Here’s how the revision at the end looks:
Here’s how the revision at the end looks:
Easy change. Will ask Augustin to do that once we’re ready to launch.
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.
Couldn’t we just do it that way :
“How can we support and collaborate with each other and create bridges between like-minded platforms?”
“How can we support and collaborate with each other, not just between artists and listeners but across like-minded platforms?”
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.
Both perfect for me… perhaps @melis_tailored can confirm what the actual intention of the original sentence was?
either fine for me.
original sentence actually not about platforms at all.
but lets just get this done guys!
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)
@LLK you cool with the latest revision?
Sounds worth dreaming about to me !
I discovered Resonate today and the new
/pricing page sold me on the concept within 30 seconds! Just wanted to let you know
Also, do you have an account on a Mastodon instance? If not, you should strongly considering it, as your values is shared by many people in the Fediverse. I wrote about you on my mastodon account today, and got good feedback (even more so on my Norwegian account).
Thank you for the feedback on the pricing page rewrite @rsolva. And for promoting the fundraising campaign! It’s a pivotal time here and that is deeply appreciated.
We don’t yet have a Mastodon account, but I’m a fan – I’m a user myself! Please make a new Topic here in Proposals with your idea about Mastodon so we can keep the idea in mind
@rsolva thank you so much for sharing our campaign!
We actually had a few more donors today, so that was a great help.
Love the support and ideas you’re bringing to the community so thank you, and welcome!
@zetto.plus has suggested some tiny edits – almost none of them structural. I’ve updated the copy in the reference doc with his edits. The only structural change is to use bulletpoints in part of the last section.
The reference doc is now called “Pricing Page”.
@peter Are you available to update the new Pricing Page so that it matches this updated copy?
@Hakanto was done last week
Where’s the updated copy? I looked at the older document I had but I haven’t seen any of @zetto.plus 's comments.
@llk If you go into version history on the google doc, you can compare the before and after versions.
I’ve been loosely checking in on this thread the past few weeks, and after I finally got some time to dive more into things the other day, I just wanted to say a big thank you to @peter and everyone else involved here!
I think the new copy does a really good job of explaining Resonate, our platform, and our pricing model in an informative but succinct way, so awesome work here!
I’ve updated the Open Collective about section with some of this info, but please tag me if any new information is added to this page.
Thank you and enjoy the rest of the weekend!
Reopening this task. A useful message came in via the inbox. When we have time, we should update the Pricing Page to clarify this.
I’m wondering if as an artist using Resonate, you will stop earning money from a particular user listening to a particular song after the 9th playthrough, or if it’s just the cost to the user becomes 0 but the artist still makes a certain amount? Because the profit calculator page implies the former, but the pricing page implies the latter when it says: “Artists get paid for every play unless they choose to offer free tracks, ensuring peace of mind for musicians and the communities who want to see them thrive.”
It is true that artists are not paid for every play. Plays on purchased tracks do not generate additional revenue.
Yeah, honestly I would just remove that sentence. I never liked it.