By Hazel Butters

March 10th, 2020

Security grammar: Are you insecure when writing about unsecure technology?

Security grammar: Are you insecure when writing about unsecure technology?

At Prompt we spend a lot of our days writing about technology – big data, data warehousing, BI, CRM, BPM, ERP, API – you name it, we’re ITK. If it’s got an acronym, or a set of acronyms associated with it, then we’ve written opinion pieces, whitepapers, case studies and news releases about it.

One area that’s always hot – whether the underlying topic is mobile, cloud, BYOD, SQL injections, risk or compliance – is security. Which brings us to a very specific grammar question. Do you ever find yourself pausing and asking yourself, the people around, or the grammar gods: “Is it unsecure or insecure?”

At first, this appears a very easy question. ‘Unsecure’ can surely be eliminated – after all the word doesn’t appear in either Merriam-Webster or the Oxford English Dictionary. But that doesn’t necessarily mean a great deal in the constantly changing world of tech speak. In the technology sector, words and phrases are coined and adopted at the drop of a Zune –  just consider the use of the words ‘virtualized’, ‘de-duplication’ or ‘phablets’.  At Prompt we have to stay current with the market and all of its constantly ‘evolving’ terms and phrases (but we don’t have to like ‘em).

The problem with this example is that while insecure can be used in both US and UK English to mean something that is not adequately protected – for example an ‘insecure investment’ – it is more typically used to describe a lack of emotional confidence or certainty. Yes, some dictionaries will go as far to state the example of ‘an insecure computer system’ and there’s a whole Wikipedia page on ‘Computer Insecurity’, while ‘Computer Unsecurity’ clearly does not earn a Wikipedia page at all. But for many of us ‘insecure’ just doesn’t sit very, um, securely in a sentence.

We can’t help think that an insecure computer system sounds a little self-conscious about the size of its processors, or needs a reassuring reboot up the backend. So where to go?

Well, we like to use either of the phrases ‘non-secure’ or ‘unsecured’. Both pass dictionary scrutiny, and each can be used quite literally to mean ‘not made secure’, which we think is a good fit for a computer system that hasn’t been protected with security measures.

Unless you are an absolute stickler for academic grammar (and if you are then tech buzzwords are going to destroy your finely balanced sensibilities in about a picosecond anyway), then you could arguably use any of the terms mentioned in this post to get your point across. The most important thing then, as is generally the case with most copywriting best practices, is that you are consistent. So pick a term, add it to your company style-guide, share it with your team, marketing contacts and agency – and then be secure in your decision.

Follow Hazel on Twitter at @HazelButters

By Hazel Butters

May 13th, 2019

Crowdfunding scientific research: Interview with Experiment

Crowdfunding scientific research: Interview with Experiment

“Our mission is to create a world where anyone can be a scientist”

Cindy Wu, co-founder, Experiment

We interviewed Cindy Wu, co-founder of Experiment, a platform for discovering, funding and sharing science. With one of the coolest mission statements we’ve heard: “to create a world where anyone can be a scientist”, Experiment enables scientists of every professional level to fund research – accelerating scientific discoveries through collaboration and information-sharing.  Cindy answered some questions about Experiment and shared some of her thoughts on crowdfunding.

What sets Experiment apart from other crowdfunding platforms?

CW: “Experiment was built for science and scientists. This is a place on the internet for people to propose research projects and for people to fund research projects. The reward for backers is the process and result of the research project, so we don’t support tangible rewards. Our mission is to create a world where anyone can be a scientist.”

When did Experiment launch?  Can you share any insight into its creation – what need or gap did you see in the market?

CW: “We launched in April 2012. The vision to create Experiment started when I was 19 and Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) awarded me a grant for young scientists who have no research experience. During the year that HHMI funded me, I worked on designing new immunotherapies by engineering immune cells. That summer, I also worked with a team of undergraduates to design a new anthrax therapeutic. Denny (Luan, co-founder of Experiment) and I published the research in a peer-reviewed journal and the army is now doing follow-up studies.

“After designing the new anthrax therapeutic, I discovered the drug could also be used as an antibiotic for generic infections. When I asked my professor where I could find $5-10K to test out my hypothesis, he told me: “the system doesn’t fund people like you.” The funders today are so conservative that they only fund the most obvious ideas– and certainly not ones from undergraduate students that don’t have a PhD.

