100% agree that we need a Marketing Core Unit but I do not agree on the costs incurred for it, nor do I consider that it is more “efficient” to have a single Marketing CU than each Core Unit that handles a product, has its own product mtk person.
I think @brianmcmichael said, “PE wants to build, it doesn’t want to market.” I understand what you’re saying Brian, but in reality, that doesn’t mean that PE makes a release and “hands over” the product to Marketing to do its job. Unfortunately is not like that, actually, you have to work together constantly to develop, message, channels, users, and the type of iteration around it. As software is a continuous improvement, so is product marketing, and if you want to achieve adoption, the work done has to be constant, it is not a “one off marketing action” that will make your product be used. That is the reason-why behind my insistence on taking the product marketing path since it is much more efficient to hire a person who is in charge of the team that manages a product than to have a core unit that accumulates expenses for trying to provide a horizontal service to the DAO. Marketing performance output is extremely similar to how a software factory works, where the question is.
- Is the product coming out of a software factory better than the product coming out of your own PE?
We all know that the answer is no, even the cost per hour of development of a Software factory in most cases exceeds the cost of a proprietary team having much fewer iteration hours possible for said product. On the other hand, if you do not want to hire a product mkt person, which is totally fine too, then the expectations around product adoption need to be at level with the maximum output possible that this core unit marketing can give you, which I think is the same analogy of “product output” from a software factory.
Everyone needs to think if you want your core unit to behave like a company or like a public good.
Another issue to take into account is the work backlog that a marketing core unit may have if it has to provide services to the DAO.
How would priorities be set? Who gets the most attention from PE, Gov Alpha, Growth or Content?
All of this leads to more and more discussion that makes MakerDAO expensive and slow. We have to establish a way of working in the DAO that limits the number of discussions that do not provide an immediate decision, and that provide agility and cost-efficiency.
In terms of Budget, it is not “more expensive” as I read in some answers, the budget proposed by strategic Marcomms is 4.1M, with 15% of that for each core unit that has a product, is more than enough to hire a person who responds 100% to that product, and participates in the construction of said product (that’s why it’s better for you too Brian) Remember that products are built from the user experience point and not only For a technical Feature/novelty, this input can be provided by that person from product mkt within the team.
As I said before, I do believe that we need a marketing/branding core unit, but the cost should be minimum in this stage. Also, it would be ideal that each sponsoring opportunity (which I think is the most expensive thing) be discussed with a simple business case with cost and a poll for each occasion.
Another point that I do not like for DAO is that Marketing costs in most cases are outsourced costs. example PR agencies. where they do not really add value for the price they charge, having a US only, costs that are around 100k per month on average, where the only task they have is to call media outlets that “spread the news” where those media outlets at the end of the day are taking the news from Twitter.
Regarding what LFW said, I think we also have to make a clear division of what are political products that do not generate direct revenue and products that generate direct revenue. For the former, I would say that a Marketing Core unit can take the lead and communicate those but I don’t think that 4M budget is needed for that. In fact also Governance Communication CU should be doing that. Just my two cents.
Finally, I think we also have to know very well the products we have and what expectations we have of them, I remember yesterday @cmooney said "if it were for growth CU we would only be in the bucket of institutions."
I understand what you say Chris, the thing is from growth CU we did a lot of research on how to grow the circulation of DAI, and we concluded that there is a single lever that dictates whether most vaults will come from retail or institutions and that lever is the DUST.
for 2 years the resounding success in Latam and I think that also part of the success of DAI in all DEFI initially was that the premise was clear “MINT YOUR OWN STABLE AND UNBIASED CURRENCY”, today 10K DAI is prohibitive for 98% of the planet, Therefore, if you want to reach the common user (retail) for dai to be used as currency, you have to find/develop an industry that is willing to mint DAI in such a way that it can sustain the costs of Running MakerDAO, today that industry is institutions. I would be the happiest person in the world if we have a DUST level that invites a big portion of the planet to mint DAI, I even think that this may take a BIG market share from compound or save, and ultimately be the door to have a Generic Strategic Marcomms.