Any marketing bounty members that would like to expand on the reasons why this proposal was rejected?
Other referenda were initially funded by OpenGov and are currently supported by the marketing bounty so a rationale as to why bounty requests are rejected should be useful to evaluate the referenda in question as well as the bounty operations overall.

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.

The Small Spender track requires 50% participation and simple majority of all voters according to our voting policy. This proposal has received zero aye and seven nay votes from ten members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The majority of voters expressed strong opposition to the proposal, primarily citing its rejection by the marketing bounty as a key reason for their votes. Concerns were raised regarding the effectiveness of the proposed marketing strategy, with many feeling that it lacked a clear vision and did not adequately address the needs of the target communities. Voters also criticized the approach of merely translating existing content and emphasized the importance of creating meaningful engagement rather than superficial outreach. Overall, the consensus reflected skepticism about the proposal's potential impact.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO