Marketing structure for the next cycle

Governance Meta
2

Thank you for tagging me @Midhav.

For transparency purposes: The API3 LatAm team, with the recent re-emphasis on burning conservation, has decided to make a proposal that will replace and go above and beyond the work of the current Marketing team for the next cycle/s.

The API LatAm team comprises people who already create content, design, and market for household named crypto organizations and backend and front-end developers who can develop Airnode PoCs that complement and emphasize the core technical team’s undertakings. We will continue to work with the teams outlined in our previous proposals and potential collaborators who wish to help.

We are planning to represent API3 at Devcon in Bogotá and Eth-Bogotá. We are currently working on a Devcon campaign, with personal budgets, that will act as a PoC to show what we can deliver for the API3 DAO moving forward in a Marketing team capacity. As we move toward the next cycle, future marketing plans and details will be released.

Moreover, since conserving USDC burn rate is the main issue in this bear-market, our future cycle proposal grants will be a fraction of the cost compared to the current Marketing team’s grants.

It’s important to note that the current marketing team’s budget, on average, asked and was approved for approximately half a million USDC every 6 months. The Marketing team has historically been the biggest USDC grant recipient that is non-technical. Therefore, in this bear market and moving forward, the API3 DAO must cut out the spending that Marketing has had and is not vital to product development.

The LatAm team intends to show that API3 DAO can be far more productive in marketing with less funding with a complete overhaul of the current Marketing team. In the remainder of this cycle and as we move to the following cycle proposals, we will look for our work and its outcomes to speak for themselves.

Finally, I’d like to add that @ryan and @Marcus public accusations and ad hominem attacks against Midhav are utterly uncalled for. First, I have known and worked with Midhav for over 4 years. His dedication, knowledge and passion for the oracle industry are unrivaled. Second, Midhav was pivotal in communicating the API3 values and vision from the beginning and continues to be a key asset in the organization.

It should go without saying, but I sincerely hope people in this DAO can keep discussions civil in a public forum and directly communicate personal grievances with each other or on a team-leads basis before taking such public airwaves.

1 Like
3

Ngl, it’s exciting that people suddenly wake up to actually debate proposals instead of simply passing them, so here are my 2 cents on the situation.

First of all, i want to add that the overall marketing team should be negligable and i personally do NOT consider ecosystem to be fully marketing. Ecosystem is both a business development as well marketing function, and @KenKarv has already shown that he is capable to deliver on this front. In my honest opinion he has done more in regards to displaying availalbe products than any other team combined. I don’t want anyone meddling with that or forcing him to “coordinate” with others, since quite frankly he has outworked any other effort in this regard by anyone in his first proposal month.

In regards to other required teams, i entirely disagree that this needs to be split even further. There is no point in splitting content & marketing, especially since you guys are suggested that content is going to be a 2 people team. Are you honestly going to ask us to vote on a proposal that will ask for like 15k in funds?

The main tasks i see a marketing team doing are:

  • monitor our chats
  • manage our socials (Twitter, Forum)
  • create content (leave the educational part to @KenKarv)
  • manage our website

I am entirely against ever actively going&sponsoring another event, and will actively voice my opinion about the effectiveness of such measures in any upcoming marketing proposal. If you wanna send a single person to network, that is fine and good, but the times of spending 50k+ on such conferences after seeing the output of the last ones are pretty much over in my eyes.

There will be none. Soft-launches are a thing of the past. Consider this in any upcoming proposal.