“We initially built Experiment for ourselves, but quickly found that early stage funding for ideas was just as big of a problem for tenured faculty. The initial idea for Experiment was inspired by Denny’s involvement as a University of Washington campus leader for Kiva.org, building a Kiva for science.”

How would you advise individuals or entrepreneurs to select the crowdfunding platform that will serve them best, from such a crowded market of compelling options?

CW: “Do your research. Understand what types of projects each platforms support. There is a difference between funding platforms that support tangible rewards and platforms that don’t support tangible rewards. Understand if tangible rewards make sense for your project.

“During a crowdfunding campaign you want to make sure that you get all the data you need to be successful. Look for platforms that provide you with analytics. Who is visiting your site and from what sources? This should be in real-time. It is unlikely any of the larger platforms will do marketing for you, but you should look at how big their community is and what percentage are repeat donors.

“Many platforms have lots of one time donors that are very unlikely to donate to your project. Check on this beforehand so you set your expectations for how much your team will need to raise.

“If you are running a larger campaign you may want to contract a team to help you. When looking ask these teams for past examples of crowdfunding campaigns they’ve helped with and set clear expectations of what they would be responsible for.”

Can you give us an idea of a typical successful project idea for your crowdfunding platform?

CW: “Projects on Experiment are well-defined research projects. The project has a clear plan to try to answer a specific research question. An ideal project has a way to engage the backers in the science, but is not required. This is an ideal project: experiment.com/gmoexperiment”

How important is the choice of platform for any given crowdfunding campaign or potential project?

CW: “It is important especially if you want to utilize the platform to keep your donors engaged until the end of the project. Delivery and engagement are just as important as raising the money if you want to keep a loyal community. Many less popular or newer platforms only do a good job of providing a payment platform for your project. Think about your project as a long term investment. If you are going to be sticking with this one platform to keep your donors updated and eventually share the final outcomes with your community you will want to choose wisely. Think about what you need for your community to be successful and research which platforms support your project best.”

What is the single thing that you find yourself repeating to first-time crowdfunders or wishing that people knew before they go live with a crowdfunding project?

CW: “Crowdfunding always starts with your friends and family. It is close to impossible for your project to be funded entirely by strangers on the internet. People have this misconception that people on the internet will just find the project and give. This rarely happens. Most traffic is self-directed or directed to the project page through some effort put in by the team. There are clear techniques that can be replicated for projects, but you must put in the work to get the return.”

What features, functions or services do you offer that sets you apart from other platforms? What are your fees?

CW: “We support research projects only. We also work well with academic institutions which are often hard to navigate. Scientists do not give tangible rewards in return for donations, scientists share the scientific research process through what we call ‘Lab Notes’ on Experiment. Scientist are able to use the Lab Notes forever for free to keep their community engaged and updated. We also have a Journal where scientists can publish their results for their community at experiment.com/journal. Each project also receives a digital object identifier (DOI number), so that other scientists can cite a specific project.  We take an 8% fee if a project is fully funded. Experiment is an all-or-nothing funding platform.”

 Check out Experiment at: www.experiment.com, read updates and news at http://blog.experiment.com/, follow Experiment  on Facebook and follow @lets_experiment on Twitter.

Some stats from Experiment*:

Amount pledged to date: $6,285,138

Researchers: 6,623     Live projects: 68     Lab notes published: 4,936

Backers: 26,727      Repeat backers: 1,482

Average pledge size: $162

Launched projects: 1,136     Funded projects: 481

*As of May 13, 2016

By Hazel Butters

May 10th, 2016

Is the all or nothing crowdfunding approach a good thing, or seriously flawed?

Is the all or nothing crowdfunding approach a good thing, or seriously flawed?

In previous posts we’ve covered the concept of all or nothing crowdfunding and shared several Kickstarter stats.

For some people, the combination of these two things can lead to the question: Is the ‘all or nothing’ crowdfunding approach a good thing, or seriously flawed?

It’s no secret that I’m a fan of Kickstarter, and seeing that Kickstarter’s only funding mechanism is ‘all or nothing’, you’d be right in guessing that I have no beef with it. But I understand why some people may interpret it as ‘unfair’ – that all that work and effort and even if you’re short by 50 cents then you walk away with nothing. Zero. Zip.

