Author Topic: Idea - 5 New Websites for 5 separate BitShares businesses  (Read 6578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Ok I understand what your thought process was now, but yes, I want all of those people to go to a decentralized exchange. It is not confusing. People understand what exchanges are. It's fine.

It's worse to try to split up one brand into five brands and get brand recognition for all of them. Be one thing and let people hear and fined out about that, it's much more powerful. I'm sure you've seen all the conversations about the network effect on these forums.

Maybe in the future, once you've reached high adoption/critical mass, you can branch out. No one starts out like that. We've had all of these conversations before, it's like half the reason we did the merger. A good example is Facebook. They started as Facebook, then added in messaging, then eventually branched out "Messenger" as its own separate app. That wouldn't have worked if they tried to get it going on its own in parallel with the original Facebook. Same thing with Google and all of its brands.

Cool yeah, we differ. I definitely don't want to send those customers to a decentralized exchange.

(I've heard about the network effect that would be gained from funnelling everything into one & it sounded plausible. However if you look at our forum stats you'll see topics, posts & new members have all been steadily declining for the past few months. Partly explained by the crypto-downturn I believe but also points to the fact that a single BitShares has quite a high learning curve & few even in the alt-coin market easily understand it.)

The decentralized exchange focus is good, because it breaks out one of the business models of the five so people can focus on just that instead of everything all at once.

But we may lose a lot of customers to others who are focused on building the future UBS's, Western Unions, BitGold.com's & PayPals of the future at our unfocused expense imo, so it's worth thinking about.

Offline teenagecheese

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Ok I understand what your thought process was now, but yes, I want all of those people to go to a decentralized exchange. It is not confusing. People understand what exchanges are. It's fine.

It's worse to try to split up one brand into five brands and get brand recognition for all of them. Be one thing and let people hear and find out about that, it's much more powerful. I'm sure you've seen all the conversations about the network effect on these forums.

Maybe in the future, once you've reached high adoption/critical mass, you can branch out. No one starts out like that. We've had all of these conversations before, it's like half the reason we did the merger. A good example is Facebook. They started as Facebook, then added in messaging, then eventually branched out "Messenger" as its own separate app. That wouldn't have worked if they tried to get it going on its own in parallel with the original Facebook. Same thing with Google and all of its brands.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 05:52:50 pm by teenagecheese »

Offline valzav

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
    • View Profile
In the long term we definitely need to break up each part. In the beginning we should focus all our efforts on a single selling point, the excellent decentralized exchange.

100% agree, if we can take over "decentralize exchange" niche it would be much easier to expand to other markets.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Please don't do this. It's fine as it is, an decentralized exchange for all different types of assets. People will understand that fine. Having 5 different websites that are all linked somehow will only confuse people MORE! Talk about causing the same problems with changing our image all over again. I'm getting confused just thinking about it. Even despite the image change I think this is a poor marketing tactic in general.

At most have a separate wallet/site for just bitUSD, but only do that once you're ready to focus on mass market adoption. At this point adopting bitUSD by itself is kind of stupid, because it is not useful anywhere, so you should still present the whole bitshares package until it is developed enough where bitUSD be its own product.

I can't believe everyone thinks splitting up into five different websites is such a good idea.

Your dad keeps gold in a vault he's heard about blockchain gold. Where do you want to send him? The decentralized exchange? Will he go with us or BitGold.com?

A guy in Argentina has heard about dollar stable assets & could be interested in BitUSD. Do you want to send him to the decentralized exchange? Will he go with us or NuBits?

A businessman has heard about currency stable accounts that are better than having a Swiss Bank account. Do you want to send him to the exchange? Will he go with us or a competitor that has branded themselves similar to a bank?

A taxi driver wants to send money home to his family. Do you want to send him to the exchange?
Will he go with us or a simple branded site set up specifically for remittance.

That was the idea behind it, that we actually make it simpler that way, but it's just an idea.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 05:18:26 pm by Empirical1.1 »

Offline teenagecheese

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Please don't do this. It's fine as it is, a decentralized exchange for all different types of assets. People will understand that fine. Having 5 different websites that are all linked somehow will only confuse people MORE! Talk about causing the same problems with changing our image all over again. I'm getting confused just thinking about it. Even despite the image change I think this is a poor marketing tactic in general.

