A Professional Milestone in Educational Technology and Creator Empowerment

Over the past several years, I've found myself juggling roles across multiple organizations—some overlapping in mission, others completely independent, all working toward making specific impacts in their respective domains. As Chief Information Technology Officer (CITO) of Practicing Musician SPC and CITO + Co-Founder of ClimbHigh.AI, I've been deeply involved in building educational technology platforms that are trying to address some fundamental problems I've observed across decades in both the tech industry and educational spaces.

Original post Date: November 11, 2025 Author: William "Hawke" Hawkes-Robinson

How Does This Series A Funding Pursuit Relate to My Professional Journey?

This isn't the first time I've worked on platforms meant to empower creators and learners. Back in 2000-2002, I served as CTO at MightyWords Inc., where we built a global eBook platform working toward giving authors more control over their content and revenue, which was a somewhat radical idea in that era. The fundamental questions about creator ownership, fair compensation, and sustainable business models from those experiences have stayed with me through various ventures since then. Now, with Practicing Musician and ClimbHigh.AI, we're attempting to tackle similar challenges in the context of educational content creation, particularly for music education but with broader applications.

The announcement that Practicing Musician SPC is pursuing $8 million in bridge funding and ClimbHigh.AI is seeking $30 million in Series A funding represents a significant professional milestone—not just in terms of company growth, but in terms of validating (or at least attempting to validate) that the approaches we've been developing over the past 7+ years might have broader viability. The goal is to eventually split these into two independent companies post-funding, with Practicing Musician staying focused on music education and ClimbHigh.AI addressing broader educational applications. Both would use the same underlying technology platform, with Practicing Musician using ClimbHigh.AI's platform as its Practicing Musician Platform 3 (PMP3) through an inter-company agreement. Whether this all works out as planned remains to be seen, but the journey of building these systems has been both challenging and educational in ways I didn't fully anticipate when we started.

The Core Announcement: What We're Building and Why

Practicing Musician started as a platform focused specifically on helping music educators and students document and improve their practice sessions. Over 7+ years, we've served more than 2,000 educators across 46 countries, which has given us substantial feedback about what works and what doesn't in educational technology (Practicing Musician, 2025). The platform has evolved from basic practice logging into a more comprehensive system that helps track progress, provides analytics, and facilitates the kind of deliberate practice that actually leads to improvement.

ClimbHigh.AI emerged from recognizing that the underlying technology we were developing for Practicing Musician could apply to many other educational contexts beyond music. The fundamental challenge is the same across disciplines: helping learners and educators document their work, get meaningful feedback, track progress over time, and build portfolios that demonstrate actual skill development rather than just time spent. We filed for patent protection on some of the core technology approaches, though patents are always a gamble in terms of whether they'll prove valuable or just expensive paperwork (ClimbHigh.AI, 2025).

One of the aspects of this model that I find most interesting (and uncertain in terms of market reception) is the 67% creator ownership structure. This isn't a revenue-sharing model where creators get a percentage of what the platform earns from their content—this is actual equity ownership in the platform itself. Creators who contribute substantively to the platform would own the majority of the company. This approach is influenced by my experiences watching how platforms like YouTube, despite offering revenue sharing, still fundamentally own the relationship with the audience and can change terms at will (YouTube, 2024). Whether our approach will prove more sustainable or just more complicated remains an open question that we'll need to test in the market.

From a business metrics perspective, we're showing an 8.4:1 lifetime value to customer acquisition cost (LTV/CAC) ratio, which is in the range that investors typically want to see for SaaS businesses (Practicing Musician, 2025). We've also managed to reduce the cost of producing educational video content from approximately $1,500 per video (using traditional studio approaches) down to around $5 per video using our platform's tools, with a target of reaching $0.50 per video at scale. These cost reductions matter because they could potentially make high-quality educational content creation accessible to individual educators who don't have institutional budgets or production teams.

The bridge funding for Practicing Musician ($8M internal goal) is intended to sustain operations while we work toward the larger Series A for ClimbHigh.AI ($30M goal). These are targets, not guarantees—raising capital is always uncertain, particularly in the current economic climate where investors are more cautious than they were a few years ago. But we're attempting to make the case that there's a viable path to building educational technology that serves both creators and learners better than the dominant platform models do currently.

