PREFACE: I agree with nearly everything you said; If I didn't
explicitly disagree, consider me agreed.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop>
wrote:
```
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.
Additional thought: As we go through this, we need to think of what
illustration we are going to pair with each segment.
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.
* 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.
What's the pithy shorter version?
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.
o f
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think it can and should still be improved a little, but is good
enough that we can use it, if push comes to shove and we haven't found
anything better yet.
Based on all that, here's my attempt. There's a couple places (noted
below) where the wording is very much not final. That's fine.
```
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.
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!
```
> 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.
* No change here; I think these are great.
> 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.
* Shorter, and doesn't lose anything important that I can tell.
> 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.
> *Matching* provides the necessary incentive to encourage more
patrons to join,
and monthly donations hold projects accountable.
* No change
> Join Snowdrift.coop today, and help fund public goods, together!
* This ties in to the beginning by using "public goods" again, is
related to our slogan ("IIRC "Funding public goods together" was one
option we considered), and emphasizes the group nature of funding.
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
