shduff · October 11, 2010 20:57
diff --git a/yuppie blog post edits b/yuppie blog post edits
 # do you expect anyone but yuppies?!

 A week or two ago, I received this message from a friend who's been in
 the loop of sprout's activities for awhile:

 **put the actual quote here!

 My first instinct was to reply, "Well, no."


 ## putting it bluntly

 That's only intended half-snidely.  We know that the audience that we
 reach is much broader than 'yuppies.'  We also know that we do a much
 worse job communicating the [financial] accessibility of our
 programs than we could.  No one is turned away from our programs for
 lack of money.  Despite that, for some people, the sticker price of a
 number of our programs might be half a month's pay.  And that is sure
 to prevent some people from even asking if financial support is an option.


 ## putting it snidely

 Although this is an obstacle we're continuing to tackle, I think
 there's something interesting in the other, snide half of my response.

 I resent the implicit judgment many socially conscious initiatives
 seem to make: namely, that poor people are incapable of 'properly'
 valuing things.  In general, it seems that there are two, underlying
 assumptions behind many initiatives primarily concerned with the
 accessibility of something:
 + One: your audience is either too poor to afford your valuable
  service, or they don't yet know that they want and need it.

 + Two: In fact, not only is there no market for your service among
  your constituency, but there is a moral imperative to construct that
  market.

 In some ways, it reminds me of 'edutainment'--that genre of
 'educational experience' characterized by the assumption that learning
 is like cough medicine: important and benficient, but hard to swallow
 and in need of sweet flavoring to cover up its true nature.  

 Certainly, I don't mean to suggest that social initiatives need to be
 expensive to be good.  But I do mean to say that I think that we would
 do well to think of our work more like traditional products.  Note
 that I think that's pretty different than thinking of our constituency
 as traditional customers.  Mostly, I mean to say that we would do well
 to cultivate an abiding respect for how people decide to spend their
 time and money.  If our work isn't compelling enough to compete with
 other lifestyle choices, that is a reflection more of our work than
 others' lifestyles.  

 Note that this is separate from whether your work is subsidized by
 grants or the government or whatever.  But for us, we've found that
 it's helpful to select for feedback loops which encourage us to TK

 ** I don't know where this paragraph would be going.  I'd probably c

 It's as though we assume that people aren't customers for 'good
 things,' as though their money and time comes out of a different
 wallet than the money people use for entertainment or vacations or
 shopping or whatever else we stereotype them into wanting.  When people lambast 'urban youth' for their
 sneaker budget, they simultaneously denigrate that financial choice
 ("Who the fuck  **do you have thoughts about language on sprout's blog?** spends $200 on sneakers?") and fail to recognize that
 that sneaker company probably has a bigger effect on the lives of youth
 than the multitude of well-meaning efforts that their nonprofit deploy
 charitably.

 To be clear, I don't think we're in any different of a spot.  I think there are
 very few people who would describe themselves as poor and then turn
 around and say, "But luckily, sprout's in my life." 


 ## putting it strategically

 And then, there's an overarching question of strategy.  What I
 eventually said to Joe--the friend who commented on our program's
 price--was that we feel it is far more reasonable to make something
 which was really compelling, and then broaden its accessibility, than
 to try to do the reverse: work with all audiences, produce something
 that will likely be mediocre, and then work to increase its quality.


 ## so what do we plan to do about it?

 In the near term, all this means for us is that we're trying to focus
 on improving the quality of our work.  Even though people really like
 our programs, we think that's more because of
 [low expectations in education]() than anything else.  If you ask us,
 we'd say that we fall squarely in the middle of the ['taste gap'](). **add a clause that describes what this is.**
 And so in the near term, we'll continue to work to improve the clarity
 and availability of [our financial support](), but this comes second
 to our work's quality--at least until we feel we have developed work we are proud of at which point we will aim to 

 **Taking a wider view, I found myself wanting some more discussion about the idea of what people "should" want.  How, implicitly, there are totally classist, racist, etc. ideals embedded in the idea that "everyone needs algebra" and, therefore, since poor people need it too, there's got to be some cheap maths for them.  I would even want to make another connection with the shoe industry saying that the very idea of "creating a market" within a group that doesn't yet want what you are offering can only happen coercively if you are trying to give it to them in a dishonest way (i.e. disguised as something else--a la cough syrup)  This might be slightly outside the scope of what you're writing, though. . .
	# do you expect anyone but yuppies?!

