#Public-Facing Communication from Team Should Be Approved by Marketing Sub-Council (Including Tweets)

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

hardy rampart
#

Due to the number of times certain tweets by certain core contributors have been "misinterpreted" by the public audience and by our own community members, I believe it would behoove us as a DAO to ensure proper communication regarding Illuvium matters from influential core contributors are reviewed against a set of brand communication standards going forward.

Prerequisite communication standards that must be answered/passed could include but not limited to:

-Is it being sent to the proper audience(s)?
-Is it being sent via the correct channel(s)?
-Is it being sent by the appropriate individual/account?
-Is it accurate?
-Is it respectful?
-Is it political?
-Is it necessary?
-Does it instill confidence or doubt in the success/management of Illuvium?

Whether or not this something we can/should do doesn't matter. I just hope certain individuals take this feedback and use it to be more successful in how they communicate to the public.

broken bison
#

Not only to the public, but to their community*.

uncut holly
#

I'm personally not a fan of this.

Who are we policing and why?
Only Kieran?
All founders?
All core contributors?
All council members?
All influencers?

What are we, North Korea?

Kieran and everybody else should be able to say what they want wherever they want as an individuals.

Some people think he was out of line. Some people think it was the wrong timing. Some people agree with him. But we can't stop him from expressing his opinion however bad it might be. What's next, are we going to stop his weddings as well because it doesn't really benefit the DAO because he's gonna take couple of extra days of then?

static carbon
icy willow
# hardy rampart Due to the number of times certain tweets by certain core contributors have been...

I think guidelines are great. I think the suggestions are reasonable in terms of asking yourself those questions before writing out something.

However I don't think any Council should be involved in reviewing influential core contributor messages.

Being an admin of a different protocol, I know first hand that having every communication reviewed is literally impossible to run an organization efficiently.

Not only that, no way would I accept the insane amount of bureaucracy that would break any organization that implements a policy like this.

Internal checks and balances? Great.

Including a council and massive amounts of headache and time drain for core contributors?
No way.

hardy rampart
#

We can un-tag this as protocol then, but I'd definitely leave it up as Marketing Feedback for sure.

We have to think of it like a celebrity. Most, not all, successful celebrities have controls set in place to not implode their brand image. The same can be applied to high-profile leaders. Whether or not it's manifested by the DAO, I HIGHLY recommend certain individuals start working with a branding/marketing coach (or sub-council) for "advice"

hardy rampart
static carbon
hardy rampart
#

Is their leadership spitting out tweets that anger their customers? Nope.

#

Illuvium’s brand image is far too closely tied with leadership. It should be separate and highly controlled. If anyone wants to speak up on a matter, they should have the self control and self discipline to do it via the right channels AND with the correct tone/approach.

white belfry
hardy rampart
# white belfry From a fundamental standpoint do we wanna be like Apple? (Money/Success aside) I...

Let's not look at things in black and white. Many aspects of how they run their companies should be leveraged but definitely not all. In this case, brand image and PR control. I used to do marketing for a non-profit that had to focus on 146 countries all at once. The best approach was actually to communicate less, but when you do, localize it and keep it under a certain branding persona for that locale. It's easy enough as you just have to think, "How should I say what I want to say to this person?" We do that all the time in our day to day.

Again, the problem is that we have idolized the leadership team to the point that the brand closely correlates to "Warwick". All illuvium-related communication that the Warwicks wish to say should go through the Illuvium accounts. In a way, we need to centralize the communication for our decentralized entity.

stone wadi
# hardy rampart Due to the number of times certain tweets by certain core contributors have been...

Not a fan.

While I agree that words of important figures from Illuvium can hurt the project if used wrong... I don't think the Marketing Sub-Council has the time or will to police anyone.

If this would to be implemented, I don't think it should be under the responsibility of any Sub-Council.

Also, the system you propose doesn't take into account a few factors:

  1. Not practical to always have to wait that someone in the council is online and available to review.
  2. This could be perceived as a straight censorship attempt.

On a more constructive note, what could more reasonably be done is a sort of PR guidelines that apply to the entire team on what they can or can't say publicly, they would then self manage themselves.

Some degree of accountability could be set to ensure they have a reason other than willing hard the project to succeed to respect the PR guidelines, but I again don't believe this should be the role of any council.

hardy rampart
# stone wadi Not a fan. While I agree that words of important figures from Illuvium can hurt...

"PR guidelines that apply to the entire team on what they can or can't say publicly, they would then self manage themselves."

"Some degree of accountability could be set to ensure they have a reason other than willing hard the project to succeed to respect the PR guidelines,"

What do you propose? This is why I made this; to start the discussion and to call out that past communication has indeed hurt the Illuvium brand. What happens when they don't exhibit a certain level of professionalism and tact when discussing Illuvium matters?

