In a bear market, Crypto needs these three points to consider new marketing solutions

Original Title: "Crypto marketing strategies are failing, and new ideas can be found by examining these three aspects"

Author: Beichen, Chain Teahouse

In the crypto/Web3/cryptocurrency/blockchain field (regardless of how it's specifically referred to, you know which domain I'm talking about), marketing is almost the absolute factor for success, and it can be taken a step further—project visual design is the primary productivity.

Early-stage users and investors are not paying for essential needs; they are trying new things, driven by the space of imagination rather than actual utility.

Therefore, there is no true monopoly in the crypto field, no absolutely leading technology, and no exclusive channels to tell users to love or not love it; all project parties are competing for a limited number of users.

So what constitutes successful crypto marketing? I have reviewed many public strategies from leading overseas third-party marketing companies, as well as the marketing methods of numerous projects (both leading and trailing), in an attempt to find the secret to successful marketing, ultimately arriving at a shocking conclusion—there is not much difference in their marketing actions!

While it is true that successful marketing strategies are always similar, it is indeed possible to summarize "the top 10 successful strategies for crypto marketing" based on those projects that have succeeded, and the correctness is irrefutable. However, you can also summarize "the top 10 failed strategies for crypto marketing" based on those projects that have failed, and you will find them fundamentally similar.

If you don’t believe it, try to recall whether all projects are looking for KOLs to promote, establishing accounts on all channels of social media (including but not limited to Reddit, Telegram, Discord, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) to attract followers through lotteries, whitelists, etc., placing news and soft articles in the media, and organizing competitions to attract users or developers… but the feedback from these identical actions can be vastly different.

This does not mean that those project parties are not marketing seriously (in fact, failed projects often spend more), nor does it mean that crypto marketing is inherently ineffective, but rather that some of those marketing strategies are destined to be ineffective, and project parties sometimes execute tasks just to complete them, discounting the few remaining options.

In a bull market, these marketing strategies are somewhat effective, while in a bear market, they almost fail. It might be worthwhile to re-examine the marketing strategies of projects from the following three points, and you will discover new ideas about crypto marketing.

Ineffective Marketing vs. Effective Marketing

First, it starts with positioning.

The audience in the crypto field is inherently niche; when it comes to a specific product, it is at most a few very small circles stacked together. However, many common strategies are merely applying strategies for mass consumer goods, such as SEO and media bombardment. These strategies reach non-core users, and the conversion rate is naturally not high; they are more suitable for mass consumer goods like Procter & Gamble, where the core users are the general public.

In the crypto field, perhaps only centralized exchanges are suitable for such mass marketing, as they cover users from the sinking market to high-net-worth individuals. Any user of ordinary internet financial products with a slightly higher risk appetite is a potential user of centralized exchanges.

Thus, we see FTX playing various marketing tricks, but this has no value for most crypto projects to emulate, and even for most centralized exchanges, it lacks emulation value because very few centralized exchanges are fully compliant, making it difficult to appear transparently in mainstream media. Projects like DeFi and NFTs that require on-chain interaction have already clearly limited their core user base.

Therefore, effective marketing should directly target this small group of potential core users repeatedly, concentrating marketing touchpoints on them, including but not limited to collaborating with various project parties, engaging in intensive discussions with leading KOLs in segmented tracks (because the users are core, the number will certainly not be too large), and appearing in various industry research articles and reports; they will bring the best conversion.

To insert a note, when planning a marketing strategy, it is essential to set a "minimally viable task," allowing target users to experience it at the lowest cost (whether in terms of time or money) before discussing conversion rates.

A common mistake among project parties is that they come in with a full set of strategies without understanding, resulting in very attractive data, but after all that effort, the core users still do not know about the project.

KPI-Oriented vs. Core Goal-Oriented

Assuming that the project party has already established a precise positioning, avoiding unnecessary (or at least lower-priority) marketing strategies, there are still a series of factors during execution that significantly undermine the final effect, with the root cause being KPI-oriented rather than core goal-oriented.

Full coverage marketing is merely inefficient, but there are always a few effective ones; however, KPI orientation can turn the effective into ineffective.

KPIs are originally meant to be quantitative indicators for reference to evaluate results, not the results themselves. However, for specific executors, the optimal strategy is often to directly aim for achieving the indicators (rather than solving the problem itself).