	A week or two ago, I received this message from a friend who's been in
	the loop of sprout's activities for awhile:

	**put the actual quote here!

	My first instinct was to reply, "Well, no."


	## putting it bluntly

	That's only intended half-snidely. We know that the audience that we
	reach is much broader than 'yuppies.' We also know that we do a much
	worse job communicating the [financial] accessibility of our
	programs than we could. No one is turned away from our programs for
	lack of money. Despite that, for some people, the sticker price of a
	number of our programs might be half a month's pay. And that is sure
	to prevent some people from even asking if financial support is an option.


	## putting it snidely

	Although this is an obstacle we're continuing to tackle, I think
	there's something interesting in the other, snide half of my response.

	I resent the implicit judgment many socially conscious initiatives
	seem to make: namely, that poor people are incapable of 'properly'
	valuing things. In general, it seems that there are two, underlying
	assumptions behind many initiatives primarily concerned with the
	accessibility of something:
	+ One: your audience is either too poor to afford your valuable
	service, or they don't yet know that they want and need it.

	+ Two: In fact, not only is there no market for your service among
	your constituency, but there is a moral imperative to construct that
	market.

	In some ways, it reminds me of 'edutainment'--that genre of
	'educational experience' characterized by the assumption that learning
	is like cough medicine: important and benficient, but hard to swallow
	and in need of sweet flavoring to cover up its true nature.

	Certainly, I don't mean to suggest that social initiatives need to be
	expensive to be good. But I do mean to say that I think that we would
	do well to think of our work more like traditional products. Note
	that I think that's pretty different than thinking of our constituency
	as traditional customers. Mostly, I mean to say that we would do well
	to cultivate an abiding respect for how people decide to spend their
	time and money. If our work isn't compelling enough to compete with
	other lifestyle choices, that is a reflection more of our work than
	others' lifestyles.

	Note that this is separate from whether your work is subsidized by
	grants or the government or whatever. But for us, we've found that
	it's helpful to select for feedback loops which encourage us to TK

	** I don't know where this paragraph would be going. I'd probably c

	It's as though we assume that people aren't customers for 'good
	things,' as though their money and time comes out of a different
	wallet than the money people use for entertainment or vacations or
	shopping or whatever else we stereotype them into wanting. When people lambast 'urban youth' for their
	sneaker budget, they simultaneously denigrate that financial choice
	("Who the fuck do you have thoughts about language on sprout's blog? spends $200 on sneakers?") and fail to recognize that
	that sneaker company probably has a bigger effect on the lives of youth
	than the multitude of well-meaning efforts that their nonprofit deploy
	charitably.

	To be clear, I don't think we're in any different of a spot. I think there are
	very few people who would describe themselves as poor and then turn
	around and say, "But luckily, sprout's in my life."


	## putting it strategically

	And then, there's an overarching question of strategy. What I
	eventually said to Joe--the friend who commented on our program's
	price--was that we feel it is far more reasonable to make something
	which was really compelling, and then broaden its accessibility, than
	to try to do the reverse: work with all audiences, produce something
	that will likely be mediocre, and then work to increase its quality.


	## so what do we plan to do about it?

	In the near term, all this means for us is that we're trying to focus
	on improving the quality of our work. Even though people really like
	our programs, we think that's more because of
	[low expectations in education]() than anything else. If you ask us,
	we'd say that we fall squarely in the middle of the ['taste gap'](). add a clause that describes what this is.
	And so in the near term, we'll continue to work to improve the clarity
	and availability of [our financial support](), but this comes second
	to our work's quality--at least until we feel we have developed work we are proud of at which point we will aim to

	**Taking a wider view, I found myself wanting some more discussion about the idea of what people "should" want. How, implicitly, there are totally classist, racist, etc. ideals embedded in the idea that "everyone needs algebra" and, therefore, since poor people need it too, there's got to be some cheap maths for them. I would even want to make another connection with the shoe industry saying that the very idea of "creating a market" within a group that doesn't yet want what you are offering can only happen coercively if you are trying to give it to them in a dishonest way (i.e. disguised as something else--a la cough syrup) This might be slightly outside the scope of what you're writing, though. . .