Below is a two-part proposal to The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for (1) creating a new Global Health & Development publication on Medium, and (2) extending the existing Bright publication.

(1)
“How do we do the most good?”

As we have seen with education, bringing together a diversity of voices and formats in an editorial space (i.e. Bright) can enable both a positive response from insiders and pique interest from those in adjacent fields. We are able to see this anecdotally, and with a quantitative look at both Bright readership and our network growth metrics.

Additionally, this response has only been made possible by Bright’s existence on Medium: integrated with a growing education community, with porous borders to other industries, fueled by a participatory platform.

The same opportunity exists for the programs of and financial backing behind global health and development initiatives.

The goal of this project is to advance a conversation and continue cultivating a community around global health and development.

I. Targets

We will do this by creating editorial content that deeply engages multiple, interconnected insiders — front-line practitioners, policy-makers and funders — while targeting worldly, passionate and influential readers who might only have a passing interest in these issues. Our intention is to generate a new dialogue within (i.e., we hope that people who work in the space will also learn new things and have their assumptions questioned) while engaging a broader, educated audience.

II. Framing Question + ‘Anchor’ Vessel

The framing question for the initiative will be: How do we do the most good? We will create a publication on Medium (name TBD) as an editorial anchor, but will not constrain ourselves to a single publication. We may seed questions, conversations and editorial content with other players (e.g. Global Health Corp Fellows, Acumen Fellows, young Silicon Valley philanthropists) and publications (e.g. Rob Reich’s On Philanthropy, Steven Levy’s Backchannel, The Climate Desk) — on- and off-platform.

III. Themes

There are multiple themes we would consider exploring, across various formats (see next section). This is a starter list we would refine together.

• Social Entrepreneurship, Looking Ahead: Who is funding social enterprises today, and who should be doing more of it? How do we encourage them to? Which countries have the most vibrant social enterprise communities to tap into, and how? How if at all are social enterprises based in the US thinking about cultural fit?
• “What Would It Take to ________?” What would it take to eraticate malaria? End maternal mortality? Ensure 100% of the world has access to clean drinking water? Ensure every girl has at least a primary-level education? What are some counter-intuitive, yet-to-be-explored ideas out there? Big questions drilling deeper, from funding needs to program innovation.
• The Proliferation of Technology in Development: What are the most creative ways phones are being used to connect and aid people around the world? What are the biggest, untapped opportunities at our fingertips? How are low-tech gadgets being used in development?
• “Global Health” in the US: What are the biggest disparities? What are the surprising problems facing low-income communities in the US? Where are positive stories emerging domestically which might have international application, and vice versa?
• Health Worker Heroes: How do we help professionalize them around the world? What are the tools they need to succeed? What are the experiments that people are trying around the world? How do women factor into the equation in particular?
• Adolescent and Child Health: Who is making the best progress in reducing under-5 deaths? Who is thinking most innovatively about adolescent health, particularly girls? How are these programs being funded and how is that related to the progress that is being made?
• Where Should I Spend $1,000,000,000? How do we decide which programs/people are “deserving” of international assistance? How should government aid and philanthropic dollars differ in purpose, if at all? How do governments and philanthropists decide where to allocate their resources anyway? Where should we be placing our bets?

IV. Formats

We will have multiple formats with the goal of driving engagement through compelling editorial and UGC content:

• Reported Stories and Photo Essays: Feature stories and photo essays, many written by journalists based in the countries in which they’re reporting. We can also turn to entities like the International Reporting Project, International Women’s Media Foundation, and Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting for partnerships with their journalists.
• Pre-Seeded Responses: We will solicit responses to journalistic pieces in advance, like this, as a way to stoke engagement and bring in outside perspectives.
• “Build on This”: Letters/conversations between leaders in development, philanthropy, and beyond. These can address big topics in philanthropy and thorny ethical questions in development in a respectful way. Examples could include: Givewell Board Member Dustin Moskowitz and Greylock Partner David Sze discussing tenets of good investment, or Rock Health Founder Halle Tecco and New America’s Anne-Marie Slaughter talking innovative investment strategies domestically with potential international application.
• Letters From the Field: First person pieces from people who are working in specific communities — from 30-year veterans in the field, to novice and first-time tech-born philanthropists.
• Op-Eds
• Writing Prompts: Prompting the community with questions, like this.
• Highlight Polls: Intended to generate conversation about specific topics.

Similar to Bright, these efforts will have a solutions-oriented and forward-looking focus. Reporting will be rigorous, drawing where possible on peer-reviewed evidence and experience from practitioners around the world. We will maintain a commitment to hosting diverse storytellers and perspectives. We will also have a strong and striking visual presence. We will feature talented photographers, illustrators, and videographers wherever possible — and make it approachable and inviting to participation.

V. Measurement

We will maintain a primary metric of Total Time Reading (TTR), with 450K guaranteed. We will also develop a secondary metric, called Content Interactors, that looks at people engaging with content through highlights, recommends, comments, and responses.

VI. Timing and Costs

Start Date: Mid-September
Program Duration: Six months, including ramp-up and ramp-down
Post Frequency: 3–4 commissioned posts per week for approx. four months

Total Costs: $250K (see below, this number is reduced with economies of scale)
+ Editor: $40K
+ Editorial Services: $35K
+ Creative Services (design, art, photography, infographics): $50K
+ Custom, High-End/Commissioned Content (including T/E): $85K
+ Content Marketing/Amplification/Partnership: $10K
+ Management Fees: $30K

(2)
Bright, Continued

Building on the success of the first four months of Bright, we will continue this publication (Medium is bridging the gap between when the NVF grant ends in late-July and this would begin in mid-September).

While we can revisit this during the ramp-up period, we will continue to pursue themes of personalized learning, innovative classrooms/teachers/curriculum, approaches to social/emotional/soft skills, and experiments with fringe populations. We will also look to formats where we have seen successful engagement, including investigative pieces with ties to adjacent industries (e.g. social justice, neuroscience, gender issues), writing prompts (in partnership with teacher orgs), the ‘Build on This’ series, and op-eds/personal perspectives.

Measurement

We will maintain a primary metric of Total Time Reading (TTR), with 450K guaranteed. We will also develop a secondary metric, called Content Interactors, that looks at people engaging with content through following, highlights, recommends, comments, and responses.

Timing and Costs

Start Date: Mid-September
Program Duration: Six months, including ramp-up and ramp-down
Post Frequency: 3–4 commissioned posts per week for approx. four months

Total Costs: $200K (see below, this number is reduced with economies of scale)
+ Editor: $30K
+ Editorial Services: $35K
+ Creative Services (design, art, photography, infographics): $45K
+ Custom, High-End/Commissioned Content (including T/E): $50K
+ Content Marketing/Amplification/Partnership: $10K
+ Management Fees: $30K

Aggregate Cost: $425K

Through economies of scale between the two projects, we will be able to cut Editorial Services from an aggregate $70K down to $60K and Management Fees from $60K to $45K. This will reduce overall costs by $25K, for a total cost of $425K for both editorial projects.