On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> wrote:
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.

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.

 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.

I don't like mentioning the limit before people know how the system works. It puts too much focus on the limit, imo.
I also don't like it near the end, for similar reasons.

Basically, I want the absolute minimum impact mention of a limit while still including it. I actually think that works well if we sandwich it between two related sentences, even if we use a less pithy version.

Here's a middle ground between the two. I also made a trivial fix for "provides.. provide".

```
SCRIPT V3

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 generate
significant funding for public goods at little individual cost.

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.

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

Reply via email to