For example, finding KOLs for promotion is absolutely effective, so the project party will choose a batch of KOLs with the best data based on the budget for a one-time investment, which appears to reach hundreds of thousands of followers. However, this data looks good only when reporting upward, and it does not reflect the quality of followers. The actual conversion effect of a few thousand views/readings may not be as high as the conversion brought by battling in a relatively precise community.

Moreover, one-time investment is merely a fleeting impression; the market quickly forgets. As previously mentioned, the effect of precisely targeting core users and repeatedly reinforcing presence is much better. Just like the project recommended by a KOL you follow once is not as impressive as a project you can see across several information channels (even if someone just mentioned it in a WeChat group).

Additionally, there are activities held merely for the sake of holding activities, such as gathering people to create an event. It may seem lively, and there will certainly be some conversions, but the overall input-output ratio is not high enough.

Even more exaggerated is that a job that could be completed beautifully in a single work period, under the guidance of KPIs, will require an additional (or half) time to prepare a summary for upward reporting. If it is a team internal review, it may sharpen the axe, but such a summary filled with various embellishments and considerations is entirely unnecessary.

When oriented towards core goals, it becomes very different. For example, if the core goal is to attract deep users from segmented tracks to experience and retain them as much as possible, then there is no need to focus too much on the frequency of events, forwarding volume, or similar reference indicators; adjustments can be made dynamically based on actual effects.

KPI-oriented marketing inevitably leads to effect-driven investment (regardless of whether there is any effect in the end), while the long-term operation of a project must be brand building, with different emphases between the two.

Third-Party Marketing vs. Self-Marketing

What has been mentioned earlier is leveraging third parties for marketing, but the most effective and fundamental approach is for project parties to establish communities for self-marketing.

In the crypto field, the roles of project parties, media, investment institutions, and retail investors are not so clearly defined; they almost all follow a research + monetization path (project parties develop products based on research to monetize, while other roles invest based on research to monetize). Therefore, producing high-quality research content is the best way to establish reputation, without exception.

This is hard to imagine in other business fields, as knowledge is usually generated first and then converted into business, so there are always experts who possess knowledge to guide business. However, in emerging industries, companies may be the leading experts in their segmented fields (if they are indeed promising quality companies).

Thus, there is no truly authoritative media in the crypto field, nor are there truly authoritative experts. The industry is rapidly iterating, and no one can monopolize information; everyone is piecing together their fragmented understanding of the industry.

Users/investors favor a project because they see its potential. Therefore, as frontier explorers, project parties should produce in-depth research content to establish trust, which is much more effective than seeking third-party validation.

Procter & Gamble's users do not study "the impact of surfactants on the mechanical properties of hair"; they just need a trusted third-party authority to tell them it works well. However, users/investors of crypto projects are very concerned about the project's technical route and iteration ideas. If the team demonstrates sufficient professionalism, even if the product fails, there will still be people willing to pay for the new products released by the team.

However, many project parties merely treat community communication as customer service work and view content output as merely issuing announcements. This is a practice typically adopted by Web2 listed companies, which seems humorous when applied to Web3 projects. At least at this stage, Web3 users are the early supporters of the project and future companions, not just consumers.

Therefore, project parties establishing communities is not as simple as building a group like community group buying; it requires establishing real connections with community users (whether they are real users or potential users, as long as they are interested in the project). This means that project leaders need to be active in the community, conduct various forms of communication activities, and produce high-quality research content in their field, which is the best way to establish their professionalism, rather than relying on third-party PR.

Conclusion

When conducting marketing for crypto projects, it is essential to distinguish between ineffective marketing aimed at the masses (or low-efficiency marketing) and effective marketing aimed at core users, and whether the subsequent execution is KPI-oriented or core goal-oriented. Most importantly, project parties must engage in self-marketing to establish professional reputation.

Based on the above standards, the vast majority of crypto project parties fail to meet the criteria. Some projects took off in a bull market; we cannot say they did well in marketing, only that they did not drag their feet.

Therefore, the crypto market needs new marketing solutions to accumulate real users and survive the bear market to welcome the next bull market. Of course, if you want to target retail investors for a wave of profit, just ignore what I said, or simply operate in the opposite direction.