Bad news guys: we did not get through to the jury stage of the EU ledger grant.
Nice feedback on our proposal (slide deck and video) from the expert evaluators but curiously they seemed to fail us on “marginal market opportunity, due to the ubiquity of corporate platforms such as Spotify”
I guess our evaluators do not share our faith in new listener support and motivation.
Otherwise it seems I was over-conservative on staff costs, making us look expensive …and maybe I should have worked harder on the team composition. We could have had another couple of points there.
I may write back to the evaluators and ask for them to amplify their endorsement of the proposals other than those reservations. We might then copy that in to big artists and potential backers who have more faith in the market potential of the platform, but who perhaps doubted our technical potential and capability… other than our very limited resources?
Is that worth a try? Can you think of any mystery backers who might want to ‘prove the experts wrong’ and take a punt on Resonate at this time of crisis and social change?
Feel free to share… nothing to lose. Here is what the evaluators said:
First things first, we all hope you are doing well, and that the current global health emergency is not affecting you and your loved ones too much.
Secondly, we regret to inform you that, after going through phase 1 (pre-scoring) and 2 (external evaluation) of the evaluation process described in the Guide for Applicants (section 4), your proposal has not been selected among the best proposals that will compete during the Jury Day.
Your proposal has been evaluated by 2 recognized experts, who assessed both the technical and business potential of your proposals.
Please, find below the final score and comments provided by the evaluators, as feedback to improve your project proposition for the future:
The final score of Identity for Resonate.IS - artists and listeners: 10.5 out of 15 points.
**(Automatically collected from the evaluation system) **
Comment 1: Resonate works with a very interesting and relevant idea of revolutinizing the music streaming industry. The idea of creating a MS music cooperative is an important not just to create a community but distribute profits more equitably. The project’s research component is strong. It will be interesting to see how the platform cooperative will integrate with other platform and open cooperatives in the space. The loss of a point is due to the unusually high costs for staff.
Comment 2: I do like the idea of an open, non corporate platform for artists to share music. This allows for greater control of the dialogue between artists and music listeners. I see shortcomings related to the user experience, and what the final product will be composed of.
Comment 1: The market opputunity, scalability and strategy are sound and already somewhat tested. The interface looks charming and easy to understand and read. Indeed as acknowledged in the proposal, the listener base will be needed to expand drastically. The contribution to every SDG is a bit of an overshoot and should be streamlined or reconsidered.
Comment 2: While there is marginal market opportunity, due to the ubiquity of corporate platforms such as Spotify, I fail to see how this will attract users to participate and listen to music and content shared by individual artists, in a commercially scalable way.
Comment 1: The team is completely capable of carrying out the project.The diversity and experience of the team match their ambition.
Comment 2: Good gender balance, but team composition is not full clear, as several roles were classified as unidentified. There need to be more clarity added to the team structure.
In any case, we want to thank you for your participation in the LEDGER’s 2nd Open Call and we sincerely wish you future success for your business. We still invite you to join the LEDGER’s community for the latest news.
Stay safe and take care!
The LEDGER team
Overall, I guess this was always a bit of a long shot… there were about 1000 applications started, 350 submitted and then about 130 went forward to the expert evaluation. We did not make it through to the final 32 to be selected for the jury stage. However, that does not make this any less disappointing.