My “least work for the most reward” battle plan is:
Write tweet-length (or as short as possible) messages that explain stream2own, starting with the broadest and most essential, down to the most complex and least essential. Each should explain a core concept of how stream2own works and eventually will be paired with a diagram or gif to illustrate. Eventually, these can all be sequenced into a video with a voiceover of the messages.
These messages are used universally. They are the website page, they are the video, they are the twitter thread we link to, etc. For additional info, each message will link to Handbook for detailed info.
I agree on all of this and have been saying it for… weeks now?
Seriously, what is the hold up at this stage of the game? Who and/or what are we waiting on? I made suggestions around copy + layout changes for the new site; where are we on that? Who is following up on this?
@Sam_Martyn and @LLK have had great dialogue crunching numbers on S2O and discussing copy too; I made an entire post sharing their insights last week(?).
We have put hours into this issue already; what are next steps for going live with the best of what we have? Please respond.
There are great ideas but there are a lot of them. They haven’t been consolidated into a single blueprint to direct a dev toward, unless a heroic dev were down to do a lot of the design/text decisions on the fly – hopefully making all the right ones.
There’s multiple interrelated proposals going on, and to go down multiple paths at once will cause problems or waste time we don’t have among current @workers :
A. Small: to update the existing Wordpress stream2own page to minimize confusion
B. Medium: to make the player main page the home page of the undeployed HUGO website as written, with no other changes, shutting down wordpress, making live new onboarding, and migrating all data
C. Large to extra large: to revise the new HUGO website and deploy it, perhaps including the Medium project above, shutting down wordpress, making live new onboarding, and migrating all data
D. Medium?: Create partial HUGO website, deploy, replacing Wordpress website, but keep wordpress for onboarding
@jackhajb and @auggod met up today to sync up on the state of our current projects and how they interconnect. Last week we all met to hone in on our co-op’s needs. This week you suggested improvements to the forum and how we guide folks toward work – that’s being delivered.
I don’t want to throw a brave developer at this without a clear design that considers the complexity of the work at hand in projects B, C or D above. Even just yesterday, Melissa and Peter came up with the idea of merging the main page of our player and new website. This is a great idea and with it we are honing in on a real solution. B and C are not quick fixes, thus why we were exploring option A today. D seems… possible? But @Nick_M pointed out in his detailed review of the situation that it would require some weird workarounds.
@peter The design is looking great and I like the images you’ve picked! Here’s some final thoughts and QA from me. Thanks for your work on this. The redesigned text and page is going to be a great help to visitors (and our workers!)
On mobile view, two images disappear:
the gif of faces near the “Fair for listeners” section
the stream2own bar graph near the “What’s next” section
In the final paragraph, let’s add some links to the Player and to the Forum. I meant to add these in the doc, but missed them:
Aside from the Resonate Player itself, the heart of our global community is our forum, where members chat, share stories, and dream how we change and grow. Join in, get in the conversation, fund our projects, and lend a hand so we can build a better streaming platform.
If possible, I would switch the URL for this page to resonate.is/pricing rather than have stream2own in the URL. When sharing the link on socials, a visitor likely wouldn’t understand that “stream2own” is where they can find pricing information, since they are unfamiliar with the term. Especially so, now that we don’t introduce the term until the last section – preferring instead to refer to the system more generically so that the message is more straightforward.
The old page, /stream2own/ could redirect to /pricing/.
In the second-to-last paragraph, I sugggest removing the sentence: “How can we support and collaborate with each other through collective patronage and verified credentials?”
This is a big jump in complexity relative to the other ideas being pitched. Worthy topic, but would need more than a quick shoutout to be relevant or comprehensible to a casual reader.
I’m also not clear what “collective patronage” is. As in member dividends? As in patreon-style support payments to an artist? I’d want to be on the same page about what this means before having it here.
If there’s a strong stance to keep most of the sentence as is, I suggest changing “verified credentials” to Co-op Creds. A link to the Co-op Creds page will allow curious readers to figure out what we’re hinting at, and see the Resonate connection.
Yes, on purpose, as I thought it interrupted the flow too much. But I’ve realized I could move the dots up, which makes the flow work to use the animated ears head. (Not so happy with the spacing so much, but that’s because there’s too much white space in the GIF, so edits to that would need to be done by whoever made it.)
Added the links and re-worked the sentence. I think it aimed to cover both the scenarios of “exclusive access after purchase” (as described in the coop creds video) as well as the “feedback loops” concept I shared where people can make collaborative agreements. Think its an interesting concept to drop even if it isn’t explained in massive detail. Could provoke curiousity.
I get that we’d want to do that but I’ll insist on what Hakanto said because I think it’s trully important : this isn’t clear enough to be interesting “as is”. When I’m on the pricing page I want information I can quickly make sense out of, I don’t want hazy things I need to decypher because it’s something that might look like scammy marketting. People are exhausted of reading formulas and concepts that they don’t understand and can’t test because they’re not even implemented. They want to know what we offer precisely, and what we stand for in general, and when will come the time to implement a new feature they’ll want to know exactly what it is and that will be the time to do it.
It’s good if we can explain where we want to go broadly with terms widely accepted and understood, but we shouldn’t describe concepts that aren’t yet fully implemented and agreed upon in short unclear sentences, either by the community at Resonate or at large on the internet by the layperson who wants to listen to music.
Like, the “feedback loop” concept and the collaborative agreement thing, even after reading about it on its specific topic, I’m still unsure what it means, what it does and how it does it, what are the risks, what are the benefits etc.
The “exclusive access after purchase” is a bit clearer but we’re yet to fully know what that would mean (ie. is this exclusive access to things outside or inside the platform? We can’t know because we don’t know yet if we’ll have partners for this although we want to), how that would be expressed, what would the limits be etc.
I think it’s good if we can point out we’ll be working on more offers for musicians to be able to sustain themselves and catter to their community, and that we’ll try to establish partnership with other like-minded platforms and coops while keeping our focus on privacy, dignity and fairness, and that’s about it, that would be enough of a statement for me on a “pricing” page.
But isn’t the whole point of revealing things that it allows the chance for people to build with us, to even help define new things as they emerge, rather than fully formed “behind closed doors” so to speak? Generally agree that average folks may not want that, but we’re also trying to reach out to those that want to actively engage.
In the end, doesn’t matter to me whether that sentence is there or not; I was just trying to interpret what someone else wrote.
I agree with the point being to have people want to build with us, but what made me, and from what I’ve read on this forum over the past year many other folks, want to build with the Resonate community was not two words formulas or whatever tech was being worked on at the time, it was the fact that it was a co-op company, rooted in a slow growth approach, with clear ethical goals. It was, quite opposite to very precise tech concepts like “community credentials” or “volunteer/creator feedback loop”, or “Stream 2 Own”, the open endedness and the very idea that I could bring my own vision and read plenty of other people’s visions and witness their critical thinking, their lived experience, their realities from the ground, that’s what drew me in and made me want to build. People want to be heard and they want to be welcome in a place where they belong and are allowed to imagine a better future. That’s the first revolutionary thing that draw people in and it’s not how enticing and sexy our tech based approach is, it’s about how we’re structured in terms of organization, who (the humans) we put the focus on.
Then it’s a matter of looking at the tech proposition and be like “hum yeah they DO seem to answer what I’ve read / experienced / talked about as being the problem within the community” or “Hey they DO NOT seem to quite answer to that after careful consideration”.
Typically I like everything but the reference to “co-op passport” because it makes it seem reductive like the entirety of “support each other” “collective patronage” and “collaboration” are only being scrutinized through the lense of the “co-op passport”, instead of making it look like it’s just an overall goal for us, it makes it look like we’re trying to make all that happen under one tech answer which I think is not the look we want to give.
It should be sidelined in a way (parenthesis, I know we hate them in marketting terms so maybe something else).
I think the sentence itself is a bit redundent too “Support and collaborate through patronage and collaboration” is basically saying the same thing twice.
Because I feel like it’s the one goal that lacks in this quick roadmap paragraph : Our desire to not lock our users on Resonate, our desire to open ourselves to other platforms to go stronger together, with complementary offers rather than a capitalist competition winner takes all approach. And it also seems to me like the coop-credentials platform is pushing for this : a standardized approach that helps retain value / transferability between platforms so that people don’t pay for the same service twice just because there’s overlap etc.
Ahah yeah I know but I felt like having a stance about wanting to collaborate with other platforms was something that was missing. If we want to put simply the emphasis on the fact it’s BOTH (support and collaboration WITHIN and OUTSIDE OF Resonate), then this one is better I think :
(Also there’s an aspect of “put your money where you mouth is” in saying that I feel, like if we trully believe there’s an ethical way to nurture collaboration and support between artists, we must believe there’s a way for Resonate to collaborate with other platforms to help create interoperability)