There were some interesting processes we could look at even at this early stage of project development.
First process we found worthy observing was selecting the OGs for the project.
We took approach of sending DMs with “invitation letters” to selected people who showed interest and supported the project at earliest phase – and who declared to be interested in OG spot. The letter explained the first details of what would be asked of a person if they decide to join as OG. They had 48 hours to respond and show their willingness.
Whether it’s for the reason that it asked for more engagement than, rather usual, “join discord/retweet/follow” scenario, or because the time period was too short, or because it was more intimate, from planned 100 people we ended up contacting 115, to get 100 answers. That is a response rate of 87%, which at first glance – is not a bad response rate.
What was interesting though, is that even people who were “cheering for themselves to get that spot” on twitter posts, were sometimes not able to deliver the answer to our DM. The question remains - knowing how important it is for people to get the OG spots in this space – if it was an “easier” task, would the rates be higher?
There was also the second phase of the OG enrollment. We asked those 100 selected persons to fill the consent form. This is a much needed part of this project/study because OGs are essentially forming an experimental group.
You may ask why not send them the contact form at the above mentioned first step already? Because first we wanted to get the grasp of who are we talking to, and announce that there will be a consent form.
Maybe for the reason that it asked for even more engagement – at first we got only 58% of the consent forms filled out.
Though, after the reminding message (48h later) the number went up to 94%. That reminded us that maybe it is true that people need a bit more time in this space – to decently follow everything that interests them.
At that point we decided to "collect" a bit more OGs than 100 which was firstly planned. What is important for the study to be successful is to have as many as possible regularly active OGs for the period of one year (100 would be nice), and we do expect drop-outs to happen throughout that time. We extended the search period for 2 more days, in which we interacted with people on twitter, and came to another ~15 persons who were active and interested. Thus, at the moment there are 108 persons on our OG-EG list. In the end, we can say we are glad that the firstly planned period was extended since we got a bit more quality time to meet people who are here.
Secondly, polls. Be it content wise or "poll answers engagement wise", polls were very interesting metric to look at.
With above mentioned “rates of people answering to DMs” in this space, we wanted to hear what public on our twitter thinks about it. We set a poll (24 hour duration :D ) with question "How much time would you say is enough to let someone have to answer the question "Do you want to be OG?" and answers you can see below.
Though the final numbers were highly influenced with the option “Give the OG to me” (which was surely set there just for fun and possible higher engagement), we still are very interested to hear that majority thinks that 24 hours is enough time in this space to let someone answer on the opportunity they are given. All the while, what we’ve seen is that even 48 hours in many cases was not enough!
One of the polls in the last week asked the question "Are you here for science?". The option "Here for science" was put there for the exact reason that this project is, besides NFT collection, a scientific study. It was basically a "rip off" of the popular ironic statement "Here for art" - usually used in this space for when you want to state that you are not here for the money, but that you are really an art collector. Though it certainly can be truth in some cases, it is generally believed that most of the people are here for the money, even when they state otherwise.
With this poll, we wanted to see what will people say when we introduce something new as science to the equation, and also - will the people be willing to state that they are here actually for flipping/money. The other options were “Here to flip” and “What’s science?”.
Basically what happened is – "here for science" took 69% of the votes, and has flipped the flippers.
Be it for reasons that people still don’t look at this as an NFT project but more solely as a study and don’t know where to put it in their heads, or don't expect it to be a good flip, or be it that people are “not comfortable” stating that they would flip something – we cannot know yet. It will be interesting to see how this same exact poll will turn out in the future. One of our goals is to repeat certain polls at certain times and deduct conclusions out of it.
Other polemically interesting poll was the one which asked "What do you think is the most deciding factor for people in CNFT space whether to buy an NFT?". Out of offered answers - "Influencers/whales", "DYOR" and "FOMO" - FOMO got the highest numbers with 41.6% votes.
Through subsequent tweets and comments below the poll it was possible to see that people are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of DYOR and not being labile to FOMO into something out of pure Fear of missing out. Still, it seems that it's easy for people "to loose their control" and buy something just because "everyone is buying". Though it can sometimes turn out well, in great majority of cases it will not turn out well, and you are almost certainly losing money.
For "poll answers engagement wise" we wanted to compare engagements at different sizes of our following.
When we were at around 100 followers we got 32 votes on a poll (32%).
When we were at around 200 we got 49 votes (24,5%).
When we were at around 250 we got 48 votes (19%).
When we were at around 350 we got 89 votes (25%).
It must be said that those were all different polls, and that the content of each is also a determining factor for people to vote or not. Conclusively, it is interesting to see that as of now – the growth of poll votes engagement numbers does not correspond with the follower numbers but seems that is more influenced by the content of the poll.
Fourth thing that we were observing was the general engagement rate at our twitter, as the following grew bigger. One way to look at it is obviously the pure numbers on tweets – likes, retweets, and also engagements, impressions and all the other twitter statistics.
Definitely highest engagement post was the one in which we mentioned the exact number of OG spots left for grabs. All the other posts mentioning OG/WL spots got similar but little lower rate. From that we can conclude that the more exclusive it feels to get something (only 9 places!) the more will people engage to try and get it.
We are glad that one of the threads also climbed pretty high in engagement rates, Considering that it is a thread and has more words to read in it, we are glad to see people are interested in that kind of topics.
We are still not sure if we got our first FUD, because one of the comments did slightly seem like it was headed towards it.
The question in comment was "Isn't this AI art?" - and upon our commenting back we still didn't get the answer whether it was out of pure interest for art or it was directed to "How dare we using AI art".
We wanna clearly state, and will be clearly stating it throughout the project that art for it is AI based. Never tried to hide it, nor ever will. With all that this project is about, it is also about exploring AI art possibilities, and learning how to use in the best possible way. The more we dwelve into it the more we see that it also takes a skill to make AI art work the way you want it to.
Possibly it's announcing to us that in the future there will be persons who know how to skillfully use such software, and that it will also create a whole new set of employment opportunities.
With all things said, we hoped you enjoyed our first report, and here's to many more to come!