It’s a tough call for many first-time crowdfunders. The promise, and safety-net, of ‘keep what you get’ funding can be tempting. While the ‘nothing’ of all or nothing can be a real driver – both for those running the campaign and for its backers.

The crowdfunding ‘flavor’ that you pick really depends on the project you are launching and the audiences you want to connect with. But for certain types of projects there is evidence that suggests that ‘all or nothing’ can lead to a higher success rate.

In 2014 York University in Toronto and Université Lille Nord de France collaborated and analyzed tens of thousands of Indiegogo crowdfunding campaigns seeking to raise between $5,000 and $20,000 to compare the success of all or nothing campaigns compared to keep what you get (both of which can be run on Indiegogo). The findings? That if you’re after funding, then ‘all or nothing’ is the way to go.

The researchers found that 34 percent of the ‘all or nothing’ campaigns reached their funding goals compared to 17 percent for the ‘keep what you get’ campaigns. A statistic which I thought was interesting was the number of backers attracted, with an average of 188 backers attracted to ‘all or nothing’ campaigns, while the ‘keep what you get’ campaigns attracted an average of 73 backers.

So the conclusion – from this (yes, single) study would be that ‘all or nothing’ campaigns are statistically more successful. In the following posts we’ll look at some of the potential reasons.

If you have a question about funding or crowdfunding that we may be able to help with, then sign up for a free advisory session to see if we can help you and share our experiences of crowdfunding campaigns.

By PromptBoston

March 10th, 2016

Crowdfunding Campaign PR: An Interview with Mitch Rosenberg, KinderLab Robotics

Crowdfunding Campaign PR: An Interview with Mitch Rosenberg, KinderLab Robotics

Mitch Rosenberg is the CEO and co-founder of KinderLab Robotics – a Boston-based company that’s created a developmentally-appropriate robot kit, KIBO, to help teach programming concepts to four- to seven year olds.

KIBO was funded on Kickstarter. We worked with the KinderLab Robotics team on crowdfunding content, blog content, social media content and working with the press to secure briefings and coverage with The New York Times, Forbes, Boing Boing, Gizmag,BostInno, Boston Business Journal and more.

KinderLab Robotics continues to work with the team at Prompt to share its vision, growth and successes.

We sat down with CEO and co-founder Mitch Rosenberg to talk a bit about his experience. See what he had to say about us below.

Why did you work with Prompt?

Mitch Rosenberg: Well, I went to a lot of firms in the Boston area. When we founded our company, we knew we were going to get it moving via Kickstarter. I asked many of the firms that are well-known in the area if they would sign up to help us publicize that Kickstarter, and most of them said no.

In contrast, Prompt came up with a very effective and creative approach for publicizing our company and a very creative way of financing it so we could afford it even as an early startup.  Because Prompt was unique in its ability to provide support for Kickstarter, we felt that it was a great fit for us.

So, we chose Prompt because it demonstrated a results-based program that was specifically designed for crowdfunding-based campaigns. Prompt worked with us on our successful Kickstarter campaign, and gave us valuable advice about our target audiences, helped us work with the press and created excellent copywriting. The Prompt team has a strong process, works methodically, and delivers results.

What results have you seen from working with Prompt?

Mitch: Working with Prompt, we have been featured in articles in The New York Times (more than once), Forbes, The Huffington Post, and many other local and radio media outlets and we’re very happy with the results.

And in addition to the media side, the Prompt team was instrumental in creating a social media presence for us that resulted in a wide variety of inquiries and sales. In summary, the results have been both prolific and business meaningful for us. We’ve gotten a lot of business because of our marketing with Prompt.

What has your experience been working with Prompt?

Mitch: The process working with Prompt has been really professional and fun. We have regular meetings, Prompt supplies us with a dashboard of statistics of how the various projects that we’re working on are fairing and we’re really happy with both the tone and results of working with Prompt.

Would you recommend Prompt?

Mitch: We highly recommend Prompt – especially for young and fast growing startups. But also for any innovative companies looking to make their presence known in the marketplaces they’re doing business in.

Interested in ensuring your crowdfunding campaign’s success? Check out our Crowdfunding Success 60-Day Program which leads you step-by-step on how we set up, run, manage and publicize crowdfunding campaigns.