying it. I had expected that Ignite would produce research and reports of the kind I am suggesting here, but (partially) since they didn't we are still mostly in the dark as to how to navigate this situation.
We are due - this year (allegedly) - to see substantial improvements to Hive's feature set, so now is the perfect time to be laying a foundation for growth based on real world data. :)