I have a website which takes a new spin on fundraising. It is competitive fundraising where people go head to head in a competitive winner take all format. Think gofundme but side by side in a game format. Trump vs Stormy, NRA vs Students for Gun Control.
Should we promote different matchups or should we promote the new slant on fundraising? The site is FundingWars.com fyi.
I think the question is which is more important to you, the platform or the individual fundraiser? The site will gain attention through each "poll," however, marketing the site alone may not ensure the success of the different polls. But if it were me doing it, I'd market both. The truth is they are one in the same. If people don't care about what is being challenged on the site, you have no website. Vice versus, they won't care about the website, if you don't have exciting challenges.
So, it would seem that you might have the typical platform quandary -- you need to grow both users/investors, and companies that want to participate in your platform. Which do you grow first?
Growing users/investors is likely the priority. If you have a few companies, then you can grow your base of interested people. If you have enough people who are paying attention--and can cultivate a group that are willing to invest--then you can get more companies.
To raise awareness and grow the user base, I would focus on the controversial issues, which will be more likely to pique interest and to get people watching and engaging. Perhaps find some way for people to participate without investing, and a reason why people should share.
You can use PR to tie both the controversy and the model together, and use marketing and social media to promote the controversy.
I would go with promoting the matchups for two reasons,
1) People identify with causes not formats.
2) If the matchups are well paired the natural competition should drive contributions
Personally I am intrigued by your concept and will be following how you develop.