October 25th - 27th
Updated for Formal Submission
After further review, we have changed our Vote to “No”.
It’s no secret that Delegates are currently operating outside of the Maker black box, and have an opaque view into Core Units accomplishments (conversion rates), KPIs & deliverables, quantified metrics, and other components that help MKR token owners and Delegates Vote more accurately for the benefit of the DAO. With that in mind, we are confused by the direction the Content Production Core Unit is taking.
Are they looking to be a Marketing team? Are they looking to do Media and/or, Public Relations when GovComms has already taken-on this role? Or, are they focus on creating Content? If the goal is to produce content, the Content team was highly missed and much needed at Liscon (Lisbon). Not only was there an opportunity to capture content, but to also skill-mill with other Core Units that are here. It seems like some CU are overlapping each other. A good face-to-face conversation between CUs would have helped, IMO.
We have unanswered questions and I urge @Content-Production to reassess their core mission and communicate to the community what exactly they want to accomplish. If the goal is to do Marketing, again the opportunity was here at Liscon. The recent announcement of “Clean Money” could have been showcased at this event. If the idea is to do Content your production team could have captured a ton of content with CU Team members, as well as with the entire Crypto community. And yes, I understand it is difficult to travel, but Coverage in regions such as Europe are vital. Please focus on establishing resources within Europe.
I urge you @seth as the facilitator to communicate to the community more clearly on what is the direction you are taking Content-Production, and workout the overlapping expenditures that this approach will create.
@Growth-Core-Unit You are All very talented and I know you are working hard-long hours, but in our opinion Content Production lacks direction. Therefore we have changed our Vote to “No”.
Hey Frank, happy to clarify. Our goal from the beginning has been to focus on content and work alongside other CUs providing marketing and communications services where they make sense.
Since things didn’t work out with the Strategic MarComms proposal, we’ve heard a number of community members express the desire for a “general purpose” marketing team; GovAlpha and PE, in particular, have both expressed a desire for an individual or team that can help them promote new products/initiatives/etc.
The solution we’ve proposed is to bring on a Marketing Strategist who can assess the situation and help other teams start organizing smaller campaigns and from there, decide whether it makes more sense to propose a new mandate and pivot the Content CU toward marketing or organize a new Marketing CU. We have a candidate referred by @Davidutro we believe would make a good fit for this but are waiting for clarity on our budget before making an offer.
With regard to Press Relations (specifically Press, not more general Public Relations), we’ve spoken with @gov-comms-core-unit on multiple occasions about the need/desire for someone to handle press relations and they expressed to us that the scope of their interest in that was limited to managing incoming requests from journalists, which they’ve started tackling with the “Media Inquires” channels in the Forum and on Discord. We’re proposing to bring someone on who maintains relations with journalists and is willing to manage press releases and interactions with members of the DAO.
Kat tried to make it to Lisbon but didn’t receive her passport in time and the rest of the team had personal conflicts that prevented us from attending but I’ll be attending ETH Portland later this week and we’ll have team members at NFT.NYC next week. I realize these events aren’t as high profile as ETH Lisbon and I would’ve loved to have been able to meet everyone and chat face-to-face but there was nothing preventing regular communications in the meantime.
I have to say, I’m pretty confused about how we got from “Voted “Yes” – it is vital that we support our Core Units.” to “we are confused by the direction the Content Production Core Unit is taking.” and I’m disappointed you didn’t reach out to talk about any of this before changing your decision.
I appreciate you sharing your concerns but it’s not fair to say there are “unanswered questions” when the questions haven’t been asked until now.
Thanks for your message. Here are some points, and we will be happy to follow up.
We don’t believe that your (or any) Core Unit should assume that their proposal will pass unless asked questions. It is up to the Core Unit not only to provide value but also to show it. We are sorry about your disappointment.
We have yet to meet a person that believes that Maker doesn’t need marketing. Many activities that could fall into your mandate seem to overlap with marketing, hence our comments. Other than “we’re trying to bring someone new,” we have not seen a lot of concrete steps.
It is not about “going” to the events. It is more about making sure that Maker is in the conversation: having a booth, giving talks, organizing events… We have seen efforts from other Core Units (notably Growth), but not from MKT-001.
Going back to our original point: we have not seen a lot of output based on the input (DAI) that Content Production is receiving.
