Comment by @cristianvaldivia • Hey
Where is the lie? We never promise conversion or sales. With wav3s you pay for mirrors and receive mirrors. We are better that traditional form of promote
Comments
- Is true we need more targeting and we are working on that.
But wav3s is different of the normal marketing online. All the marketers are very used to the segmented marketing that google, twitter or facebook have offered them for years and are very dependent on the algorithm of each social network.
- Thank you for responding to my comment. To address your question "where is the lie?", I would say the problem lies with the false promise of being a better alternative to traditional online marketing tools. Your tool is not comparable to established platforms because it lacks the essential features that allow marketers to measure the success of their campaigns accurately. So my advice would to remove this comparison from your communication and come up with another USP, since it will make marketers either upset or confused.
Moreover, your tool has a fundamental flaw that incentivizes users to engage with posts purely for the sake of receiving rewards, regardless of the content's quality or relevance. This leads to a significant amount of fake engagement (not only from bots), which not only diminishes the value of your tool for marketers but also undermines the authenticity of the engagement that does occur. This can cause the potential audience to view your promoted posts as insincere and ultimately harm the reputation of the brand being promoted.
Regarding your claim that you are better than traditional forms of promotion because you pay money to the network and not to central institutions, I must say that as a marketer, that's not a factor that I consider when selecting a promotion tool. I am looking for a tool that provides accurate targeting and reliable metrics to measure the success of my campaigns and it doesn't matter who I have to pay for it and I am sure any established brand would act the same way.
Furthermore, your statement that your tool is different from normal online marketing and that marketers are dependent on the algorithm of each social network, misses the point entirely. The algorithm of each platform is precisely what makes it valuable to marketers and makes it possible to target the right audience and measure the results accurately.
I appreciate the effort you are putting into improving the targeting and addressing the issue of fake engagement. However, until these issues are resolved, I cannot consider your tool a viable option for promoting content. I encourage you to focus on developing your tool's unique features rather than comparing it to established marketing tools that are far more developed.
- What is missing for me is targeting. If you simply paid for mirrors, would this not become problematic as Lens scales as the likelihood of more bogus users increases?
It's a little like the bots problem on here; you'd incentivise amplification over quality leading to people (or bots) just pushing that message anywhere in a bid to get paid.
If it could be better controlled with targeting (e.g. show my hip hop track to hip hop fans, or perhaps even more granular than that, like at an artist level) then you are at least reaching the right people to start with. Then if you could control who amplifies (e.g. only people with X number of authentic followers) it could get really interesting.
To be clear, I think the principle here is incredible. As someone in marketing though I feel it would need more around those two factors to get me to spend on it. But that will come, I am sure.