On 12/23/2016 10:31 PM, Stephen Michel wrote: > Additional thought: As we go through this, we need to think of what > illustration we are going to pair with each segment. >
I'm not actually sure if we should do this coincidentally or sequentially, but I see some arguments both ways. I did have some thoughts as I mentioned. >> PER-LINE NOTES (> is the script and * is commentary for line above): >> >> And you control your budget by setting a monthly limit for the >> system overall. >> > What's the pithy shorter version? > One version: First, you set an overall monthly budget limit. Then, [the stuff about pledging] Another: Your donations are limited by your overall budget setting. Another: Your budget setting limits your overall monthly donations. Another: We only process pledges that stay within your monthly budget limit. Overall, this sentence has *lots* of acceptable variations. I've not come up with one I love and will bother really defending. But we *need* some mention of budget limit and to clarify that it's overall and not per-project. In my experience, about half of people do not assume there's a cap and think we might just be crazy (and half assume there's a cap and feel it doesn't need to be stated in a summary). We need it included in some form. With the right illustration, it can be short and pithy. >> Join Snowdrift.coop today, and help clear the path to a free and >> open future! >> > I love this phrase. But I love it *because* I understand the snowdrift > metaphor. This is someone's first exposure to snowdrift, and we haven't > explained the metaphor yet; in this context, it's much less impactful. > I agree it's not super impactful to those who don't know the metaphor, but it hints at it. It provides an opening and continuity to reference the snowdrift dilemma in later things. I.e. foreshadowing. I wrote and like it knowing that it won't be immediately meaningful to everyone. The vague idea of clearing obstacles / moving forward is still present. > I'm concerned about the semantic flow of the middle, from an > illustration perspective. We mention our crowdmatching system and its > benefits (abstract), then give the specs, assuage fears with talk of a > limit, more abstract benefits, and finally another example. I think if > we combine the bits about "supporting public goods you care about" and > "significant impact at little individual cost", and combine the parts > with concrete numbers, we'll end up with something more concise and also > easier to make visualizations for. > If other people think it could work, I'm okay with removing most of the "empowers…" sentence. Something really pithy like "Introducing our innovative crowd*matching* system:" There needs to be *some* transition from problem to solution. I agree that having the sort of qualitative assertions on both sides of the explanation is kinda split up and also longer than strictly necessary. I would lean toward removing the "empowers… you care about" part if necessary, although I kind of like it. > I think that the part where we discuss setting a limit is ultimately > unnecessary. We need the limit to make people feel comfortable pledging, > not to sell the message of, "crowdmatching is the key reason that this > is NEW and CAN actually do this! Believe!! Be inspired!" I think if the > very next place someone looks on the site mentions the limit, that's > sufficient. > > Also, it's really hard to fit this sentence in without breaking the flow > of those paragraphs. I think it's not safe to have no limit mention, close to certain. But I agree it doesn't lead well into the positive vision. Maybe the "First, limit… pledge…" is the better order. > NEW SCRIPT SHORT: > > 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, creating > significant impact at little individual cost. > Not bad, but the sentence is just too long. > 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. 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 fund public goods, together! > ``` "help fund public goods, together" isn't very compelling and is redundant. There's nothing *wrong* with the "clear the path" message even if it's not something people immediately associate with the snowdrift dilemma. >> 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. 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! > > * I think separating these sentences makes the audience work harder than > they need to, to put 2 and 2 together. So, let's put them together. > I agree that they are cognitively best when they flow together. So, maybe introducing the budget limit *before* the pledge is the smoothest and simplest option. NEW SCRIPT VARIATION (for consideration, not certain it's better in all ways): 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 provides a new way to provide significant funding for public goods at little individual cost. First, you set an overall budget for the system. Then, 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. 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!
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design