I love the concept, and it has of course had some success already so far, but the user experience as an media buyer still has a lot of gaps…
I’m not sure if this is by design (to keep advertisers at the very least crypto-literate) but a more standard interface and model will reduce those barriers to entry.
Traditional ad platforms offer placements based on a couple of metrics: views and/or click (and sometimes “conversions”, although this is usually limited to referral programs).
Zesty current-state has a few roadblocks. Consider a roadblock as something that requires user spending any amount of time for them to overcome (including education of non-standard mechanics) .
- user must have a basic level of crypto-literacy (low barrier, most people have metamask now)
- user must use Polygon (medium barrier, although annoying if user doesn’t use Polygon)
- user must understand and use Dutch auctions (high barrier, Dutch auctions are rarely used because they are confusing and offer very little certainty/reliability in ongoing campaigns and reek of price gauging. From the perspective of a potential advertiser or even media buyer, fixed pricing offers are more convenient and easier to include in a media buy, campaign, or client approval workflow. Even IF the user understands Dutch auctions to begin with)
- users must participate in multiple auctions to participate accross projects (high barrier, multiplying all the previous barriers)
In short, the workflow for the user would benefit from being streamlined.
Media buyers from agency are usually looking for something as simple as “X clicks for $X”… even if that does cost them more than fiddling around with Dutch auctions (their time is generally more valuable than any savings they may be able to make by doing that, so it’s ultimately cheaper to pay slightly more for that convenience even if it’s only saving them an hour) The current situation leaves the media buyer in a situation where not only do they not know how many clicks they will get, but they have to manually manage multiple auctions and on top of that, learn Dutch auctions and also keep track of multiple auctions with different expected final prices…
In terms of making development/design choices, I can understand the intellectual appeal of all of the above… However, these design choices have compounded into a system that is ultimately divergent from the existing media buy standards and industry UX standards, which will more often than not require the user to self-educate multiple concepts and non-standard interactions increasing the friction for any kind of pragmatic use of the platform.
In terms of a UX+UI design approach, clear goals should be set to simplify user interaction, and remove or replace as many unnecessary friction points as possible.
Potential solutions for the above:
- consider setting up a fiat on-ramp or partnering with a wallet that has a fiat onramp.
- consider supporting multiple chains, or giving sellers an option
- consider a more standard auction format or even a fixed price that follows standard industry rates (maybe users could even set their own prices or chose auction style)
- consider adding a “blanket buy” for buyers who may be time poor and simply want a broad spread of placements. If this is not possible, consider offering a manual service to manage auctions etc on behalf of the client
Media buyers and advertisers are generally time-poor and are not looking to learn about novel chains, alternate auction formats, nor do they have much interest in learning Python… no matter how cool all of those things are…
I know there is a bid-bot on github, but please consider that if the interface is improved, this “solution” (which in itself is an extremely high barrier to entry as it requires Python literacy) would not be required at all.