Again, my thoughts are to have the leadership work closely with marketing moving forward (sub-council included; cause why not).

shadow cedar
#

Also not a fan, we can't and shouldn't as a DAO restricts what team members say because it opens the door to dumb censorship that I personally think does more harm than good. Even though I disliked what happened recently, I think the way it got resolved was good and shows that this community has it's eyes open and will push back when the situation deems it.

If there is an extreme scenario where the actions and word of a core team member are super negative, toxic and harmful, I'm sure the DAO will rally around to help ILV Labs take adequate measures.

ripe nacelle
# hardy rampart "PR guidelines that apply to the entire team on what they can or can't say publi...

I've trained my chatGPT conversation about illuvium DAO and Labs, not saying this is any good or the right way forward and sorry for the GPT wall of text but maybe something useful here?

Illuvium DOA Public Relations Guidelines for Social Media Posts

As core contributors at Illuvium Labs, it's important that we uphold a positive image and reputation for the project and its community. Social media is a powerful tool that can be used to communicate with our community and the wider blockchain space, but it's important to use it responsibly and in a way that aligns with the values and goals of the project.

Here are some guidelines to keep in mind when making social media posts:

  1. Be respectful and professional. Always be mindful of your tone and language, and avoid making inflammatory or derogatory statements. Remember that you are representing Illuvium Labs and the DOA in your posts.

  2. Avoid making promises or guarantees. Be cautious when making statements about the future direction or success of the project. Avoid making promises or guarantees that cannot be fulfilled.

  3. Use accurate information. Ensure that the information you share is accurate and up-to-date. Avoid sharing rumors or unverified information.

  4. Follow the branding guidelines. Use the approved branding and logos when making social media posts. Ensure that your posts are visually consistent with the project's branding.

  5. Engage with the community. Social media is a great way to engage with our community and get feedback on the project. Respond to comments and questions in a timely and respectful manner.

Remember that as core contributors to Illuvium Labs and the DOA, we have a responsibility to uphold the values and goals of the project. By following these guidelines, we can ensure that our social media presence is professional, accurate, and positive.

static carbon
#

The ONLY way something like this makes sense is if it's the community stating a way of operating that we 'in theory' want EVERYONE in the community to follow - but have no real enforcement of except social consensus.

anything that is rules from the community to the team is again developing a toxic relationship.

Guidelines for everyone or guildlines for no one.

stone wadi
# hardy rampart "PR guidelines that apply to the entire team on what they can or can't say publi...

Accountability is a tricky topic. Some people already tried to fight for it but it looks like most of the community believes in the Lead Team enough that they deem it not necessary to implement extra ways of accountability.

Also, I personnally dislike the wording around the "call out intent"... Time is not about pointing fingers since i believe the problem is solved for now.

Now about @ripe nacelle , i see you're having the same issue I have sometimes with ChatGPT. A lot of buzzwords but not much essence. I'd recommend giving more context or guide it more. Anyway, if an IIP would be passed through with the intent of setting up those guidelines, this would be a good starting point for the finished doc.

We'd also need to make sure that the team agrees and consents about this as I feel it's important for the success of such a proposal that the team is on the same page, otherwise this all will just end up creating more harm than good.

stone wadi
static carbon
# stone wadi good point.

so many ppl are power hungry to 'manage' the team. it's pretty disturbing bc it's the fastest way to rob the joy and love that turns into value they are currently putting into the game/dao

The community and sub-councils need to support the team and find ways to make their lives easier through a step by step process of decentralization. Where in the beginning we have to figure out how to work within the teams process first - as they currently know and are doing everything. In the future, the core team might be working from a community process but that's a years/decade long process, if we are actually going to build the best gaming studio in the world.

stone wadi
ripe nacelle
static carbon
#

I'd suggest moving this to a different space in that case and something purely focused on outlining community values and principles broadly.

summer jay
static carbon
# summer jay I totally agree. With Gov 2 we might give power hungry people real power and mak...

Ya - see that risk. I don't think there is a coordinated effort, and so no offence to anyone running but don't think any individual can do that much damage via negligence or even malice. But it's definitely motivating to make sure we get the right people involved.

The community has shown the capacity to learn from mistakes, so that's super promising!

It needs to be trial by fire at this stage, we need to keep taking risks and pushing forward.

I personally don't think having a bunch a people that get paid via their audience engagement are people we want controlling a sub-council and the attention of the dao, I think we want experience doing the actual working the team is going to do.

There are plenty of very qualified people that would take the pay and experience we are offering, we just need to connect the dots.

lean pivot