I know signature campagns exists on this forum for very log time . I was wondering , do they really help to promote ICO , i know they spend a lot of money to pay bitcointalk members to wear their singatures and make posts . Do they really make profit out of this ?
Of course they work and they're often both
very effective and profitable. Half of the time I'm not even aware of 99% of these crapcoin ICOs until I see them advertised here by shitposters crapping all over the place; so yes, they're very effective. Also, often it doesn't cost them very much if anything at all. Most are paid out via tokens they've pre-mined themselves so there's no real cost to them. If you don't hire a campaign manager - which many don't - then there's no real loss at all. Many make sufficient money via their crowdsale so it's worth paying one anyway. The shameful thing is that it's counterproductive to them to have a manager who does his job because the more people posting = the more people who see their advert so it doesn't really matter about quality of posts either. This is something that should change though and they shouldn't be allowed to operate here in such a way.
This has been an issue in signature campaigns. As effective as it is for ICOs, it also contributes to most of the trash in this forum. Shitposters have been desperate to earn money and to do so, they would come up with thoughtless and content-less replies or threads. Perhaps if signature campaigns advocate for quality posters for better promotion, then this would be avoided. It should not be enough that a participant of a signature campaign is able to post numerously within the week. Of course, it can be helped when not all signature campaigns even hire a campaign manager.
If I were to see an ICO that was advertised by someone who post constructively rather than someone who says nonsense, I'd likely invest on the former.