What is utterly uncalled for is actually this statement. As a starter, i will vote against and actively advoate against any proposal that sees Midhav having control over our public channels (like Twitter) and leading a team of any sort in this regard. This has pretty simple reasons:

  1. As stated before (and during my brief time in marketing), Midhav was and most likely still is completely undependable on. He does what he wants and on his own terms, most of the time completely misaligned to what other parts of teams are working towards
  2. I’m also going to question his industry knowledge (not his passion towards it) simply by the questions and statements i’m getting pulled into to correct. Several members of BD also complained about getting pulled into calls that have zero actual value to API3 and are “qualified” by Midhav. It is weird to think that he would have more product knowledge compared to somebody like e.g. @ryan who actually deployed airnodes, made resources availalbe and is writing scripts for external reports for teams like e.g. Messari.
  3. Character - During my time at API3, i quickly realized that nothing you write Midhav is actually private. Several of our private conversations always found their way to other team members, most often creating very awkward situations. When confronted, he did not even understand what is wrong about it. This goes as far as people commonly knowing and accepting that whatever you write Midhav is the equivalent of posting it in public channels and actively avoiding “oversharing” information with him. I cannot and will not accept that somebody with this reputation will have control over our communication channels. I cannot and will not accept that somebody like that is “leading” a team where people are forced to share information with him as the leader of a team.

Whatever proposals are coming up, i will openly judge them and voice my concerns with them and i’m pretty happy that this box has finally been opened.

2 Likes
4

Hey all, I generally agree with a lot of what @UgurMersin is saying above re the role of marketing and whether to further fraction or consolidate. Re the ad hominem attacks brought up by @Rico maybe I just haven’t been in the right channels, but I haven’t seen any.

As for @Midhav 's qualifications and character, despite the criticisms, I have never witnessed any malicious intent and generally regard Midhav as a valuable contributor to the DAO with an ability to opportunistically (in the good sense of the word) weave himself into many discussions that quite often present potentially valuable opportunities for API3. That being said, I don’t think he’s the right person to lead any sort of “official” communication efforts at API3 and the valuable entrepreneurial features can become bugs in this capacity.

Re marketing spend in general, I don’t think there’s any intention by anyone to keep the spend at the level it’s been at in the past cycles, so referring to past cycles as the financial measuring stick to contrast one’s proposal against is ill guided.

Finally, a personal note that even though the forum is a floor for contesting each-other’s proposals and sometimes that judgement may be tough to hear, I think we will learn that diplomacy is a skill that we as a DAO should value. This means not treating the forum as a “two men enter, one man leave Thunderdome”, even if this would be more entertaining. Imo, stern critiquing of ideas, proposals and people while maintaining diplomacy is one of the core challenges of collectively governing a project like ours. This also means applying a fair and non-emotional reading of the criticism on the receiving end.

2 Likes
5

I think it’s a bad idea to reimagine a complex structure here because the result will most likely not be adequately cost-efficient. It feels like if I was trying to do this, I would follow @Rico’s approach: Don’t seek anyone’s permission and just prove that you can deliver with a lean team.

As a note, it’s not true that the product timelines are delayed. Across the board, we’re far ahead of initial estimates, mostly because these didn’t include products that are already delivered (such as QRNG and https://market.api3.org) and we’re currently making progress into other products that were also never promised but will be appreciated. Marketing doesn’t depend on a specific product to fulfill its function and should adapt. Complaining about some specific thing being delayed is anti-marketing.

1 Like
6

Hey @Rico , your description of your team sounds pretty great and I know this is something you’ve believed in for awhile. I admit I’m not great at following other team’s progress- is there anywhere I can see what your team has worked on in the past in regards to content, design, and marketing?

1 Like
7

Agreed. My suggestion for next cycle is also small. But it’s only fair to note that

  1. The amounts actually spent were less than what was asked for. When you are planning to scale up (which we were until recently) and you expect to have variable expenses it’s good to have more available than you need.
  2. The marketing team used to include what are now other teams such the language/regional teams (China, Korea, Vietnam, Spanish/LatAm) which no longer exist and ecosystem (Ben).
  3. The large expenses such as ETHDenver and EthCC were not decided on unilaterally by me or the marketing team. We had regular marketing meetings, that you often attended and all were welcome to attend, where these event sponsorships were discussed. There seemed to be unanimous support, at least from those who spoke up.
  4. You even initiated and led the Bitcoin Bankathon and the El Salvador effort which was the biggest marketing expense from last year. I supported it but I wasn’t acting alone.
  5. Your recent frustration with me seems to have been triggered by me saying no to a large expense for Devcon that you asked me quite persistently to approve even after we were in cost-cutting mode.

I take responsibility for the expenses I initiated and approved. Especially the PR firm. But I don’t think it’s fair to act as if I spent a lot unilaterally. We discussed and planned these events across teams. It’s clear that all the marketing team ideas being discussed for next cycle are small which makes sense in this context.

I didn’t mean a personal attack. I tried to be as fair and impersonal as I could while keeping the message clear. I think it would be a mistake for him to run the official social handles but if I say so then have to explain why. I apologize if I offended.

I can vouch for Bens hard work. He’s one of the hardest workers on the project and I admire it. I think some level of coordination with marketing is necessary but less is more efficient and better.

Well said.

2 Likes
8

As someone who has made an active effort to be part of marketing/bd efforts, I think it’s relevant that I add in what I have observed over the past 5-6 months.

I see marketing being an integral part of API3 to help the general public understand what we are trying to accomplish and also to keep other stakeholders informed of what the DAO has accomplished as of late. Ofcourse one would say that reading the proposals should suffice but packaging that information in a much more consumable format for the masses is something that marketing should be doing. To that end I think that the current marketing team has served us poorly especially after EthDenver. I’ve stated this to other team members before that the core focus of API3, especially in the early stages should be to market to following segments:

  1. General Public
  2. Developers
  3. Token Holders

I saw that the developer segment was being neglected, which is why I agreed to assist @KenKarv for his ecosystem proposal. I’ve been actively working with him and Vansh to deliver developer content that also serves as marketing towards developers by publishing these guides on different platforms like Hackernoon. I realize that marketing did make similar content before as well but when you zoom out, you realize that there wasn’t a cohesive marketing strategy behind any of these efforts which made it less impactful as a whole.

Now, onto this post. I disagree with what is proposed and instead have Midhav lead Marketing as a whole.

While I agree that Midhav has historically not been the most dependable person, he has shown with his time in ecosystem that he can get things done if given the proper structures. One of the original problems that most teams have is that they don’t have well defined structures or structures that work for them. I would have probably not advocated for midhav before but I’ve come to understand what he would bring to table as marketing lead (assuming the structures are set up right) that others simply can’t. He is one of the co-founders of API3 and has proven time and again to deliver on the improbable. Is he inconsistent ? Yes but I would argue that is to the fault of the structures he had before.

1 Like
9

It is literally the job to set up these structures. Who does this precisely so Midhav can have them in place and perform? I can only judge history, and historically Midhav is not a person i would hand control over our socials or control of a team.

If things have changed, prove it as @bbenligiray suggests and then make a proposal.

2 Likes
10

Given some of what’s been proposed, I wanted to give my perspective on what I’ve seen, and what I think Marketing can be moving forward.

I’m seeing talk that considers Marketing in much the same structure as it is now, and I think it would be a mistake not to take this opportunity for where we are in the market cycle, product development, and communicating about issues not to consider rethinking how marketing is done at a larger scale.

I believe that a centralized marketing team is at the root of the main issues being brought up: over spend, slow turn around, lack of coordination. With the overspend issue being addressed well enough by Ryan in my opinion, I will focus on the other two, though I will touch on how this plan is less expensive for API3.

It’s my position that marketing acting as the voice of the project is unnecessary for 2 reasons. BD and Ecosystem know their target group and the nuances they are trying to communicate better than Marketing, and have direct relationships with important leaders within their customer space.

The only team that directly needs comms support in any real capacity is the Technical team, and I believe that there is a lot of internal content that the marketing team could be doing a better job of translating into lay speak and transmitting to an external audience. In particular the Call Updates channel could easily be turned into newsletter topics, or inspire particular posts if the technology warrants a more specific explanation.

The way that I see Marketing facilitating unified messaging is by taking this next cycle to codify the foundational elements of API3’s branding, with a focus on delivering templated assets that are easy for the different teams to use, per what Heikki said at the last marketing meeting. These would facilitate the decentralization of the marketing effort, and even obsolete the role of marketing manager in its historical context.

Coordination is hampered by a marketing lead who acts as a middleman between the the teams who need content and the creators who can deliver.

Creative work, where possible, would be done by the teams who know how to communicate their message to their target audience. This will change the responsibilities of design and copywriting within the Marketing team primarily to editing. With designers focussed on novel assets that are not covered by templates, and copywriters doing the same, three things will be reduced: turnaround time, time coordinating, and overall hours needed to be paid to the members of the Marketing team.

Tamara and I have discussed the need for proper brand direction before being able to tackle a website design system needed for effective collaboration with Leandro/Entrecasa. These assets will empower API3 to work more efficiently with contractors on any scale, from web development teams down to contracted writers.

I do not want to see Marketing as a middleman, either for creation (where the divisions have a clear vision of what they need), or for getting posts to where they need to go. Each team understands where their target market hangs out and the best way of communicating over those channels. Time spent coordinating needs would be better spent composing the assets desired to communicate the deliverable, with a final pass done by a designer or copywriter.

I agree with Ugur’s take on Ecosystem, both in terms of definition of responsibilities and output. From speaking with Ben, I believe the ideas I’m putting forth are in line with some of his on open-sourcing marketing and removing points of friction.

The suggested brand guidelines and templates will take another cycle of work from Can and I to complete, but after that will greatly reduce the need for designers and a marketing manager, leading to a longer lasting benefit than I think other proposals will bring, and add to the agility of API3 making it more capable for the next cycle.

I will clarify the deliverables, as well as what a success would mean for the next proposal cycle, and take into account any feedback in our upcoming proposal.

Unmentioned so far is this conversation is the community management portion of Marketing’s responsibilities. Marcus has good ideas of how to strengthen this initiative, but a greater sense of what the DAO is thinking (which Dave touched on last week) would be appreciated. I would like to discuss this topic in greater detail in this week’s marketing meeting.

3 Likes
11

Thank you for addressing all of this. I want to expand on the proper brand direction point since I haven’t talked about it much with other people. From a design perspective, the products are quickly expanding and scaling. As the ecosystem grows, without solid brand foundation it’s difficult to ensure a cohesive feel, and tough to move away from it when needed. Having an actual brand guide that outlines some rules, voice, and tone, in detail will help me build a design system that will allow faster design turnaround and decisions. Having a system in place will also help developers understand what branding elements feed into the design and allow for a smaller learning curve for external partners that may work on projects. All in all, I believe it can help increase transparency, communication, and cohesiveness throughout the DAO.

1 Like
12

Overall, I see “marketing” as going in the right direction for the near term with the lean Ecosystem and Developer Relations focus, @Rico 's self-initiated and output-focused proposal for LatAm, and the discontinuing of initiatives that are high-cost and resource-intensive. I don’t think open-ended expenditure on marketing agencies, large university grants, or large event sponsorships are worth it (though more lean approaches to developer-focused events may be), and in general I think marketing-related proposals could do with much more granularity in deliverables.

Community management and public communications (Twitter, Discord, Telegram) are somewhat of an exception to the granularity as a necessary ongoing task to inform and guide those interacting with API3’s public channels (while mitigating risk to the project and to newcomers, including keeping an eye on automated messages and responses to common inquiries) – @Marcus has done a very good job of juggling a few roles here. Somewhat similar to Heikki, I think @Midhav adds value in creative and entrepreneurial ways. I would welcome proposals on how to transparently handle verified centralized API3 accounts, and by whom – there’s no easy solution, as the manager(s) must have an in-depth knowledge of the project and risk vectors in public comms.

I’d like to hear more on what exactly is contemplated by further branding initiatives, as Entrecasa already put together a nice branding suggestion guide and assets from API3’s inception (can’t find a link at the moment), so I’m not sure what additional “codified” branding would be necessary beyond these + api3.org website and subdomains + api3.eth frontend for a system of decentralized contributors – though I think things such as the QRNG HTML acknowledgment at the bottom of this page are cool.

3 Likes
13

I agree the developer segment was being missed. We all knew that. I had been wanting to hire a developer advocate for a while but Burak intervened and asked me not to. Instead, he said you would be that developer advocate which made me happy. Problem solved. A dev advocate who already knows API3. You were the solution. I’m glad you agreed to do it but I wish you wouldn’t frame it like marketing was neglecting developers as if it were intentional or an oversight. It was simply that good dev advocates are hard to find. You were a good find.

14

Right, I had hoped he can borrow structures from ecosystem to use in marketing but there needs to be more defined outcomes even before that.

Thanks for the remarks. I agree that the reason an advocate was needed, so that we can start working on developer related content but what I was referring to was wider developer marketing that does not adhere to advocacy related tasks like scheduling discussions with other projects, hackathon planning, content distribution via different platforms etc.

I guess I am being a little vague in my critiques regarding marketing. The lack of direction in regards to what needs to be done in a systematic way is the overarching issue that needs to be tackled before anything in my opinion.

1 Like
15

I think it is very important that we are not guided by the personal relationships we have with certain people in the DAO to decide the next steps. It is a way to failure if they become the deciding factor for trying to secure roles instead of qualification and experience, and I believe most people who have business experience in the meatspace can agree with that. We all want the best possible outcome for API3, and this requires us to remain rational and objectively assess what is needed to achieve our goals both short- and long-term.


As stated in my post, the information I shared is based on my rational observations. I did not attack @Midhav or denied his ability to add value to the DAO. To have an open discussion with the DAO, it is important to provide a reason why I am advocating against certain team members taking on leadership roles. Simply stating that Midhav isn’t the right fit would be a baseless accusation and people would ask for the reasoning behind it.

Working with him, as I stated in my previous post, has been complicated because of his lack of responsiveness, reliability, and transparency. That is my personal experience of being part of the same team as him for a year plus. Your experience might differ. For instance, Midhav was the only one in the Marketing Team that did not provide progress reports despite being asked for them, nor did he cover his slots for moderation reliably which was one of his main responsibilities. As a consequence, I had to be available up to 16 hours a day to ensure that our community channels are safe and questions get answered. That is one of the reasons why @Emily prepared everything to hire an external team of moderators, which ensured that we have 24/7 coverage. Due to incidents in the past that could have backfired if certain people didn’t step in to prevent it, I also strongly advocate against Midhav running any official accounts, and I share the same concerns as @UgurMersin in that regard. I won’t go into more details because I value Midhav both personally and as a contributor to the API3 DAO but bold claims like him being unrivaled in terms of dedication, knowledge and passion are factually wrong and discredit those who really are worthy of that credit.


It is a strong statement that others simply can’t deliver what Midhav could deliver as the Marketing Lead, and I wonder by which criteria you decide this. Being part of the Marketing Proposals, he had 12 months to set up a structure or criticize the existing structure that Ryan and the Marketing Team had set up if it limited him in any way. I think Midhav generally can’t work within any real structure because he is very erratic and has issues with authorities and boundaries, and his performance is rather based on spontaneous spikes of energy and motivation rather than consistency. These sorts of personalities are actually valuable in businesses if they take on a role that suits their dynamic workflow and rather spontaneous spirit, as it can pave the way for opportunities that others with a more organized approach to work could follow up upon. For that reason, I think he should probably take on a role in which he isn’t limited by a tight structure nor responsible for establishing and overseeing one as a leader, as long as he is transparent about his contributions and held accountable thereof. I think Midhav can deliver in the way that @Erich and @heikki described, and having him working in a more dynamic role might empower him to use his strengths to the best for API3.


RE: Community Management

Moving forward, I would like to see more input from the API3 DAO regarding Community Management. I think we lack a clear mission regarding what we would like to achieve in terms of community growth and engagement. Within the teams, there was never a real consensus but there were rather conflicting opinions - ranging from communities being redundant to communities being the foundation of every successful project. We could break down this discussion even further and assess what we define as a community. That might require re-evaluating our target groups, as this will impact in which directions our community-related efforts should flow.

Furthermore, I suggest improving our communications across all of our official channels and ensuring that we choose the right tone and stay consistent with it. For this reason, I am against the idea of multiple people running our official channels, as this creates a dynamic that is unfavorable in that regard. We have seen that with @dumbbtcjuice handling Twitter and that by no means is meant to discredit her in any way. I think her rather excitement-inducing way of communicating has its merits and would work well for a lot of projects in this space. However, in our case, it conflicts with the previous minimalistic yet efficient approach to handling our social channels, which I personally advocate for due to the businesses we are targeting.

16

I’m not part of the team, so hopefully i can be more direct.

Agree with this. Midhav is far easier to have chats in the TG/Discord groups where he actually tries his best to answer the questions and sell the project in layman terms. At least a few months ago, it was very difficult to get anything meaningful out from conversations other than refer to the Medium and we can’t answer that at this stage, etc. AND I also think Midhav probably can’t be the official figure unless otherwise he proves it. I believe the consensus is that he has the passion but not ‘corporate’ enough to execute across all facets of marketing. In my opinion he would be best to do what he is best at; bringing in connections, potential BD opportunities, and marketing API3 in an uncoordinated fashion. Still very valuable and he has a large stack of API3 so I do relate to his frustration that we are not getting any meaningful traction across many fronts.

@bbenligiray While I appreciate your hard work, I do feel everything is pretty slow pace as an end user/viewer (easy for me to say this). I know its not as simple as hiring more devs but all this time waiting for development, we’re burning money in other teams waiting for the ‘launch’. Hopefully doesn’t come across as a personal attack. The way I see it is that the team has spent two years coding but I don’t see much usage/end products. But have no doubt we will pull together all the missing/last pieces of puzzle soon. I know you are just responsible for the core but I’m saying this in general for all the code shipping in none-core areas too.

17

@Erich I can speak a little on this from my perspective. Entrecasa has done a great job with the original guide and assets. Personally, I feel like it’s just one part of a brand. I use the term “brand” loosely to encompass allll elements of the look and feel an organization has. Another part that I would consider attached to branding is a content style guide, like Mailchimp’s. There are lots of rules with this one. All of the branding elements feed into a design system, which lives under design rather than marketing, but requires solid open communication between design and marketing, which has been a struggle. @T.W starting the conversation around it is a step in the right direction. From a UX/UI perspective, the long term goal would be to build something like IBM’s Carbon Design system that can be used by anyone in the ecosystem. There are more facets to branding than what I mentioned, but these are the few I feel most strongly about.

1 Like
18

I mostly agree with these points. But the marketing team didn’t publish similar content because we didn’t have a developer advocate to write it.

Structure and strategy are different. Both are important. API3 is tech-team led and marketing strategy follows from that. If you use a traditional 4 (or 5, 6, 7) P’s framework, many P’s, especially the early ones, are (appropriately) determined by what’s being built by the tech team. The marketing team should contribute to Product by helping with brand identity and providing a brand/communications framework, templates, etc… Large-scale Promotion should wait until the earlier P’s are ready.

