Last week was exhausting, but in a good way! Ten projects competed in our leaderboard feature, we improved our SEO, and we analyzed our launch performance. Spoiler alert: it’s not great 🥴
- New release. We released version 0.0.5 of the browser extension that pays users to browse the web, which included improvements to our event tracking. This enables us to measure and show advertising and leaderboard performance data. We also submitted new copy and images to the Chrome Web Store, explaining the new leaderboard feature.
- Leaderboard Competition. On September 22, we launched the first upvote competition. Twenty projects submitted entries to compete, ranging from NFT collections to decentralized exchanges. Four clear leaders have emerged, gathering 213, 171, 121, 69 votes, respectively.
- SEO Audit. We identified and resolved SEO issues with our website and blog. For example, we fixed our sitemap.xml and used Google’s Indexing API to clean old links that were raising 404 errors. We also added redirects on those old, erroneous URLs. Two days later, our links began appearing in search engine results for our brand keywords. Next week, we’ll perform keyword research to focus our content and rank on those search terms.
- App Approval Delays. The Chrome Web Store seamlessly approved our last release within hours. But the most recent submission took 4 days to receive a rejection, despite having less code changes. Fortunately, the rejection was trivial and we quickly resubmitted. But that it can take that long is disappointing.
- Competition Performance. The leaderboard competition had smaller impact on growth than projected. Each launch partners was vetted for having a community of 1,000+ members on Discord or Twitter. Based on prior community activations we had done, we estimated 30% participation from members. In other words out of 1,000 members, 300 would install the extension and upvote their community’s project. We fell short of that goal.
- In theory, our messaging could have reached 364,576 community members – estimated as the sum of each project’s Discord members and Twitter followers, without regard to overlapping membership across projects and channels. But only 10 projects actively promoted the leaderboard competition to their members, and so messaging may have reached approximately 260,318 members. Below that funnel step, there were 306 engagements – that is, any reaction to community messaging, such as Discord emojis or Twitter likes and retweets. At the bottom of the funnel, 73 new and unique wallets connected to the browser extension.
- Given that we were expecting 3,000 new wallets, this growth tactic fell far below our expectations, reaching only 2.4% of our goal. We will continue to iterate on this approach, with an aim at solving the middle funnel, where most of the leak occurred. To that end, we’ve reflected on why we are not seeing more engaged community members:
- One possible explanation is that asking members to install a browser extension, connect a wallet, and approve a 0.001 $MATIC transaction is too much. For context, most community members are content with an occasional “GM” in a Discord chat room or Retweeting content. But the conversion rate of 23.8% from Engaged Members to New Wallets suggests that converting Engaged Members is not the core issue.
- Another reason why the campaign underperformed is that some community leaders pushed their members more or less. Out of 20 projects, only 10 promoted the competition to their community. Although that makes for a better top of funnel (i.e., more “Messaged Members”), that doesn’t seem to attack the core problem of getting them to engage in the first place.
- Another possibility is that AlphaBack’s value proposition is not strong enough for people to act on the offer. In other words, the notion of getting paid in exchange for replacing the browser homepage is not attractive enough (given, for instance, perceived security risks).
- Reflect on the obstacles above and send me your thoughts.
As usual, we value your steadfast support 🙏