If I’m going to get people interested in my research and get people to want to support my project I’m going to have to pool all my skills as a scientist and a marketer together. As a scientist I need to do some research. So I’m going to read the most funded projects in the first round of the #SciFund challenge and try to determine what stands out in those projects to me. Here is the link to the first round participants, and now let’s get to it:

• Helping Elephants and People Coexist (Goal: $7k; Raised: $4110) – This proposal is extremely simple, they need to hire someone and quickly explain why their applicant is needed. Personally I don’t feel that their proposal makes me want to donate money because I don’t know anyone involved and I don’t think they do a great job of selling the hiree, but I like that they have a decent reward system and tons of supporting links (an area I think I would excel in).
• Hey! Did you miss that fish?! (Goal: $6700; Raised: $4600) – The writing in this proposal is pretty good! The author makes a few mistakes however; 1) cheese factor and 2) links to article behind paywall. But the proposal is pretty engaging and really enthusiastic. I think the reward system is a bit weak though.
• Force of duck: Measuring explosive erection (Goal: $3125; Raised: $2100 ) – This proposal is really engaging. They present an interesting question and a really achievable solution for their funds. I’m not going to lie, I wanted to donate some money.
• Serengeti Live (Goal: $14000; Raised: $5085) – I don’t think they set up their project very well. I’m not hooked as to why this study is beneficial. I’m sure it is, but I don’t think they did well. I think the raised so much money because they are dealing with lions and people like animals.
• Alien vs Predator (Goal: $3000; Raised: $1330) – Honestly, I don’t like this proposal at all. I don’t think they effectively or entertainingly explained why I should donate to the project. There was no hook, which the “Duck” proposal did really well, and I think that really hurt (even though they raised over $1000). What did I like? I’m not sure…
• Ancient Roman DNA Project (Goal: $6000; Raised$10171) – First off, holy cow! They achieved almost double what they asked and it was a lot! This proposal has a really engaging hook, but I don’t like that they played into the 99% theme (Occupy Wall Street) that was going on at the time (November 2011). The proposal is filled with a lot of information about the project and a lot of it is really engaging. The formatting really helps readability (lots of sections instead of 2/3 sections with big paragraphs).
• Turtles in the Deep (Goal: $2500; Raised: $3243) – This isn’t fair, of course cute sea turtles are going to get funded… But they present the research in an actual useful way by saying that these studies can make fishing more efficient and less harmful. Plus they are concise enough to keep the reader engaged.
• The Yin Yang World of Venom (Goal: $12000; Raised: $3000) – Here is another project proposal that I don’t really like. The author never hooks me to the project. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I’ve read like 10 of these in a row, but still there should be some hook. He takes way to long to get to the problem at hand and by then I was already lost.
• Why is this dolphin’s fin on backwards? (Goal: $5000; Raised: $1165) – This is a really good project description. It breaks the project into two studies and after each explanation demonstrates what the funds go toward. It’s also really short which makes me like it more, and it is a really interesting question!
• Athlete’s foot in worms (Goal: $1000; Raised: $1000) – As a scientist, I wish the author had provided a little more detail about the process of using worms for athlete’s foot studies, but the fact is I was interested in the project on the description provided.  I appreciated the novel approach of using worms, but I wish that was put into more depth. Also it would have been nicer if there wasn’t the sob story about not getting paid summer salary. I think the reward system is a little weak too.
• Dolphinpalooza (Goal: $4500; Raised: $1070) – I think this is the best proposal I’ve read so far. It gets right to the point, is witty, clearly explains what the money will be used for, and why the study is important. I think the reward system doesn’t compare with some of the others, but honestly is more what I expected from a non-artistic funding platform.
• Domesticating algae for the 21st century (Goal: $3300; Raised: $1120) – This is a project that I actually imaged that most would be like. And unfortunately the proposal isn’t what I expected. There is too much superfluous information that I wouldn’t want to see in a proposal that is going to be publicly funded. And while the project is interesting, there was emphasis on things I didn’t particularly care about and not enough information on things I did. Maybe I’m thinking about this process the wrong way though…
• Cancer? Yeast has answers (Goal: $2500; Raised: $2835) – This project is tough to identify what I liked and what I didn’t. Honestly I didn’t like the proposal, but it must have been effective because they raised more funds than they asked for. Interestingly this proposal was similar to the previous one in terms of subject (molecular biology) and to me had the same shortcomings. But again, maybe I’m thinking about things the wrong way.
• Transforming the way we publish research (Goal: $12000; Raised: $1565) – This is a proposal I was really excited to read, but was way too long for my tastes. Perhaps that is coming after reading and analyzing like 20 of these things. Another problem I have is that I’m not convinced that this project will work, but I’m an expert in the field.   Now I’ve done a bit more reading and I watched the video and I actually know the people who were involved in the project! It was an excellent proposal and I hope the project works out for you. The video was excellent by the way.
• Mathematics of Direct Democracy (Goal: $3260; Raised: $1320) – I think I’m about spent. To me at this stage (since I’ve been reading and analyzing for 4 hours) this proposal seems overly vague, but I get it. The mathematics are complicated enough that I wouldn’t expect the author to delve into it, but some explanation of the math process is in order no? The explanation wasn’t engaging to me, but again I’m pretty done with reading right now.
• Support Zombie Research (Goal: $3500; Raised: $5000) – This is a really effective proposal. The reward system is awesome and in line with what I had in mind. The question is interesting and engaging while being very simple and short in explanation. The project seems very achievable and the money seems really reasonable. I think they had help from a notable outside source, and I hope I can have the same kind of pull when I post my proposal.

Overall notes (written in the order I thought of them):

• The reward system is a bit scary to me. We are applying for funds which means we don’t have any. A lot of rewards actually require money, so how do they send people rewards that require a payment of some sort? Do they use the fund money? And most people in this program aren’t artists (which is what Rockethub was designed for) and aren’t producing goods, so what exactly is expected of a proper reward for a contributor?
• It seems silly that some people are applying for funds in an open science sort of way, but are going back to closed science. I think a major sell of my project is that everything is in the open and accessible to the project planners.
• What does someone who does everything in the open have to give as a reward? Can I send people 1mL vials of D2O or DDW?
• Is it bad that I have a problem with the projects not listing exactly what they need money for? Maybe they all originally did, but after review it was determined not to do that?
• Is it wise of me to look at this as a competition? By that I mean, should I feel like I’m competing with the other SciFund proposals? I really feel like I am, but that doesn’t mean I won’t be contributing to the social group.
• How important is the project description? By this I mean are most contributors familiar with the project proposer, or are there a number of random unknown contributors? This would make the proposal much more important even if you are attracting just a handful of unknowns.
• How many people view the videos? How many contributors view the videos?
• Are there analytics about the number of visits to each page and the number of contributions each project received? I bet those would be some useful numbers.
• It seems to me that there is no correlation between what got a lot of money and how well written the proposal was. But I didn’t read any of the proposals that didn’t make much money. Here I wasn’t looking at percent funded but overall money.
• If I had to pick a trend though I would say more generally appealing projects received more money: cute and cudly, history, cancer, and zombies got the most money.
• I would have guessed that catchier titles would have received more money, but I guess when it comes to money it doesn’t matter how catchy you title is, content is king. Would general marketing strategies even work in this forum?
• I feel like my project has a good chance to succeed and an equally likely chance to fail based on what I’ve learned. I could write it so it has a general appeal, being the importance of water in research. I know how to write good generally informative pieces. But on the flip side, is my network strong enough? Can I convince people to donate big amounts? Will people even view my stuff as importantly as I do?
• Is the reward system a good incentive to contribute? Is there any data on that?

I think that’s enough for now. Hopefully my study is useful to someone and feel free to ask me questions in the comments because I understand these notes aren’t written for everyone (mostly just me).