Professional Philosophy: Building Tools That Respect People

Throughout my career across Fortune 500 companies, startups, non-profit organizations, and consulting work, I've developed some principles about technology and organizations that inform how we're trying to build these platforms. These aren't universal truths—they're observations based on specific experiences, and they may not apply to all contexts.

First, I've seen repeatedly that most technology projects don't actually need to be 100% custom-coded from scratch. The industry has a tendency to reinvent wheels, often because developers (myself included, earlier in my career) enjoy solving problems more than we enjoy searching for existing solutions. With Practicing Musician and ClimbHigh.AI, we're trying to use existing open-source tools and libraries wherever possible, only writing custom code where we genuinely need functionality that doesn't exist elsewhere. This is harder than it sounds, because it requires patience to research and evaluate options rather than jumping straight to writing code.

Second, the balance between technical work and human-centered work is something I continually struggle with. In my roles with RPG Research (therapeutic gaming non-profit) and RPG Therapeutics LLC, I've worked extensively with people facing various challenges—physical disabilities, cognitive differences, social anxiety, recovery from trauma. That work constantly reminds me that technology should serve human needs, not the other way around. But when I'm deep in technical problem-solving mode, it's easy to lose sight of that and optimize for technical elegance rather than human benefit. Building educational platforms requires holding both perspectives simultaneously: the technology has to work reliably, but it also has to support actual learning and teaching in ways that reduce burden rather than adding it.

Third, I've learned (sometimes the hard way) that entire industries can be wrong about best practices. During my consulting work with Fortune 500 companies, I've seen massive investments in approaches that were fundamentally flawed, where people kept doubling down because "this is how everyone does it" (Hawke Enterprising, 2024). In the educational technology space specifically, I've watched platforms optimize for engagement metrics and time-on-platform rather than actual learning outcomes. We're trying to take a different approach with these platforms, but there's always the risk that our alternative approach is just differently wrong rather than actually better.

The Multi-Company Juggling Act: Challenges and Trade-offs

One aspect of my professional life that creates both opportunities and complications is working across multiple organizations simultaneously. In addition to the CITO roles with Practicing Musician and ClimbHigh.AI, I'm also Founder and Executive Director of RPG Research (a 501(c)3 non-profit), Founder and CEO of RPG Therapeutics LLC, and Founder and CEO of RPG.LLC. Each of these organizations has different missions, different funding models, and different stakeholders.

The non-profit RPG Research focuses on research and free community programs using role-playing games for therapeutic and educational purposes. We've served more than 100,000 people through various programs over the years, though we've had to scale back significantly due to funding challenges and other setbacks (RPG Research, 2024). The for-profit entities (RPG Therapeutics LLC and RPG.LLC) work with healthcare organizations, schools, and other institutions that have budgets for therapeutic gaming services.

Juggling all of these isn't always sustainable. For a period recently, I was working 20-24 hours per day, 7 days a week, which is obviously not something anyone can maintain long-term. I've had to scale back to a more reasonable 12 hours per day schedule, which is still intense but at least allows for sleep and some personal life (Robinson, 2023). The challenge is that all of these organizations represent work I believe is worth doing, but time and energy are finite resources.

The companies don't all pay reliably yet—much of this has been sweat equity so far, which creates financial stress that I'll discuss more on my personal blog (hawkes-haven.com) rather than here. But it's relevant to mention in a professional context because it affects decision-making. When you're working on multiple ventures that aren't yet financially stable, every decision about where to invest time has opportunity costs across the other ventures.

Technical Architecture and Platform Approach

From a technical perspective, we're building these platforms using approaches that prioritize open-source foundations, avoiding vendor lock-in where possible, and maintaining data portability. This is influenced by my work in the open-source community and my frustrations with how many EdTech platforms create walled gardens that trap both user data and user workflows (TechTalk Hawke, 2024).

The platform architecture is built for integration with major learning management systems using open standards like SCORM and xAPI, enabling content portability across institutional platforms. The patent-pending Instructional Design Generator achieves 98% accuracy in automated course structure generation, transforming educational ideas into platform-ready courses.

For the AI components that power some of the feedback and analysis features, we're using a combination of established models (for things like speech-to-text and text analysis) and custom-trained models for domain-specific applications like musical technique analysis. Training custom models is expensive both in terms of computational resources and in terms of gathering and labeling training data, which is one of the reasons we need substantial funding to scale these capabilities.

