Now we are seven. We’re down to seven projects, that is. And each of the home organizations will soon receive a version of the email below. Before we hit the “send” button, does anyone have any corrections, suggestions, tweaks?
Now we are seven. We’re down to seven projects, that is. And each of the home organizations will soon receive a version of the email below. Before we hit the “send” button, does anyone have any corrections, suggestions, tweaks?
This is how the first contact (via email) will read:
Dear_____
My name is Kenneth Finkel and I’m a professor of history at Temple University. This semester, my graduate class in public history (Nonprofit Management for Historian) has been working on an innovative project to raise funds for projects in public history. So far this semester we have successfully raised the equivalent of more than $6,000.
Fifteen students have considered where these funds might be needed and where they would do the most good. After weeks of discussions we have narrowed down the possibilities to seven possible recipients, including your organization. Specifically, the project proposed by [STUDENT NAME] is:
[PROJECT DESCRIPTION]
If your organization is interested in pursuing this offer, please let me know as soon as possible. The next step would be our request for your response to questions in order to help us compare and choose the recipient. We intend to make our award before the end of April.
If you are interested, I will provide you with a thorough explanation of the project and the source of funds. (Briefly, we have been raising funds in the form of STEEM on Steemit, a new social media platform that utilizes blockchain technology. You can see our main project page here: https://steemit.com/@phillyhistory.
We hope to hear from you shortly with positive news about your interest in participating.
Sincerely,
KF
Your feedback? Should anything be edited; anything more to be added?
100% of the SBD rewards from this #explore1918 post will support the Philadelphia History Initiative @phillyhistory. This crypto-experiment conducted by graduate courses at Temple University's Center for Public History and MLA Program, is exploring history and empowering education. Click here to learn more.
From our experience... saying "we've raised X amount of cryptocurrency, will you take it?" - actually yields more efficient responses than if you omit it. Because typically - you can weed out the organizations who are stuck in their ways / allergic to new ideas. Younger, hipper organizations might raise eyebrows but also find this crypto-funded grant way more contemporary and appealing. It's an opportunity for younger orgs to tap into a new avenue of resources.
It might be that 8/10 people are allergic to crypto (and 8 reject your proposal) but those 2 are usually the ones you really want. Those 2 are the ones who will have the energy and open-mindedness needed to latch onto Steemit and continue building their network.
An assortment of thoughts:
I like the idea of leaving cryptocurrency out of this initial email. However, if you want someone to use the grant to continue engaging with Steemit, wouldn't you want to include that? Or will that be brought up in the second email?
Additionally, is the $6000 the 3000 SDB we have been discussing? I would want to clarify how many organizations will be chosen to receive that amount of money.
As a follow-up, I know the market has been declining over the past few weeks, and I'm worried about the total dipping below $6000. It might be worth couching that number, such as saying the grant will be "up to $6000," just in case.
Finally, I think that directing organizations towards a single post (like this one, which we've had in our "signatures"?) might be a little less overwhelming than directing them towards the entire account. At the same time, you could consider directing them towards their nominator's account, or their post where they proposed the project?
Excellent points all around. Thanks@charliehersh!
The idea is to avoid them scaring off with an onerous set of questions or an opaque discussion of cryptocurrency.
Looks good! Just a typo in the course name [Nonprofit Management for HistorianS] and perhaps before or after you say that we raised the equivalent of $6,000 you might explain that we raised it through the creation of new historical content open to the public (or is this TMI?).
Other than that, this is another exciting step in a cool project!
Thanks for the typo catch!
I think trying to convey the notion of generating funds by creating content is too challenging for the very first paragraph. But by including Steemit in the second paragraph, we are allowing that this is not the usual crowdfunding scenario. The second contact after their initial response will definitely get into the weeds.
I also struggled with if we should include how we made the money, but I think the right candidate would ask that question. Maybe? I don't know...
Yeah, that'll be a challenge to explain. But it should not be allowed to stand in the way of the concept. However, it MUST be made clear on the 2nd contact.
Congratulations @phillyhistory! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP