I owe the DAO an update on what’s been happening marketing-wise since the cycle 8 proposal passed. Here goes…
The decision among team leads is that we should hold off heavily promoting or marketing data feeds until they are more feature-complete, such as having aggregation (multiple sources), coverage (quantified security), and a better user/onboarding experience. Therefore, many of the plans we had at the beginning of cycle 8 have been put on hold. Much of the USDC allocated in the proposal will either be carried into the next cycle or returned to the treasury.
In reducing marketing expenses we are also reducing the team size. This is the case for all non-technical teams, not just the marketing team. As part of this, I am voluntarily giving up my grant and stepping down as marketing manager. This is something I decided to do a few weeks ago. We’re reducing the team to a minimum during this building period and it doesn’t need a manager. It just needs a few doers.
While I won’t be manager or even a grant recipient on the marketing team, I am still a token holder and have a vested interest in helping API3 succeed. I’m not planning to leave the project and will be available to the marketing team as a resource, advisor, or however else I can contribute.
In my opinion, these are the marketing areas we need to cover between now and when the tech team is ready to scale up data feeds.
- Communications, message, narrative, brand identity
- Visual brand management, quality, consistency, look & feel
- Content creation including api3.org, educational resources, etc…
- Community management & engagement
- Measurement & analytics
However, I am not planning to write the next marketing proposal. I have shared my recommendations among some of the current team members and I’ll share them here.
I believe @T.W is the best person to lead the marketing team. He was brought on a few months ago for communications. Since then, he’s demonstrated impressive leadership qualities in addition to being a great communicator. He’s smart, patient, empathetic, understands modern marketing, and sets a high bar for quality.
I believe @can is the best person to focus on visual brand management. Like Tom, he also sets a high bar for quality and work ethic.
Between Tom and Çan, along with developer advocates like Ashar, I feel we would have 1-3 covered. I have had @Marcus working on 4 & more recently 5.
Community moderation is necessary to keep the community channels on-topic and safe from scammers. Marcus has proven to be the best person to lead that over the past year. I have always felt moderation is more operations and customer service than marketing. As for community engagement and growth I had been looking for an extroverted socialite type to help as well.
Measurement & analytics is debatable. By debatable, I mean I think it’s smart to build that capability now and create a baseline for scaling up but I realize some others might not feel it’s a priority at this time. Personally, I think we’ve lagged behind in this area over the past year and now is when we should improve it.
As for me, I feel the most valuable thing I can do for the DAO right now is be a link between the product/core tech team and the marketing team. Before I was in marketing and management I was a professional software developer. I have computer science/engineering degrees and have helped build technically complex projects like API3. I understand the technical aspects of blockchain and oracles more than a typical business person. I can help make sure the marketing team understands what they’re marketing.
I would also like to help by acting as a kind of developer evangelist for API3 but I would consider what I described in the previous paragraph as the priority.
That concludes my perspective on what should happen with the marketing team next cycle. However, since I don’t intend to write the next marketing proposal, it’s ultimately up to Tom and the others involved whether they agree and what proposal they submit.
In response to the topic Midhav posted, I think it understates what the marketing team has been doing and I don’t agree with its suggestions. Adding an additional marketing-related team is a step in the wrong direction. At a time when we are downsizing the entire non-technical side of the project, we should be consolidating not expanding.
Furthermore, I am opposed to the idea of a team being led by Midhav. He was on the marketing team as a community mod when I joined API3. I eventually had no choice but to remove him from the team for reasons that accumulated over time including poor judgment, repeated failure to follow through, and frequent disruptions to those trying to get things done. Tolerating this behavior in the project has been a mistake. Rewarding it with more responsibility such as the official API3 social media accounts would be ill-advised.
I recommend going the opposite direction. There is already overlap between the marketing and BD teams in that they both exist to drive adoption for API3. Adding a 3rd team (ecosystem), and now as Midhav suggested a 4th team (content), increases the overlap. If we were in scale-up mode that much overlap might make sense. Given the current situation, it doesn’t.
In the current cycle we added the ecosystem team but the conflict and lack of cooperation between the ecosystem and marketing teams has been a problem. We could debate why all day long but it’s clear to me that having more teams working on the same activities results in more overlap, conflict, and inter-team communication costs.
The ecosystem team, as I understood it, was intended to promote API3 within specific blockchains by working with their ecosystem teams and participating in their ecosystems. But I see that as very similar to what the BD team does. Or, if not, it’s what the BD team should do. IMO the ecosystem team should merge with the BD team so that we only have 2 relatively small non-technical teams next cycle, Marketing and Ecosystem/BD. Then when it’s time to scale up we should revisit.