My take on Awesome

I'd been meaning to post about the exciting stuff going on with the awesome foundation, but I hadn't had the chance. We have now had 4 funding cycles (collectively giving away $4000 to awesomeness) and seen over 700 awesome grant applications. The most awesome of all lately, is that we've expanded to include a Providence chapter.

But enough gushing...

The other day, a friend of mine asked me what makes a good proposal to the awesome foundation. For the most part, I can only speak for myself. That said, I have seen a few project cycles now, so I have insight into what we collectively tend to ignore, like, and ultimately fund. I do not have any insight into our Providence branch, but imagine they will share some of these qualities. Also, our Boston chapter has not always had the same focus on a group or individual level every month, but there seem to be some consistencies. Here is a rough idea of what I told him.

Everybody in the group has a slightly different take on awesome, but I would say that everyone universally likes the following traits in a project/application:

1. Awesome quotient- This is almost like quirkiness, but a little more productive. It is a little like creativity, but not so wishy-washy. Although it shares some common features with "social good" it is a bit of a diversion. We are definitely interested in social good, but we're looking for awesomeness. There are a few reasons for this, but it's largely about where there currently are and aren't sources of funding.

Social good says "stop hunger." Awesome says "I will create a robot who can work at a soup kitchen. This may not replace a volunteer, but will attract a new crowd of volunteers." (I made this up, so it's not nearly as awesome as actual submissions)

Talk about how awesome the solution is as well as the impact. The awesomeness quotient is important because it lets you do more with less money. If you look at our funding history, it might provide some insight. The fun theory people also have the right idea.

2. History of achievement/Feasibility- "I have built a robot who can bartend. I know how to modify this to serve soup. See pictures here (link)"

3. Short application- We're seeing over a hundred applications every month. It is awesome when they're just a paragraph or two with contact info links. Ironically, I think that we're more likely to read/watch/listen to the off-app content when the pitch is short and engaging.

4. What is the money for- Why do you need the $1000? Break down the cost. If you don't need it or don't explain why you do, then it seems a little strange to fund you.

5. Our impact- We don't want to be a drop in the bucket among a much larger pool of funding. It's a much different proposition when we will make or break an effort.

6. Timeframe- Given that we fund once per month, it's awesome to know that we'll see results before the next round.

7. Location- Where are you? It would be nice to see the project and hang out.

As I said, this is not part of any official mandate. I myself may drop any of points given the right circumstances. We have and will continue to fund awesome things that run contrary to any or all of these principles. None of these are requirements. But they all have factored into past discussions of funding.

Looking forward to seeing your submissions.