Data privacy and security are particular concerns for educational platforms, especially when working with student data. We're implementing end-to-end encryption for sensitive data, SOC 2 Type II compliance planning, GDPR and CCPA-compliant architecture, and building in data export functionality so users aren't locked into our platform. These are all costly to implement properly, but they're necessary for building trust with educational institutions.

The Creator Ownership Model: An Experiment in Platform Economics

The 67% creator ownership structure deserves more explanation, because it's one of the more unusual aspects of what we're attempting. Traditional platforms operate on a model where the platform company owns the infrastructure, controls the terms of service, takes a significant cut of revenue, and has minimal obligation to the creators beyond whatever the current terms of service specify. Creators can be successful on these platforms, but they're fundamentally tenants rather than owners.

YouTube's Partner Program, for example, offers creators 55% of ad revenue, which sounds generous until you consider that YouTube owns the relationship with the advertisers, controls the recommendation algorithm, can change monetization rules at any time, and creators have no ownership stake in the platform's success (YouTube, 2024). When YouTube changes its policies or algorithm, creators have to adapt or lose their audience—they have no governance rights because they're not owners.

We're attempting a different model where creators who contribute substantively to the platform would actually own equity—not just receive revenue sharing, but own actual shares in the company. This would give them governance rights, align their long-term interests with the platform's sustainability, and create a genuine stakeholder community rather than a tenant-landlord relationship. The structure would maintain some ownership for founders and investors (33%), but the majority (67%) would eventually be distributed to creators based on their contributions.

The challenges with this model are substantial. How do you measure "substantive contribution" fairly? How do you handle governance with potentially thousands of small shareholders? How do you prevent voting deadlocks? How do you keep administrative costs reasonable? We're working through these questions, drawing on models from worker cooperatives, housing cooperatives, and open-source software foundations, but we're still figuring out many of the details (Practicing Musician, 2025).

This could fail for many reasons. It might be too complicated to administer. Creators might not actually care about ownership and just want straightforward revenue sharing. Investors might be unwilling to accept being minority owners in a creator-majority company. Or it might work better than traditional platform models because it aligns incentives differently. Time will tell.

Market Context: EdTech and the Creator Economy

The educational technology market is substantial—various market research reports estimate the global EdTech market at between $200-300 billion currently, with projected growth to $600-800 billion over the next several years (Grand View Research, 2024). These are large numbers, but they represent a highly fragmented market with thousands of companies competing across different segments, age groups, subject areas, and geographic regions.

The "creator economy" is similarly large but fragmented. Estimates suggest 50-100 million people globally consider themselves content creators in some capacity, though the vast majority earn little to no income from their creative work (SignalFire, 2024). The platforms that dominate this space—YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Patreon, Substack, and others—each take different approaches to creator monetization, but they all maintain platform ownership and control.

We're attempting to position Practicing Musician and ClimbHigh.AI at the intersection of these two markets: educational content created by practitioners (teachers, coaches, trainers) for learners, with a ownership structure that's different from the dominant platform models. Whether there's actual market demand for this intersection, and whether our specific approach will resonate with creators and learners, remains uncertain.

One challenge is that most creators are already established on existing platforms. Asking them to invest time in a new platform requires offering something substantially better, not just marginally different. The ownership model might be appealing to some creators, but it also introduces complexity that many creators may not want to deal with. We're trying to make the platform valuable enough for its features alone, with the ownership model as an additional differentiator for those who care about it.

Personal Context: Health, Recovery, and Realistic Expectations

It's worth acknowledging that this work is happening in the context of some personal challenges. I've had some serious health issues over the past few years—lung problems that have required ongoing treatment and medication management. I've mentioned this briefly in professional contexts because it does affect work capacity and scheduling, though I reserve the more detailed discussion for my personal blog (Robinson, 2024).

These health challenges have influenced my thinking about sustainable work practices, the importance of building systems that don't depend entirely on any single person, and the need for technology to reduce burden rather than add it. When your energy is limited, you become more aware of what actually matters and what's just busywork. This has made me more critical of technology projects that create make-work or that optimize for metrics that don't connect to real outcomes.

I'm also realistic (perhaps overly realistic) about the challenges ahead. Raising capital is difficult. Building platforms is expensive. Changing established user behavior is hard. Many startups fail, and there are plenty of good reasons why ours might too. We could fail to raise the funding we need. We could raise funding but fail to achieve product-market fit. We could achieve product-market fit but fail to scale profitably. We could do everything reasonably right and still fail due to timing, competition, or market conditions.

