Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script

[Stephen Michel]

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Michael Siepmann 
 wrote:


On 12/01/2016 07:52 AM, mray wrote:

 On 30.11.2016 07:30, Aaron Wolf wrote:
 tentative 4a. "Our innovative platform empowers you to join with 
others

 to fund the public goods /you/ care about."

 tentative 4b. "At Snowdrift.coop, you collaborate with others to 
build

 greater support for public goods."

 I'm not happy with either 4, but the meaning I want to say here is:
 Snowdrift.coop (or "out platform" or similar subject) is about 
getting
 everyone to collaborate to address question just asked (i.e. to 
fund
 public goods). It's nice to emphasize that the users get to 
choose, but

 not sure that needs to be in 4. The only core thing is THIS (our
 platform) is for collaborative funding of public goods. Still need 
best

 wording for that.


 Just "collaboration" does not capture what we are about. Like-minded
 people can collaborate without us. We offer a *NEW* way to do so.
 A short take that bridges to the following explanation:

 my tentative 4c.
   At Snowdrift.coop everybody collaborates in a new way;


I think "empowers" and "/you/ care about" are important. I don't like
"collaborate" because it sounds like something that would take /time/
that I cannot spare, vs. just a simple decision to share a small 
amount
of my money. Overall I think 4b is much too abstract and vague - 
"build

greater support for" is vague, as is the generic reference to  "public
goods". It sounds to me like something I might agree that some 
committee

somewhere ought to do, but that doesn't sound particularly exciting or
engaging to me personally.


I also like "empowers" and "you care about". If we want to make it less 
wordy, I think we can drop "Our innovative platform" and just say 
"Snowdrift.coop" or "Crowdmatching".


Aaron, can you say more about in what ways you're not happy with 4a?  
I
think tweaking 4a a bit is a much more promising direction than 
anything

like 4b.
 tentative 5a. "You do this with a simple pledge to the projects 
you care
 about: 'I'll donate $1 for every 1,000 patrons who pledge with 
me!' And
 you control your overall pledges by setting a monthly budget limit 
for

 the system."

 tentative 5b. same as 5a but "a tenth of a cent for every 
patron…"

 instead of the $1 / 1000 version

 We had played with phrases like "donate a tiny amount for *each* 
patron

 who supports the same projects" but I'm leaning toward just using
 concrete example of the proposed actual pledge amount. That makes 
it far

 easier for people to get the actual pledge instead of us hinting at
 something while people wonder what it really is.

 As for the budget part, similarly for being concrete, I'd rather 
go in
 the *direction* of stating explicitly what happens. Something like 
"you
 set a monthly budget limit, so a pledge that would go beyond your 
budget

 gets automatically put on hold." Except that brings up all sorts of
 questions, so we can't say all that. But I want to at least hint 
at the

 clarity that you don't just hit a per-project budget and then stop
 matching (because people who think that and then experience 
otherwise
 will be annoyed with us more than if we give them the right idea 
from

 the get-go).

 One bit we had that I like for consideration still: "You choose 
projects

 to support, and make a pledge…"


 Here is a new take:
 * being discrete
 * visualizing
 * working with contrast

 my tentative 5c.
   Patrons pledge *only one 10th of a cent*!!...
   – but – for *every* other patron of a project.

   A group of 10 agrees on paying *a cent each*!!...
   – but – A *crowd* of 1000 already agrees to pay a dollar each.

   When a crowd gets too big for you - step back any time.


I like the concreteness of $1 for every 1000 patrons, but I'm 
concerned

that it is easily misunderstood as meaning you donate zero until there
are 1000 patrons, then $1 until there are 2000 patrons, then $2, etc.
But I like that it's easier to relate to than a tenth of a cent. Maybe
"1 cent for every 10 patrons" would be a happy medium here? That's
arguably more accurate since of course we can't actually charge people
in tenths of a cent increments.


I actually had this same thought, when I was looking at the dashboard 
and thinking that it's kind of odd to display the pledge level as .5 
cents and the project income as 2.5 cents, when actually at that level 
no crowdmatch will happen.


It's off-topic for this discussion, but **IFF** it simplifies the code, 
we could consider making the mechanism actually function in discrete 1 
cent intervals.



