So, we lost some work when an etherpad expired. It had a few sentences I
particularly liked, but it didn't finish out the script with the right
emphasis. I've rewritten the script considering all the concerns that
have come up in this process. First, I'll share the new script here, and
then I'll add some per-line thoughts below to explain the decisions.

```
NEW SCRIPT:

Things like software, music, movies, journalism, and research *can* be
public goods, freely used and shared by *everyone*.

But instead, publishers typically add restrictions in order to secure
funding. Meanwhile, projects releasing their work under free and open
terms struggle.

Our innovative crowd*matching* system empowers you to join with others
in supporting the public goods *you* care about.

For each project you wish to support, you pledge to give a monthly
donation of 1 cent for every 10 patrons who donate with you.

And you control your budget by setting a monthly limit for the system
overall.

Working together, we can have significant impact at little individual
cost. 1,000 patrons donating $1 means $1,000, but 5,000 patrons at just
$5 each would give a project a $25,000 monthly income!

*Matching* provides the necessary incentive to encourage more patrons to
join, and monthly donations hold projects accountable.

Join Snowdrift.coop today, and help clear the path to a free and open
future!
```

THOUGHTS/EXPLANATION:

First, this is a bit wordier and goes by a bit fast just to keep it
under 1 minute. I know this is stretching the acceptable length. Maybe
we can find ways to shorten it that are worth the benefit of being
shorter, but I want each decision to consider whether that's worth the
trade-off.

The overall idea is for people to actually grasp the system and have the
sense that this really isn't another copy of what they've seen before.

PER-LINE NOTES (> is the script and * is commentary for line above):

> Things like software, music, movies, journalism, and research *can* be
> public goods, freely used and shared by *everyone*.

* This makes the scope clear, defines public goods nicely, and of all
the drafts we had before, I liked the feel when "can" was emphasized.

> But instead, publishers typically add restrictions in order to secure
> funding. Meanwhile, projects releasing their work under free and open
> terms struggle.

* This makes the problem statement more clear and brings back the sense
I've wanted that emphasizes that we aren't saying music and software
etc. don't get made, but that the unfortunate part is the restrictions.
I want the visual to show locks and pop-up ads blocking some content.
This will really engage and hit home with a portion of our viewers.

> Our innovative crowd*matching* system empowers you to join with others
> in supporting the public goods *you* care about.

* This is less my wording and more the stuff others seemed to like most.
It's not a lot of information but it gives a certain emphasis to the
viewer. My wife was saying she's not sure she buys the "empowers" part
because people can join with each other already, we're helping
facilitate but not really giving people *individual* empowerment per se.
I'm fine with the line and like how it positions the "crowdmatching"
bit, but it's a bit redundant in some ways.

>For each project you wish to support, you pledge to give a monthly
> donation of 1 cent for every 10 patrons who donate with you.

* "pledge to give… donation" fixed the parsing problems with trying to
group monthly, base amount, others all in a single verb of "donate". I
think this is the easiest to understand wording we've had.

> And you control your budget by setting a monthly limit for the system
> overall.

* I tried to fit in a statement about what your choices are when you hit
your budget, but there's just no way to fit it in unless we accepted a
longer video time. Otherwise, I find this wording very clear, even
though a pithy shorter version is possible.

> Working together, we can have significant impact at little individual
> cost. 1,000 patrons donating $1 means $1,000, but 5,000 patrons at
> just $5 each would give a project a $25,000 monthly income!

* This is the key place where I added the thing that is more important
than consensus: the idea that we can really do something even though you
don't donate a ton yourself, implying that just $5 via the classic
donate button costs you the same but accomplishes nothing. I think most
people will immediately get that *if* we can make this work, it would
indeed make a *major* difference.

> *Matching* provides the necessary incentive to encourage more patrons
> to join, and monthly donations hold projects accountable.

* This new sentence may not be the perfect final version but it finishes
things better than anything we tried before. Instead of emphasizing how
neat the qualities of our system are, the point is to say: "we KNOW it's
always been true that tons of people could just donate, but they don't,
and we won't get into freeriding and explaining the dilemmas here but
there's a real reason why THIS is different and has hope to actually
achieve something where everything else is failing (i.e. MATCHING)".
Now, the "accountable" part is a little more superfluous compared to the
all-important matching emphasis, but I liked how it paired up. Anyway, I
imagine this could be a place to show a network-effect illustration
perhaps. I thought about repeating the term "crowdmatching" instead of
matching, but it didn't feel as good in context. I don't think we can
get it in, but the feeling I wish people would have is that this sort of
network-effect, crowdmatching, many-to-many matching really is a new
sense of things. If we used the network-effect illustration earlier,
another illustration here could be the button showing the idea of when
you pledge, everyone else gives more… but what matters really is the
message of "crowdmatching is the key reason that this is NEW and CAN
actually do this! Believe!! Be inspired!"

> Join Snowdrift.coop today, and help clear the path to a free and open
> future!

* This fit as a better place to mention the site again, and we can then
tie in the snowdrift dilemma with an illustration showing characters
coming to join together and shovel snow.

CONCLUSION: I'm happy with the semantic flow of everything and happy
enough with the wording of all of this. I always love when someone gives
feedback I see as even greater improvement. I wish this were a bit
shorter but also don't want to lose any element.

We could go back and compare this to other drafts, but this is the first
one that I feel is fully effective all the way through and as a complete
unit.

Cheers,
Aaron


-- 
Aaron Wolf
co-founder, Snowdrift.coop

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Reply via email to