I appreciate your candour here, but the approach seems to begging the question. Deciding on marketing activities is exactly something that an agency can help you with, particularly if you have no existing expertise. I am not sure about the makeup of the Governance Working Group or particular contributors from ‘the community’ but unless they have specific experience and expertise in publicity then perhaps it would be better to focus on hiring a good agency and benefiting from their specialism in order to choose effective actions.
This is another key question (also asked in long form on the PR) and does not seem to have been adequately answered insofar as ‘why?’
I find the idea of bribing ‘thought leaders’ ~$30k USD for their constituents somewhat repulsive. It contrasts awkwardly with the idealistic rhetoric of the proposal. Surely this sort of manipulation belongs more to the bad old world of ‘siloed and centralised hegemonies’?
More practically, that is an excessive amount of money for a rather paltry reach of 100k followers.
I would urge you to drop this from the proposal both on value-for-money and moral grounds.
Personally I would support a marketing proposal tilted away from froth and hype (‘true believer’, ‘thought leaders’, meme contests, …) and towards emerging applications on Cosmos. And rather than paying for influencers I would support genuine education materials (tutorials, webinars, etc) for prospective atom holders on how to participate in governance, staking, and the long term returns of supporting a well-run set of network validators.