Otherwise, 5a seems a bit wordy and complex, including the switch into
first person. Here's one possible revision, with the "For example"
sentence being optional, but helpful if it can fit I think:

tentative 5d. "First you set an overall monthly budget. Then, for 
each project you want to support, you pledge to donate 1 cent per 
month for every 10 patrons who support that same 

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script

[Michael Siepmann]

 
On 12/01/2016 07:52 AM, mray wrote:
> On 30.11.2016 07:30, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> tentative 4a. "Our innovative platform empowers you to join with others
>> to fund the public goods /you/ care about."
>>
>> tentative 4b. "At Snowdrift.coop, you collaborate with others to build
>> greater support for public goods."
>>
>> I'm not happy with either 4, but the meaning I want to say here is:
>> Snowdrift.coop (or "out platform" or similar subject) is about getting
>> everyone to collaborate to address question just asked (i.e. to fund
>> public goods). It's nice to emphasize that the users get to choose, but
>> not sure that needs to be in 4. The only core thing is THIS (our
>> platform) is for collaborative funding of public goods. Still need best
>> wording for that.
>>
> Just "collaboration" does not capture what we are about. Like-minded
> people can collaborate without us. We offer a *NEW* way to do so.
> A short take that bridges to the following explanation:
>
> my tentative 4c.
>   At Snowdrift.coop everybody collaborates in a new way;

I think "empowers" and "/you/ care about" are important. I don't like
"collaborate" because it sounds like something that would take /time/
that I cannot spare, vs. just a simple decision to share a small amount
of my money. Overall I think 4b is much too abstract and vague - "build
greater support for" is vague, as is the generic reference to  "public
goods". It sounds to me like something I might agree that some committee
somewhere ought to do, but that doesn't sound particularly exciting or
engaging to me personally.

Aaron, can you say more about in what ways you're not happy with 4a?  I
think tweaking 4a a bit is a much more promising direction than anything
like 4b.
>> tentative 5a. "You do this with a simple pledge to the projects you care
>> about: 'I'll donate $1 for every 1,000 patrons who pledge with me!' And
>> you control your overall pledges by setting a monthly budget limit for
>> the system."
>>
>> tentative 5b. same as 5a but "a tenth of a cent for every patron…"
>> instead of the $1 / 1000 version
>>
>> We had played with phrases like "donate a tiny amount for *each* patron
>> who supports the same projects" but I'm leaning toward just using
>> concrete example of the proposed actual pledge amount. That makes it far
>> easier for people to get the actual pledge instead of us hinting at
>> something while people wonder what it really is.
>>
>> As for the budget part, similarly for being concrete, I'd rather go in
>> the *direction* of stating explicitly what happens. Something like "you
>> set a monthly budget limit, so a pledge that would go beyond your budget
>> gets automatically put on hold." Except that brings up all sorts of
>> questions, so we can't say all that. But I want to at least hint at the
>> clarity that you don't just hit a per-project budget and then stop
>> matching (because people who think that and then experience otherwise
>> will be annoyed with us more than if we give them the right idea from
>> the get-go).
>>
>> One bit we had that I like for consideration still: "You choose projects
>> to support, and make a pledge…"
>>
> Here is a new take:
> * being discrete
> * visualizing
> * working with contrast
>
> my tentative 5c.
>   Patrons pledge *only one 10th of a cent*!!...
>   – but – for *every* other patron of a project.
>
>   A group of 10 agrees on paying *a cent each*!!...
>   – but – A *crowd* of 1000 already agrees to pay a dollar each.
>
>   When a crowd gets too big for you - step back any time.

I like the concreteness of $1 for every 1000 patrons, but I'm concerned
that it is easily misunderstood as meaning you donate zero until there
are 1000 patrons, then $1 until there are 2000 patrons, then $2, etc. 
But I like that it's easier to relate to than a tenth of a cent. Maybe
"1 cent for every 10 patrons" would be a happy medium here? That's
arguably more accurate since of course we can't actually charge people
in tenths of a cent increments.

Otherwise, 5a seems a bit wordy and complex, including the switch into
first person. Here's one possible revision, with the "For example"
sentence being optional, but helpful if it can fit I think:

tentative 5d. "First you set an overall monthly budget. Then, for each project 
you want to support, you pledge to donate 1 cent per month for every 10 patrons 
who support that same project with you, as long as this fits within your 
budget. For example, if a project you support has 1,000 patrons next month, 
your donation will be $1."


>
>> tentative 6a. "We call this "crowdmatching", and with this system, our
>> support grows together and is directed towards the most promising projects."
>>
>> tentative 6b. "This process, which we call *crowdmatching*, builds
>> consensus and directs support to the most promising projects."
>>
>> tentative 6c. This *crowdmatching* approach means that all the patrons
>> of a project reinforce each other, and it naturally builds consensus,
>>