I agree with you with Content being the king but it should also be in mind that the content should be reachable to audience. Impressions and reach do matter in this case. Having the content and not enough reach is also I believe not good.
I believe it should be Content + Impressions both.
I already stated in my proposals that the targeted audience is general non tech savy audience which I want to experience NEAR as their first blockchain. Keeping that in my mind I had delivered the content that they can easily understand and tried to bring their attention by basic things first. As suggested in past proposal by Kitchen Guild & Other great contributors in the community that I shouldn’t post such content that is too direct or with complex information to digest by the general audience. That would’ve lead to harsh rejection.
I agree with you & will ask the account to keep it bit relevant . Also would ask to give NEAR related story more gap.
I would like to state this again that users are general and they will gain knowledge step by step.
I am thankful that you shared these, I would take these suggestions!
I have stated the purpose already in Jan & this proposal. With the impressions, I would like to say that people organically shared the content that was posted. If you wish I would share the screenshots of that from Jan. I understand that not every person seeing post interact with it really but the people who are sharing can be considered really attentive towards the content.
I need to share the write up or the designs as well? For the designs, It was created by rvcj team earlier. If you wish to see the designed content, I would take help from other designer by myself
I planned the content and gave the write ups and rvcj designer designed, after that It was shared with @Lolson_tg & @baxoff for the feedback before posting.
I don’t think I did wrong here as the Kitchen guild has a good experience and both the members are Degens council as well.
Sure no worries, I would wish to hear comments from other @marketingdao-council
as well after going through proposal, last report and comments.
I appreciate your suggestions and ask again if you wish to see the designed content that we will post, I will ask some designer to help me design and show to you. Just lmk if I need to do that first in your point of view.
All these posts have already been assigned to the Marketing DAO and Council members will work their way through when they have a chance. Tagging them everywhere actually just adds to the clutter and makes it harder to navigate to the forum. Thanks
I haven’t seen anything in the material across the social media links that is NEAR specific. Don’t get me wrong- it’s cool + nice pop culture stuff. I think it’s just not really a Near initiative. So it’s a “no” from me.
Hi @Klint , Thanks for your comment. If you have read the proposal, you must have seen that the target is general audience and the NEAR initiative here is to bring that audience’s attention to NEAR. As far as I know from my experience here, MarketingDAO supports direct marketing promotions as well, it can be considered such reason why the earlier councils (Some from NF) approved the proposal in Jan.
And those NEAR links are to redirect people to read more info from the brief infographics because it’s not possible to cover whole article in the insta post right?
The interested people visited those links, they shared the content and even saved.
As You have a great experience in marketing since many years, It’s my pleasure to get some suggestions to improve the plan or any other feedback
The nature of the media on the Twitter and Facebook accounts seems mostly identical and not geared in particular to Near or Crytpo. These are Meme accounts. It’s a hard no from me.
I would request to close this proposal because RVCJ’s service charges are changed due to new crypto tax law in India. The tax introduced recently is flat 30% on the amount received. That’s why they changed their crypto/NFTs promotion charges because the current amount after deduction falls below their capacity to adjust.
Since two councils are in support and two in rejection and the last one doesn’t seem to review the proposal. I request to close this seeing the service charges change.
, Waiting for your comments here as I have two councils with ‘yes’ and two with ‘no’
