I imagine Facebook will be completely against the Safe network, it would basically cut off their ability to mine data on their users. Facebook wants to know everything about its users so that it can then sell that data on to individuals/companies/government organisations, however Maidsafe would make users anonymous.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Facebook/Google etc. actually lobbied the Government against the network.
I agree with the opinion that for now getting developers excited about the project is most important. Apps on the network will be the main drive behind adoption.
Other than that I think on release the network can gain some traction as an alternative to Dropbox, Box and similar services. Datastorage, pay for what you store once, retrieve it whenever, forever. You can add the whole ‘more secure, autonomous, …’ to it but most people won’t care.
I tried to get people to switch from whatsapp to signal for a long time and even among fellow developers and people aware of the issues concerning privacy this is very difficult. They just do not want to have to use 2 apps for messaging and they feel like it will take too much energy to convince their non-techy friends and family to make the switch. They use it for a bit and then forget about it. Same will happen if you promote Safe as a way to send secure emails and stuff.
What do people want out of facebook? To be bombarded by adds? Or connect to other people, in a secure and spam free environment? Being an internet marketer facebook is a tough place to sell stuff. People dont use it for shopping. A safebook would be the biggest draw to safe.net, true. Use an alternative to FB to promote safe.net. People will come.
There’s a TED talk called the next 5000 days of the web. It’s already 10 years old and some of the stuff has come into already fruition, but one of the things he’s talking about is how the web may become more like one big machine instead of lots of individual websites.
I think SAFE can be useful for the things described in this talk that are still missing, except that perhaps SAFE can give us personalization without us giving up all privacy.
Personalization is great, it can make the user experience of all kinds of things much better, but perfect personalization requires complete transparency. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, they all want to make personalized AI assistants in the upcoming years, that can help you with everything, and they want you to feed all your data into it, so that it would know more about yourself than you yourself know. With SAFE, such software could potentially be created where you would be in control of the data yourself and wouldn’t have to tell Google or Facebook about every single action you do at every single second of the day.
SAFE, with its one big database, is also better suited for linking data, as described in the talk, than the current web.
It will be hard to ignore 2 billion users. Could jumpstart Safe like nothing else. If data theft is still a big thing in the news at the time of launch, the big names; Dropbox, Instagram, Twitter, et al will be running to Safe Network anyway. Might as well cultivate them.
This might be the outcome if we had done the analysis and decided this was the best approach, given our targets and goals. My point is not to say you’ve reached the wrong conclusion, but that we can’t know if you have or not, because we have not decided upon our goals for each group, or even who the groups are yet. I only mentioned some obvious ones.
My suggestion that we target developers first is because we are not ready to market to other groups yet, because we don’t have anything to offer them. Your one message fits all approach suits a vacuum cleaner, because while there are different demographics, it is a simple product with only one or two important things to get across, which apply fairly well to everyone: it cleans floors really well, looks good, and is expensive (so a bit exclusive). BTW I have a Dyson and will never buy another brand of vacuum cleaner.
But SAFEnetwork is not a vacuum cleaner. There will be one or two core messages around which different selling points and different markets can be arranged, but there is no doubt something different to be said to each of the groups I mentioned, and potentially others I have not thought about.
Saying to developers that SAFEnetwork delivers scalable applications at no extra cost, and never before seen options to individual developers, means nothing to users but is a potentially powerful light bulb lighting insight for developers. (Just an example to illustrate this point though, unless we decide that’s really something to run with). Similarly we are not going to convey to developers the uniqueness of this opportunity with a message designed to show users that they will have the power of a worldwide computer network that never fails, available from their phone or any Internet connected device (again, just an example of a user focused message).
But my point is that we won’t know the best approach until we decide who we are targeting and what we want from them. Maybe that is everyone, but I don’t think so because we don’t have anything to offer most people yet, except developers. We can be getting ready for the other groups, but I think we need to decide that’s better than targeting developers right now before we go ahead with it.
To say doing analysis and designing a strategy before embarking on the design and implementation is disastrous, or that it results in a confusing message, is a misunderstanding of what I’m suggesting. It’s just a good idea to work out what you want to achieve before setting about doing it, even though it is less fun to think first.
@BIGbtc, it looks like you’ve concluded that a single coherent message for everyone is the ideal. It might well be, though I doubt it, but before adopting that approach somebody needs to be able to explain how that serves the project by getting farmers, developers, users, companies, and any others we want to take notice, to pay attention and respond in the ways we want. Or alternatively why we shoukd ignore x, y and z groups and focus just on p & q.
