Why this, why now
A few pieces of member data still have two different, competing definitions floating around the system. Before we design the new members database, we need to pick one for each — otherwise we either guess, or end up building the same ambiguity into the new system that just caused the data mess we cleaned up this week.
None of this is urgent in the sense of blocking anything today. It just needs settling before that build starts. Three short decisions below — happy to talk through any of them on a call instead, if that's easier.
Decision 1
Funding data — clean up & simplify
You've already seen why this matters: the recent bulk-edit issue that broke 200 contacts happened because a funding field allowed free text — someone wrote "Pre-Seed" instead of "Pre-seed", and it silently corrupted every future update to that contact. Digging into it properly, it turns out there are four different funding-related fields today, not two — and only one of them is set up in a way that can't go wrong. Here's what each one is actually holding:
| Field | What it's actually holding today | Our take |
|---|---|---|
| Stage | Clean — a real funding round, chosen from a fixed list (Pre-seed, Seed, Series A, Series B+, Public). | Already set up right. No change needed. |
| Last Funding Type | Also mostly round names, just describing the last completed round rather than the current one. | Recommend making this a fixed list too, same idea as Stage. |
| Total Funding | An amount, but typed inconsistently — we've seen "$124,355", "10M", and "$2,130,000,000" all in the same field. | Recommend storing this as a plain number, so it displays and sorts consistently. |
| Funding Status | Used for several different things depending who filled it in — investor type ("VC", "Angel"), current activity ("Raising Seed"), or how they're funded ("Self Funded", "Bootstrapped"). | This one's genuinely your call — see below. |
The first three are straightforward — happy to just go ahead with those unless you'd rather discuss. Funding Status is the one real judgement call, because it's clearly being used as a flexible catch-all rather than one consistent thing, and forcing it into a fixed list would throw away real information people have already given you:
A · Keep it free-form Recommended
Relabel it "Funding Notes" so it's clear it's meant to be loose, rather than pretending it's structured data. Keeps all the flexibility, no information lost.
B · Make it a fixed list
e.g. VC-backed / Angel-backed / Self-funded / Bootstrapped / Other. Cleaner and filterable, but we'd have to force everyone's existing free-text answer into one of these boxes, which won't always fit well.
Decision 2
The "Elevator Pitch" duplicate
An applicant's elevator pitch (from the application form) is currently saved in two different places: as a loose note on their contact record, which is where staff currently go to copy it for the newsletter intro, and separately as its own proper field, which isn't actually used by anything right now.
A · Make it a real field Recommended
Easier to find, search, and export in Mailchimp than digging through contact notes. Small change, no downside we can see.
B · Leave it as a note
Keep doing what you already do today — no change.
Decision 3
Four fields — still needed?
These four exist in Mailchimp today but were added outside of any of the actual forms, so nobody's confirmed whether they're still genuinely used. Quick yes/no on each is all we need.
| Field | What it currently holds | Still used? |
|---|---|---|
| Additional Companies | Some contacts have a second company/website tracked here, alongside their main one. | Yes / No |
| Exec Focus Area | A more specific role for Executives — e.g. Finance, Product, Technical, Legal. | Yes / No |
| Silicon Valley or San Francisco? | A finer split of location than the main location field. | Yes / No |
| Honours | Honestly not obvious to us from the data alone what this is for — over to you. | Yes / No |