We can do some Promotion now, in the form of content creation and ecosystem activities which is what you’re doing and that’s great. Keep it up. Tom’s proposal sounds like a good way for the marketing team to support this while leaving most of the decision making to those closest to the users.

And of course we need to attend to People, which includes serving and engaging the community. The community has been viewed as a marketing team problem but I think the ecosystem and BD teams should be very involved here. Our Discord is our “front lobby” and the place we want developers and others to come and engage with us. For that to happen we need the right people there, ready to chat. This is something Midhav has done well when available and I think all API3 team members should participate in. I can understand that some tech team members might not have time right now but business team members should show up there and be active.

19

@Erich:
I’d like to hear more on what exactly is contemplated by further branding initiatives, as Entrecasa already put together a nice branding suggestion guide and assets from API3’s inception (can’t find a link at the moment), so I’m not sure what additional “codified” branding would be necessary beyond these + api3.org website and subdomains + api3.eth frontend for a system of decentralized contributors – though I think things such as the QRNG HTML acknowledgment at the bottom of this page are cool.

@T.API3
…I use the term “brand” loosely to encompass allll elements of the look and feel an organization has. Another part that I would consider attached to branding is a content style guide, like Mailchimp’s. There are lots of rules with this one. All of the branding elements feed into a design system, which lives under design rather than marketing, but requires solid open communication between design and marketing, which has been a struggle… From a UX/UI perspective, the long term goal would be to build something like IBM’s Carbon Design system that can be used by anyone in the ecosystem…

Here is the link to the guide that Entrecasa created. This guide is great for people with a design background, however I don’t think it’s well suited to empower individual team members to be content creators.

The branding efforts I’m describing are primarily focussed on facilitating brand consistency through video, photo, graphics and text. The key here is moving the ability to create at (or close to) brand consistent content out to the teams like Ecosystem and BD.

I want to clarify that this is in an effort to make Marketing as a team obsolete faster. We will do this by:

  1. Creating templates for the assets most commonly requested from Marketing: presentation decks, promotional posters, video backgrounds, announcements and press releases… These could have example text, leading questions, suggested uses.
  2. Writing a concise brand manifesto/persona to bring content creators to the same mindset (this is where we codify what’s working well with API3s branding now, and correct what isn’t). This would be helpful for content creation in any medium. A voice and tone guide like the one mentioned by @T.API3 above could be a part of this. Mailchimp’s is concise and effective, which is what we would deliver in any written guide to avoid overwhelming team members working on content creation.

With these in place, not only will individual API3 teams be able to create content, the assets can act to onboard contractors, allowing for a variably sized content team depending on the needs of API3, rather than having a consistent draw on funds via salaries. The roll of a salaried Marketing employee (be it a designer or copywriter), on top of creating content that is outside the scope of what can be made into templates, would be to ensure consistency as an editor before the individual teams push the content via the channel that matches their strategy best. This will drop the overall hours of the salaried marketing team.

These also lay the foundation for the solid brand guideline needed for cooperation between UX and Entrecasa, or any other firm we may use in the future, so that what they deliver is what we expect and so that we don’t have to spend so much time communicating those expectations.

My background is in brand and team management (with an emphasis in directing content creation), in an industry where budgets are TINY but brands are impactful. Fans will do a lot of marketing themselves if the product suits them and the branding is done right. The API3 product is better, but inconsistencies in the branding make the project look less professional, which is going to be a problem for adoption if it isn’t already.

Though I can certainly be just a member of a content team, I think by sharing my experience with the DAO and helping to set up structures for use in working with contractors or empowering a larger content creation effort that maintains brand consistency, the brand and product can do a lot of the marketing passively.

4 Likes
20

@T.API3 and @T.W - thanks for the responses, I do like the sound of that and would support it (the streamlining and dispersal of licensed assets and open-source templates for content creation).

21

@midhav I actually generally agree with your observations. I’m not sure who actually executes these but the overarching idea and process I think you are not wrong.

1 Like