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,
>> 

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script

[mray]

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;

> 
> 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.

> 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,
> directing our support to the most promising projects."
> 
> 6c is longer and wordier, but I like the feel and it really draws out
> the feel and meaning the right way to me.


my tentative 6d.
  We call this "crowdmatching"; it is a network effect that reaches
  consensus on what we support.


> 
> FINAL 7. Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future!
> 
> Note: We can *maybe* tweak the FINAL lines before the actual production
> is done but I don't want to discuss them until all lines are in the same
> candidate-for-final state.
> 
> 


I think discussing this in the group was way more productive than I ever
can be alone. Hoping any of my takes help making a step forward...



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script

[Stephen Michel]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Michael Siepmann 
 wrote:


I'm thinking that in this super-short intro, it would be better to 
omit

any reference to a snowdrift. It's just too confusing, not necessary
enough, and doesn't help to engage people right away. People can find
out why we're called Snowdrift.coop later, but here they just need to
know, understand, and feel positive about and interested in the core 
of

what Snowdrift.coop is about.

As to the "free" qualifier discussion, I think it's absolutely 
critical

to remember that the overwhelming majority of the world has not the
faintest idea that a phrase like "free music" ever means anything 
other

than "music you don't have to pay for".


Very +1. When I talk with people about snowdrift, my biggest challenge 
is usually breaking them out of this assumption that music or software 
MUST be copyrighted, or if it isn't, the artist/programmer must not be 
getting paid for it.


It's not relevant here, but the best tool I have found so far is to 
liken it to contract photography. I contract with a professional 
photographer to get my picture taken, they get paid up front and 
they're happy with that money for the work, and then I'm free to 
reproduce and share the photos however I want (sometimes photographers 
keep the copyright, but not all do, and it's enough that people 
understand this is a business model that works better).



Here's an idea omitting the Snowdrift reference. I've done quite a bit
of other editing which I can explain if that would be helpful.


I also like this script.


SUGGESTION/

When music, software, movies, news, research, and so on, are released 
as

public goods, everyone can enjoy them freely, without limitations.


Does "public goods" have enough recognition that people will know what 
we're talking about with just that?

What about "unrestricted public goods"? Pros: Clarity. Cons: Redundancy.
No strong opinion, just wanted to put it out there.


But who will pay for them to be created?

Snowdrift.coop's pioneering crowdmatching platform empowers you to 
join

with others to fund the public goods /you/ want created.

You pledge to donate a tiny amount each month for each patron who
supports a project with you, within a budget you control.

Your donation is matched by the rest of the community, building
consensus that directs support to the most promising projects.

Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future!


Does "clearing the path" still make sense given that we don't mention a 
snowdrift any more?



/SUGGESTION


Both of these are nitpicks, make of them what you will.

Excitement building,
Stephen

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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script

[J.wuensch]

I really like this script and I also think that this works better for the short 
version. Well done Michael!






 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
Local Time: November 26, 2016 5:11 AM
UTC Time: November 26, 2016 4:11 AM
From: m...@techdesignpsych.com
To: design@lists.snowdrift.coop


On 11/25/2016 10:17 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 
>>> With the updated first line:
>>>
>>> SCRIPT2C/
>>>
>>> The snowdrift dilemma: Regardless of who clears the snow, we all
>>> benefit. So, who will do the work?
>>>
>>> This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies,
>>> news, research, and so on…
>>>
>>> That's why we developed crowdmatching!
>>>
>>> At Snowdrift.coop, you pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who
>>> supports a project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the
>>> numbers of patrons and your budget limit.
>>>
>>> This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we
>>> build consensus around the most promising projects.
>>>
>>> Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future!
>>>
>>> /SCRIPT2C
>>>
>>> We can see if others have further feedback, but I think we should
>>> already start storyboarding with this.
>>>

I'm thinking that in this super-short intro, it would be better to omit
any reference to a snowdrift. It's just too confusing, not necessary
enough, and doesn't help to engage people right away. People can find
out why we're called Snowdrift.coop later, but here they just need to
know, understand, and feel positive about and interested in the core of
what Snowdrift.coop is about.

As to the "free" qualifier discussion, I think it's absolutely critical
to remember that the overwhelming majority of the world has not the
faintest idea that a phrase like "free music" ever means anything other
than "music you don't have to pay for".

Here's an idea omitting the Snowdrift reference. I've done quite a bit
of other editing which I can explain if that would be helpful.

SUGGESTION/

When music, software, movies, news, research, and so on, are released as
public goods, everyone can enjoy them freely, without limitations.

But who will pay for them to be created?

Snowdrift.coop's pioneering crowdmatching platform empowers you to join
with others to fund the public goods /you/ want created.

You pledge to donate a tiny amount each month for each patron who
supports a project with you, within a budget you control.

Your donation is matched by the rest of the community, building
consensus that directs support to the most promising projects.

Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future!

/SUGGESTION




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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script

[mray]

On 26.11.2016 05:11, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>  
> On 11/25/2016 10:17 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> 
 With the updated first line:

 SCRIPT2C/

 The snowdrift dilemma: Regardless of who clears the snow, we all
 benefit. So, who will do the work?

 This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies,
 news, research, and so on…

 That's why we developed crowdmatching!

 At Snowdrift.coop, you pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who
 supports a project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the
 numbers of patrons and your budget limit.

 This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we
 build consensus around the most promising projects.

 Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future!

 /SCRIPT2C

 We can see if others have further feedback, but I think we should
 already start storyboarding with this.