Otherwise, it won’t be a disaster to just go ahead with that approach, but it could be a waste of effort. There is no way this project is headed for disaster once the technology is up and running. I think you just like to use scarey words rather than make a proper case for your chosen approach. I challenge you to try making a case instead of just giving an opinion backed by emotional phrasing.
Definitely agree that gaining traction via the B2B route will be a lot easier off the get go. In selling to other businesses you have less decision makers to convince to generate deep market penetration. On top of that you also have a more educated audience that is more aware of their need for the security benefits.
That isn’t to say that B2C marketing should be ignored, only that it might make sense to put less upfront weight behind marketing to consumers, and to do so with a different primary message (e.g., ability to supplement income with farming rather than ability to have absolute privacy). At the end of the day, could be worthwhile to segmrnt relevant customer/consumer targets and run some market testing to find out what messages resonate best with each segment.
So your approach is treating the marketing of this network as if it is an ICO, because…? Presumably you are only interested in targeting investors and pumping the price. There’s no other reason I can see, whereas I’m talking about marketing the network to those who will utilise it, everyone in fact, except investors.
That I take it is the reason for our different approach and why you keep using NVO as an example when it is irrelevant IMO, being a) an ICO not marketing a product, and b) when it is a product, something very different and much more like a Dyson vacuum cleaner which was your other example.
So you dont read all my post and the coherent message part. I dont give a flyin fart about investors. The methods used by others to raise awareness and funding is less complicated than you want to make it. Im making a claim that the current message is convoluted, complicated. And your ideas make it worse. You will need to preface every one of your messages with “If you are a developer, DONT READ THIS” or "If you are a consumer DONT READ THIS"
That is a disaster.
As usual you have opinion without reason, and put up straw man so you can shoot it down. It’s you who don’t read, or are ignoring my argument. I’m suggesting we work out what the approach should be first, and have suggested what I think the conclusion will be.
I care a lot about investors, but at this point very little about attracting new investment because that’s not what we need. Speculators want to pump and dump, investors want the network to be marketed to those who will utilise it and give it value. From which investors will profit very well. Right now we can attract developers, hence my suggestion we look at marketing to them. When we have things to offer other groups, we can market to them, whether with a one size fits all message, or messages tailored for maximum impact.
But my point all along here is not to say we should do x, but that we should decide what we want to achieve, and how best to do it, first. You have not made a case for anything but pumping the coin, which is fine if that’s your aim, but I’m not interested in that.
In thinking more about what Safenet is intended to be, I propose we stop using the word Marketing and use instead Outreach and Education.
Marketing in and of itself has a connotation of brand promotion, sales, and so forth. While we would all like the token value to increase, we want more people to adopt so called safe internet hygiene. Security. Privacy. Safety.
The more people know about what Safenet is intended for and that it is a utility, a service and not necessarily a corporate investment schema; the more will adopt.
When it comes to deploying targeted marketing differentiated by customer/consumer segment you don’t have to worry as such about the fact that you need different messaging to be effective. Keep in mind that brands reach different audiences through distinct media or locations, if you will. For example, Coca-Cola has to speak to several audiences (e.g., consumers, investors, distributors, institutions, etc.). Coca-cola uses a distinct, relevant messaging for each audience. When was the last time you, as a consumer saw Cova-Cola marketing that was meant primarily for investors or distributors or institutions? Without the distinct messaging, Coke could not speak effectively to each audience, but because each audience is distinct the differentiation in messaging doesn’t cause confusion. Otherwise put, I think what is important is one audience-one message, not so much one product-one message.
Sorry, @whiteoutmashups if I insulted you. I was doing as you do. Speaking my mind and doing it right. If you didnt like my comments about your marketing efforts thats not a reason to slam me personally. You are one of the faces of Maidsafe and that is not becoming.
You need to step up in your efforts to show a good face to MaidSafe all the time.
My differences with another member are not something you want to get into the middle of.
Dude, thats how I opened my critique of your prenzi. I was quite supportive of you in this and many of your other posts. Unreal…
Yes, that is the world in which we live. Without adequate promotion the movement will be stalled, taking months or years to accomplish what would have been, maybe, weeks. In the end, Safe Network will be a business, just like any other business today; a business with lofty and admirable goals and methods, to be sure, but a business just the same.