Your Core Unit has a full-time writer, a full-time video director, a full-time producer (and other full-time members that could help), and we have not seen an increase in the output of content that Maker has produced. Three full-time contributors during two weeks are 240 person-hours, which have yielded this:
This situation only compounds if we go back in time.
Could this budget be allocated differently and make sure that we start producing helpful content?
How many views are we getting in the content (videos and others) that we produce? What is working? What is not? What else are we trying? I’m not a marketing expert, but these things should be clear (in a mandate, some living document, or any other form that your team chooses.)
Looking forward to your next iteration,
Flip Flop Flap Delegate LLC
Adding some clarity here.
FYI GovComms does not have Public Relations on our mandate. One piece of our scope is Press Relations/Media Relations support. Meaning we maintain relationships, route, and coordinate activity around this. We discussed the idea of press releases with Content Production and were considering a model where Content provides us writers to support the production of these written communications.
As a general note on this, we did have conversations but I don’t think this is accurate. Our team was clear about where we were in our current Media Relations practices and what we were doing to progress on that part of our mandate; ie hiring an Engagement Lead, whose role includes Media/Press Relations. It’s not clear to me why this role would live in your team versus ours for example, and we never had a conversation about this because we were already in the process of hiring an Engagement Lead. Clearly there was some misunderstanding and lack of communication between our Core Units on this point.
I do see the case for a press relations role that might be more externally focused. I was reminded by @twblack88 of the push and pull model for press relations we once envisioned where one team handles incoming requests while the other handles distribution, press releases, active outreach. Our team is not opposed to this kind of setup @ElProgreso
Much of this is covered in product planning. We have some great hires lined up and I hope to announce them soon to get going on this and a bunch of other activities.
Here’s a timeline of events from my perspective:
- ElPro reaches out to @JerryAG in response to his post about collaborating with community members on podcasting and they begin collaborating on a podcast. During the course of this, ElPro tells Jerry how much he supports our CU, appreciates our work, etc.
- They have a meeting scheduled last week; ElPro fails to show up and goes silent for the past week.
- I wake up on Monday to this message from ElPro stating that he’s switching his vote, accusing us of having “unanswered questions,” and generally trashing our work.
In the DAO, we give a lot of lip service to the idea that those participating in governance should do so in good faith. The Code of Conduct that Recognised Delegates agree to adhere to states:
I’m having a difficult time coming up with a better way to operate in bad faith than telling someone you support them to their face, supporting their proposal, and not only withdrawing that support at the 11th hour but suddenly claiming you have “unanswered questions” and trashing their work.
I made an attempt to address these concerns and this response is confusing and disingenuous at best. I also asked to speak with Frank privately but he didn’t show up to the meeting and has yet to follow-up to let me know when he’ll be available.
I’m always happy to address concerns when they’re expressed appropriately but this is abusive behavior and clearly more geared toward making a statement than fostering productive communication.
If other delegates share any of these concerns, I’ll be happy to address them but this is so inaccurate and disrespectful that I don’t believe it merits a direct response.
We discussed the role you wanted GovComms to play in Press Relations and you specifically said you want the scope of your team’s involvement to be limited to incoming requests from journalists and that you didn’t want to be involved further.
We re-iterated this in a conversation prior to you submitting your proposal to start GovComms. This is also consistent with the description of the Engagement Lead’s involvement:
As we’ve stated elsewhere, we’ve proposed this role because the desire has been expressed for someone to handle these responsibilities and you specifically said you weren’t interested in GovComms taking that on.
Yes, this conversation must have happened…in May, June, July 2021? Hence why my memory was fuzzy on the agreed-upon setup. I want to thank Tim mainly for reminding me of the in/out dichotomy we modeled for splitting the media relations responsibilities.
I am in full support of what your team is going after now. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Absolutely. Out of the goodness-of-my heart and dedication to the Maker Community I Volunteer to do a Podcast with the Content CU–with my own Resources–paid with my earned money–and created the title: “Meet The Makers”.
I decided to attend Liscon back in August and arrived on Monday, October 18. While here, @JerryAG wanted to review the content I recorded and his work for the “Meet the Makers” podcast. Jerry attempted to review the content during a week that I am attending Liscon–there is an understanding that we are on a time-difference and I am here for events that Flip Flop Flap Delegate LLC, has PAID for. Therefore, my plans and a lot of my attention was geared towards Liscon and representing MakerDAO as one of its Recognized Delegates. I also intended to meet with CU team members and gather as much internal data as possible. Which IMO is key to Delegates making decisions.