> 
> I'm thinking that in this super-short intro, it would be better to omit
> any reference to a snowdrift. It's just too confusing, not necessary
> enough, and doesn't help to engage people right away. People can find
> out why we're called Snowdrift.coop later, but here they just need to
> know, understand, and feel positive about and interested in the core of
> what Snowdrift.coop is about.
> 
> As to the "free" qualifier discussion, I think it's absolutely critical
> to remember that the overwhelming majority of the world has not the
> faintest idea that a phrase like "free music" ever means anything other
> than "music you don't have to pay for".
> 
> Here's an idea omitting the Snowdrift reference. I've done quite a bit
> of other editing which I can explain if that would be helpful.
> 
> SUGGESTION/
> 
> When music, software, movies, news, research, and so on, are released as
> public goods, everyone can enjoy them freely, without limitations.
> 
> But who will pay for them to be created?
> 
> Snowdrift.coop's pioneering crowdmatching platform empowers you to join
> with others to fund the public goods /you/ want created.
> 
> You pledge to donate a tiny amount each month for each patron who
> supports a project with you, within a budget you control.
> 
> Your donation is matched by the rest of the community, building
> consensus that directs support to the most promising projects.
> 
> Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future!
> 
> /SUGGESTION
> 

I think this does work better for this very short format. Not losing
time in explaining a words heritage frees time to explain the core idea.
I think this enhances Aarons text in a concise way. Well done!

I like how this text fragment gets brushed and brushed like a raw
diamond. :)

I also like the idea of a more detailed video taking its time to address
the whole snowdrift dilemma explanation instead of brushing over it
really quick. It alone would justify to motivate people to watch more
videos.







signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script

[Aaron Wolf]

On 11/24/2016 01:52 AM, mray wrote:
> 
> Thank you Aaron!
> I like the script.
> 
> 
>> The snowdrift dilemma asks: who will clear the public road when we all
>> get the results whether or not we help?
> 
> * "get the results" sounds very neutral. "benefit from it" would a
> positive connotation to what we are about.
> 

Agreed

> 
>> The same issue applies to funding public goods such as music, software,
>> movies, news, research, and so on…
> 
> * music only *can* be an example. I think we need to say that free
> music, free software... are examples of public goods.
> 

Right, that was in the longer scripts, but I figured out that I can use
a certain inflection in the audio to imply this somewhat. It's not
perfect, but thought about the middle ground of "public goods which can
include…"

I want to not take any time to clarify that roads, music, software MAY
be public goods but not necessarily. We just don't have time to clarify
any of that.

Here's my proposal now: "This public goods problem can also apply to
music, software, movies, news, research, and so on…"

> 
>> So, Snowdrift.coop helps coordinate everyone with our new crowdmatching
>> system!
> 
> * "So" is a place-filler and could be omitted.
> 

Nope, it's too jarring without a transition. It could be "But we have a
solution…" or "To address this," or that sort of thing, and "So," is the
shortest possible of that. There must be some transition from "problem!"
to "solution!" that indicates that we aren't still describing the
problem. Otherwise, listeners have to reevaluate the sentence part-way
through when they realize this is now talking about the solution. In
this context, "So," is not in any sense filler, just like the word
"like" is a meaningful word even though some people use it as filler. I
could try alternatives to "So," but they will all be longer.

> * "helps" suggests we only do part of the all, but since every
> participant is part of "us" that isn't true. We *DO* coordinate, we
> don't just help. Let's omit "help" therefore, too.

I'm okay removing "help" here, but for reference, the intent was to
avoid claiming that we necessarily succeed at full coordination of everyone.

> 
> * I feel awkward about calling it "our crowdmatching". We should
> fundamentally claim the term and only call it "crowdmatching".
> "Our" suggests there might be other crowdmatchings.
> 

I had to completely rewrite that section in order to not have that
element, but I agree with the concern.

> 
>> You just pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who supports a
>> project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the numbers of
>> patrons and your budget limit.
> 
> * "just" in an explanation from a biased source almost never turns out
> to be true. "just click here" to "just compile the code" and other
> variations have conditioned me strongly. To me it is a promise but
> rarely delivers. Even when it fits it's still loaded. And this one is no
> exception :P
> 
> In this case it is a misleading combination of "just ... a little bit"
> when we actually describe a system that is designed to be a "controlled
> thermonuclear donation chain reaction". XD

agreed

> 
> Maybe start with introducing the limit first to not have to tip toe
> around the frightening money part?

I don't want to emphasize that because (A) we don't even have the limit
functioning yet! and (B) the limit isn't really the point, I just want
it included so people don't wonder if it exists.
> 
> 
>> This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we
>> build consensus around the most promising projects.
> 
> * Consensus is built indirectly, we shouldn't let people suggest
> somebody is directly involved in creating consensus. So a passive form
> like "consensus gets built" might fit better.
> 

I agree with the sentiment, but passive voice just sounds bad here to me.

> 
>> Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future!
> 
> * I want to nit pick on every part so I have to write something here,
> too. Done.
> 
> 
> 
> I like it.
> 
> 
> Unrelated to the above we may want to note that we are a non-profit
> coop. It can be a short mention but it would adds a lot to the
> credibility. - Maybe even set that straight right from the start so it
> does suppress peoples thoughts about our "business model" behind all
> this while they watch? Or put it in the end and together with naming our
> name and slogan?
> 
> 

I wish we could do that, but our legal status isn't set in stone, so
it's best if we not try too hard at this. I do respect that emphasizing
that this is a FLO community project and not a VC-backed exploitation
system is a BIG deal though…

I thought about "Come join our non-profit co-op and us help clear the
path to a free and open future!" but it seems crammed in there still.

I think we'll have to signal our non-profit and community focus in other
places and not try to have it in the video besides the .coop domain.

So, here's where I'm