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.