Nate's Blog

The EPTSS listening party kicked ass. Everyone submitted such different and impressive covers, and everyone is there to hang around the same creative mission.

The party in the end turned to the conversation of scale. I don't take the individuals for granted, but I definitely take for granted the fact that impressive musicians and wonderful people keep showing up to share their art with me and each other.

I think I've been holding myself back when it comes to thinking about scaling Everyone Plays the Same Song, because I've genuinely enjoyed the tight-knit community it's built. But, I'm willing to entertain the thought, so here are my thoughts on scale.

Things that need to hold

Keep power users happy

The reason EPTSS works is that talented people keep showing up and doing better and better. It's a virtuous cycle that folks recognize as virtuous, and a major part of that recognition is seeing it in others as well.

Therefore, the power user should be seen as the primary growth engine of the platform and should be treated as such. If the virtuous cycle takes hold, the number of power users grows, pulling more people onto the platform, onward and upward.

Keep social groups small, at least at first

25 signups means 25 songs to listen to, and 25 songs to form an opinion on and vote on. A 25-song listening party would be impossible. The intimacy in the project comes from our ability to talk about one person's cover for 15 minutes straight. 12 people signing up and then 6 people submitting and then all 6 showing up to the listening party is ideal.

Which means we'd need to run a lot of these. And each parallel group can own their own group-level settings (TBD) and whether they livestream their listening parties, etc.

We can allow different groups to have different social group requirements - such as requiring folks to sign up in at least a pair of 2 to join a round, to better incentivize social cohesion. There are lots of levels.

Keep focused on improving the craft

I'm so glad EPTSS is not a popularity contest. This could so easily become a popularity contest. And when I say "popularity contest," I'm being too specific. I don't want situations where a more skilled participant receives outsized public praise compared to the talented upstart. The thing that should be most celebrated is the growth of the participant.

First steps - foundations for scale

With the above in mind, I see the following approach to scale -

Full automation

The only reason I'm still sending the emails myself is that I enjoy the process, but it's absolutely unnecessary. If anything, adding email automation could provide a considerably better user experience by sending paced emails through the course of a round.

I will use Resend for email sending, at least to begin with. They have a generous free plan, and it's an easy-to-use platform. I've used them in other things and am impressed with their service and offering.

I will use Github Actions on a cron scheduler to fire off the emails at the appropriate times.

I'll need to process-map out the communication required to run a round, write all those emails, and then schedule them to go out.

So I'll still be responsible for the writing and setup, but the sending will be automated.

A clearer offering

A large piece of feedback I heard tonight was "We love this, but it's difficult to communicate what it is." I've definitely neglected how difficult it must be to join this project for the first time and get next to zero guidance until I suddenly send you an email saying "COVERS ARE DUE!"

This works for those who already do it because we have an interpersonal bond over this project and know what to expect. We need to paint the image of benefits participants enjoy - mastery and community - in a way that they feel connected and on the right path.

This may include YouTube, social media, blog posts, podcast spots, etc. This also means using covers submitted to the platform as marketing material, which still ensuring we safeguard against turning into a popularity contest. As soon as we're sending art into the public, the public will judge. There will always be that friction. We should aim always toward promoting growth over skill.

Basic user profile

Something. Anything.

basic profile Name, image, Past Covers, links to other work

Scaling beyond the single group

This transition will be everything. I said above that growth should be achieved through power users, but that neglected the importance of round hosts. I'd assume every round would want a host. But then again, maybe not. We'd want to test different methods of group formation -

• A host brings everyone together
• A group allows individuals to sign up
• A group allows participants to sign up with at least n other people

The host would probably be required for the listening party. We could also just write a listening party host guide and just let the group self-organize.

This could also easily become more than just a covers project. Another group can choose their own project. It'd truly be Everyone Does the Same Art. Guess who just bought everyonedoesthesameart.com.

That first next group

We could recruit another friend to host a parallel cover project with their social group.

Or we can mitosis this bitch. Split the current participant group in half and request everyone recruit 1 to 2 people.

I think going from 1 round at a time to potentially infinite rounds at a time is going to largest challenge. It's easy to image what the possibility and value is when there are thousands of power users, but the path to get there is less clear.

Parting thoughts

If you're reading this, it's probably because I sent it to you and what your honest thoughts on the direction and strategy of Every Plays the Same Song.

If this project changes not one bit, know that I'm eternally grateful for the friendships I've deepened and skills I've gained through my participation it in. Participating in Everyone Plays the Same Song is nothing short of transformative.