Attend Liscon and felt deep disappointed when protocols, podcast producers, journalist, and All type of promoters I have never heard of walk around producing and capturing CONTENT. I control my dissatisfaction with a reminder that not everyone can travel these days. I then proceed to dig a little deeper and perform due-diligence and receive opinions and concerns for the lack of content being produced.
Some ask why I voted “Yes” to a CU who is not performing and under budget? I express that I believe in the Content CU, that they are talented and I am okay with the CU having excess DAI–as I don’t believe the Content CU team members are malicious–therefore it is in my opinion that they should receive their next budget request. I then proceeded to review the new findings, and make a decision that I must do what is Right on-behalf of MKR token owners. It was a gut-wrenching decision, as I truly believe in the talent and possibilities this team possesses.
We believe the talent and resources are there and ask @Content-Production to start a movement. It is desperately needed. Believe me.
I am currently at NEARCON and I got caught-up in a conversation with a Founder of another protocol and joined our scheduled meeting 10-12 minutes late. Apologies on my end. You stated that you only waited 5 minutes after our scheduled time:
Please let me know when you’re available and note that there is currently an 8 hour difference between you and I. Will also keep-in-mind that you have a 5-minute policy for waiting for participants to join scheduled meetings.
As video producer of the content production core unit, I wanted to address some of your and the community’s concerns since I feel that so much of what I do gets lost in translation, and it appears that our video content output seems to be a cornerstone of your concerns. I would like to clarify some of the work that we’ve been doing, what we have coming, some of our future plans, my current strategy towards producing video content within the DAO, and a few reasons we did not attend Liscon (Lisbon). The logistics and costs of video production tend to be mysterious to anyone outside of the industry, so hopefully, I can shed some light on that as well.
This is not entirely accurate, it’s important to note that I serve as both the full-time video director and producer for the core unit. In addition, I edit and animate/VFX for all of the video content we create as well. I essentially operate as a vertically integrated video production company inside of the content production core unit. We currently have two writers on staff with their own specialties and the entire unit does support one another on these efforts and we collaborate with other core units on various content. Our unit does much more than just video content (see CU updates), but for this post, I am going to speak directly to video production content.
In concerns to our output: you highlight the video section in particular:
If this was our only output in terms of video content, I would agree this would be a limited use of resources. However, this is only the video content that we released in this time frame and is not indicative of the quality or quantity we will release over a year. Assuming these videos multiplied by 26 will give you a solid prediction of our anticipated output across a year is a flawed model that is not even close to our targeted output. This assumes a linear curve of output, while we are operating exponentially, at least during this start-up phase. I understand that it’s easy to break down our video output in that manner to arrive at a KPI, but once I explain my strategy and the types of projects we’re working on, it should be more clear what kind of output you can expect in the future.
Producing video content for a DAO is challenging to say the least. I come from a commercial and corporate background which is radically different. I’ve had to take my knowledge and experience and reshape it into new strategies to cost-effectively produce content. Some content can turn around in a day, others take months to complete. These various types of projects are constantly being juggled simultaneously. The easiest way for me to convey the various types of video projects we are developing would be a tier system.
This is topical content, meant to be viewed for the day, week, or month. Or general content with a quick turnaround, taking a day to a week to create. Current examples include Maker Relay videos, NFT Animations, AMA calls and clips, social media video promos for events or contests, various content requests from the DAO
This is evergreen content, meant to be viewed indefinitely. These projects take a week to a month to create. Examples include educational videos and event promotion videos (currently in development)
This is high production value content that is generally evergreen and intended to reach a large audience. These require months of prep to develop, film, edit, and release. Examples include documentaries, commercials, etc.
We are developing content at all of these levels and constantly shifting our approach based on community reaction and online viewing metrics. Since I’ve entered the core unit in June, we’ve started with Tier 1 content. This includes animating bumpers for videos, creating formats for AMA-type videos, and developing the format for the Maker Relay videos. Once these elements became standardized, we started development on our tier 2 content, concurrently while creating tier 1.
The first educational video “How to Vote” should be released very shortly as we are putting the finishing touches on it now. You are more than welcome to see the working version. We have shared it with various members of the DAO and have both received positive feedback and made adjustments based on technical criticism. Since this project is currently in post-production, its progress is vague in terms of a KPI. Also, since it is the first of a very long series, many of the assets, format considerations, and SOPs took extra time on the front end to figure out. This one took about 8 weeks or so to finish with some crossover for the next one, “Governance Processes” which is currently in post-production. They also require core unit collaboration which we are very thankful for all the help and support we have received. I anticipate these to be completed on a biweekly basis once our process and formats are refined in addition to now having assets that can be recycled into the other videos.