At most have a separate wallet/site for just bitUSD, but only do that once you're ready to focus on mass market adoption. At this point adopting bitUSD by itself is kind of stupid, because it is not useful anywhere, so you should still present the whole bitshares package until it is developed enough where bitUSD can be its own product.

I can't believe everyone thinks splitting up into five different websites is such a good idea.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 05:09:13 pm by teenagecheese »

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
In the long term we definitely need to break up each part. In the beginning we should focus all our efforts on a single selling point, the excellent decentralized exchange.

Yes. I'm for that. It's too hard to market BitShares as all these things and creating sites for each business model right away is not feasible so BitShares should try be one thing at first and that's the decentralized exchange, I'm pretty much with that, I wouldn't mind if we gave the exchange a name like BDEX as Matt suggested so it can also become known as it's own thing eventually. (Ultimately looking like one of the major exchanges.)

Though we can try promote BitUSD & BitGold a bit separately already as Method suggests and is doing via whatisbitusd.com as there is a big market there and hopefully those will be the first to morph into their own sites that compete with the likes of NuBits and BitReserve respectively & don't require a huge understanding of everything else involved in BitShares.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 05:05:50 pm by Empirical1.1 »

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
In the long term we definitely need to break up each part. In the beginning we should focus all our efforts on a single selling point, the excellent decentralized exchange.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
My only problem with this is that because of the merger and now marketing 5 different business will have people think BitShares got divided again. At least it will probably get most people who aren't up to date confused again.

This is an internal idea, not something we would be trumpeting. Its not even a clear demarcation, more like refocus activities to push specific products rather than tell the folks 'Buy BitShares! the digital Onion!'

For instance, BitUSD is coming up with its own website. In future I hope we would get an wallet which only has BitUSD on the front and we would like to promote it without talking about the scaling of 101 delegates and what not. The only way any customer would know that its part of BitShares is a small *powered by BitShares logo.

Yeah exactly it's just more the idea of having a site, video & wallet targeted to specific markets but on BitShares.org it would be clear they're all 100% BitShares.

It's just if your mom needs a BitUSD wallet, you send her to a branded site with the BitUSD pitch, video and wallet. So she doesn't need to understand BitShares on the back-end that well at all. If your dad is interested in Bitgold & Silver we can send him to a branded site that competes with BitReserve & so on that was the idea.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 04:45:42 pm by Empirical1.1 »

sumantso

  • Guest
My only problem with this is that because of the merger and now marketing 5 different business will have people think BitShares got divided again. At least it will probably get most people who aren't up to date confused again.

This is an internal idea, not something we would be trumpeting. Its not even a clear demarcation, more like refocus activities to push specific products rather than tell the folks 'Buy BitShares! the digital Onion!'

For instance, BitUSD is coming up with its own website. In future I hope we would get an wallet which only has BitUSD on the front and we would like to promote it without talking about the scaling of 101 delegates and what not. The only way any customer would know that its part of BitShares is a small *powered by BitShares logo.

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
My only problem with this is that because of the merger and now marketing 5 different business will have people think BitShares got divided again. At least it will probably get most people who aren't up to date confused again.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile
+5%

Keeping it simple and targeted, will be a great way to make navigating this new space easier. BitShares is too complex to sell all of it at once...

 +5%

Offline bubble789

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile

Offline hpenvy2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
BitShares is difficult to understand as a whole, I like the idea of breaking up the marketing into manageable chunks.  We can better tailor the message and measure which parts of our message are resonating with the audience.

Offline davidpbrown

 +5%

Keeping it simple and targeted, will be a great way to make navigating this new space easier. BitShares is too complex to sell all of it at once - bare in mind these topics can be a dull aside for most people; trivial useful options they might take up on for the sake of it. Once they are engaged, they will catch on to what else is available.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline blahblah7up

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
This is the correct way to think!  +5%  New businesses which are understandable with independent UIs.

Something like a simple savings and checking account offering 5% and nothing else (no trading, basket currencies, blah blah blah) would be extremely popular.  Most people don't have, or are even interested in, access to markets for example.

Forget marketing Bitshares!  Bitshares is the backend!  At least long term this is the only way it will ever be digestible to a wider public.