RE: The Correlation Between Development and Marketing Spending and HIVE's Price
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I hadn't heard about the selling pressure, particularly as it is affected by funding DHF proposals, affecting the price of HIVE.
For me, the two things are separate.
The selling price of HIVE is affected by more global factors like sentiment towards crypto. The overall selling pressure of HIVE may be a smaller determining factor as well in the price of HIVE, but I'm not sure of the proportion that DHF funds makes in this. I imagine it to be negligible, but I could be wrong 😁
With regard to the separate issue of funding DHF proposals: yes, determining the outcome, even of marketing, especially in a short time is difficult, but not impossible.
There are some formula and we can make some assumptions - for example, as a starting place, I made an assumption that it costs about 7,850 USD to achieve a monthly active user. So for 180,000 USD funding, I would expect 23 monthly active users.
We can also make assumptions about how many people we have to be in touch with to gain 1 monthly active user (I haven't done that calculation, but I'm sure we could make some starting assumptions from the statistics provided by arcange and dalz), and I'm guessing that it will be in the tens of thousands.
We know from direct marketing, and from outreach that it takes an average of 6-8 contacts/interactions with each of the target audience to achieve the desired outcome: 1 monthly active user. For outreach work, I tend to go with a two year timescale to achieve the flow of new registrations that we're looking for - whatever they are.
Each of these phases requires careful planning, a lot of attention to detail, skill at building relationships, ensuring the support is there after adoption and so on. I would like to see realistic proposals that recognise the challenges and set out realistic outputs, time-frames, budgets and activities to achieve them.
If we don't have the skills on HIVE and looking at progress so far, I would query whether we do, then maybe proposals should be looking at purchasing the marketing expertise externally from people and organisations that do have the skills.
That sounds like a big number for 1 MAU. Perhaps the costs could be lowered by better targeting, if that's even possible? You started from the costs from Inleo, but there are other initiatives with lower costs, better retention, but also quite limited in the number of new users they attract (OCD Onboarding and Orientation Program, for example).
We will have the comparison with the Splinterlands marketing campaign, to see how it will work out by comparison, ran by a marketing superstar.
I'm sure costs could be lowered with better targeting, and it's great that there are other examples we can learn from. I think OCD's programme is quite interesting because it's organic and depends on word of mouth and learning from people who are "just like me" which is a very powerful influence. Health programmes use that model with great success.
I struggle, though, with the projects in Value Plan which seem to operate on a once only contact before moving on to the next mall/event.
Yes, Splinterlands is exciting!
Good point! One exposure rarely makes a strong enough impression even for awareness, not to mention for acquisition.