In the last month, we have just started discussions for tier 3 content. For now, we are discussing doing short sub-10 minute documentaries with in-person interviews and high production value. An example we have discussed is a history of Maker video, to explore its origin, accomplishments, and community.
Tier 3 projects can be incredibly expensive to produce, 10k-100k+ per video. They require travel, camera equipment, sound equipment, special insurance, lighting and grip equipment, and a hired production crew. The issue is compounded by working in a DAO as it’s obviously not cost-effective to constantly fly around the globe interviewing key stakeholders as enjoyable as it might be. The solution we’ve decided upon is to use big events as a centralized location to get all of the interviews and the majority of the b-roll we need at once.
In order to provide the most value and utilize our resources responsibly, the plan is to develop 3-4 of these videos in pre-production and film the interviews and content across one or two events. This is in addition to filming a promotional video for the event itself. Since we would be spending the money on a crew and resources for both short documentaries and event promotional videos, it makes the most sense to film them all at once, saving at least 3x the money and maximizing quality by being able to afford better equipment and a larger crew.
This strategy would work perfectly for an event like the one mentioned by @Davidutro yesterday in G&R where we attempt to have the largest Maker presence possible at one event in 2022.
As a video producer, I’m all about stretching DAI. Hence, why we could not make Liscon work for video production. There has not been enough time for us to plan the tier 3 content, as we have up to this point been building up our foundational tier 1 and 2.
These short documentaries require extensive pre-production including outlining, question lists, treatments, identifying stakeholders, shot lists, and complex logistics planning that looks at not just one video, but aggregates the needs of all of the content we plan to create and organize it in the most time-effective, resource-effective, and ultimately cost-effective way. Also, by taking the extra time in pre-production, it will save us time in post-production as well by being more specific in the interview process.
If we film only an event promotional video at Liscon, then we’re spending tier 3 money on a tier 2 project and getting limited content in return. Also, time away from the current content we are creating.
This is in addition to the challenges we currently faced as a group to make it to Portugal, as much as we wanted to go. While I can produce this content remotely by utilizing subcontracting resources, we felt it was better to wait until we have the pre-production in place for additional content.
Over the next months, you will start seeing the fruits of tier 2, and eventually tier 3 content begin to develop, they just take longer than what you have currently seen as they are tied up in pre and post-production. Since we are in the process of scaling our content efforts, there is a production assistant on this cycle’s budget to directly assist me.
It’s been quite an honor and privilege to get paid to work on something I genuinely believe in, and I cannot wait to flex my creative muscles. I am itching to make the tier 3 level high production value content for the DAO, but I want to make sure we do it right and provide as much value as possible. I think the DAO needs video content with people, faces, and an emotional connection to the community and its vision. It’s a special opportunity to stand out across the entire market. We are building towards this.
I apologize for the long read, but I hope it gives you and the community a little more transparency into the video side of things. Feel free to reach out anytime if you have any questions about video content or have any ideas, I’d love to hear them.
That post was in good faith and was by no means an attempt to bully anyone. Just wanted to provide the video producer’s perspective since concerns related to video content were addressed. It is not up to delegates or anyone else to reach out to me for content, it was just an open and friendly invitation for discussion since this is a team effort in the DAO, and I genuinely like to hear people’s ideas for video content.
your boss is bullying
This is not a good faith engagement Deimos. Please address things from a factual point of view and help solve the issue here.
There is an issue here and regardless of who you believe is at fault, there is little to be gained by such posts.
As part of our broader effort to bring more transparency to the CU budget structure, we have documented the wallet setup of this CU and others;
Read more about it here: Introducing the CU Budget Transparency Map
For the sake of transparency and simplification:
This compares the six-month total spend on salaries from May to October with our projected spend from December to May. While the aggregate spending and the spend/month are expected to increase, the total spend per employee shouldn’t increase significantly.
some expensive AMAs is anyone checking the engagement this team is making? crazy is trying the same thing that does not work and maker has been funding this experiment for much too long
can you please show kpis and a clear road map for your plans and what you have you think to do with the dai that governance is giving mkt001 every month?