1019 sats \ 2 replies \ @sorukumar 19 Sep 2023 \ on: Re-Thinking Referrals meta
If I'm understanding correctly, to address 'shady connotations' with referral, you are thinking of the feature of donation/or passing it to any stacker.
Referrer: Feel uncomfortable cuz they either dislike participating in such actions (or dislike being seen doing so) solely for sats.
New signee: Finds it shady cuz someone else is making money off her. Is the referrer a fan of the platform or doing it for sats?
Only allowing the referrer to direct the earnings to donation or anyone else addresses half of the problem of the referrer. It doesn't address the 'dislike being seen doing so' part.
Furthermore, it doesn't ease the concerns of new signees at the moment they are making a decision to sign up.
One potential solution is to make it explicitly clear in the referral message that the additional revenue generated from new signees will be directed toward donations. A more formal version of work like #258853)
I know execution-wise, it is more work!
2nd, here is a link to building a referral program. https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/this-week-16-building-a-referrals. Seems basic, but further reading part of the write-up may be useful.
i think people feel uncomfortable going out of their way to add their referral links, so the solve for that part would just be to automatically attribute new stackers to referrers based on their zapping activity (assuming no referral link was used).
no action required for either party, just carry on with your normal zapping behavior and SN can use that info to direct referral rewards to the right person… and of course the option to set a referrer if one wants to dive into their settings and do so.
reply
Ah. Now, I think I'm able to make some sense of the thinking behind this: Once the new stacker has begun zapping content, 2.1% of their future earnings will be directed to the last person they zapped
Based on the current understanding of the SN referral product and proposed changes, I guess, in terms of metrics, the proposed change is directed more toward retention and engagement rather than acquisition.
reply