But the alternative to trying is to accept the status quo, which I find increasingly problematic. The current dominant models in both educational technology and the creator economy have significant issues that aren't being addressed by market leaders. So we're attempting an alternative, knowing that it might not work, but believing it's worth trying.

What Comes Next: Realistic Steps Forward

The immediate next steps are focused on the fundraising process. We're preparing materials for investor presentations, refining our financial models, documenting our technology architecture, and gathering evidence for our claims about market demand and platform capabilities. This process will likely take months, with uncertain outcomes.

If we're successful in raising bridge funding for Practicing Musician, that would allow us to sustain operations while pursuing the larger Series A for ClimbHigh.AI. If we're successful with both fundraising rounds, that would allow us to expand the team, accelerate product development, invest in creator acquisition and support, and work toward the eventual split into two independent companies.

If we're not successful in fundraising, we'll need to consider alternatives: scaling back to a smaller sustainable operation, finding strategic partners or acquirers, or acknowledging that the timing or approach wasn't right for the market. I've been through various company transitions before, and while they're challenging, they're also sometimes the right outcome when the market isn't ready for what you're offering or when execution doesn't match vision.

I'll continue documenting this journey across my various websites and platforms. The technical details and industry critiques will appear on techtalkhawke.com. Business lessons and consulting insights will be on hawkenterprising.com. Personal reflections and financial realities will be on hawkes-haven.com. Updates about the therapeutic gaming work will remain on rpgresearch.com. Each of these audiences deserves different perspectives on this work, because they care about different aspects of it.

For those following along, I appreciate your interest. For those considering joining as creators, team members, or investors, I encourage realistic due diligence and honest evaluation of whether our approach aligns with your goals and risk tolerance. This is not a guaranteed success—it's an experiment in building educational platforms differently, with all the uncertainty that experimentation entails.

Onward.

References

ClimbHigh.AI. (2025). Platform overview and technical architecture. https://climbhigh.ai/

Grand View Research. (2024). Education Technology Market Size Report, 2024-2030. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/education-technology-market

Hawke Enterprising. (2024). Consulting experience and industry analysis. https://www.hawkenterprising.com

Practicing Musician. (2025). Platform metrics and creator ownership model. https://www.practicingmusician.com

Practicing Musician. (2025). Application platform and features. https://app.practicingmusician.com

Robinson, W. H. (2023). Status update August 31st, 2023. Hawke Robinson Professional Portfolio. https://www.hawkerobinson.com

Robinson, W. H. (2024). Health challenges and professional impact. Hawke's Haven Personal Blog. https://www.hawkes-haven.com

RPG Research. (2024). Impact data and program history. https://www.rpgresearch.com

SignalFire. (2024). The Creator Economy: Market Size and Growth Projections. https://signalfire.com/creator-economy/

TechTalk Hawke. (2024). Open source approaches and EdTech critiques. https://www.techtalkhawke.com

YouTube. (2024). YouTube Partner Program overview and revenue sharing. https://www.youtube.com/creators/how-things-work/

About the Author

William "Hawke" Hawkes-Robinson serves as Co-Founder & Chief Information Technology Officer (CITO) for ClimbHigh.AI and Fractional CITO for Practicing Musician SPC. He is also Founder and Executive Director of RPG Research (a 501(c)3 non-profit conducting research across 6 continents), Founder and CEO of RPG Therapeutics LLC, founder of NeuroRPG.com (brain-computer interfaces), LibreVitals.com (open-source HealthTech), and Dev2Dev Portal LLC.

Known globally as "The Grandfather of Therapeutic Gaming" for his long-running work researching and applying role-playing games in therapeutic and educational contexts, Hawke is a Washington State Department of Health Registered Recreational Therapist. His work has been accredited by ATRA, WSTRA, NCTRC, and The Joint Commission.

His mission: "Raising up the overall human condition through ethical innovation that amplifies human potential."

With expertise spanning technology (46 years, coding since age 9), role-playing games (48 years since 1977), recreational therapy (WA State registered since 2004), healthcare, neuroscience, research psychology, and education, Hawke brings 20+ years of CTO/CIO/Enterprise Architect leadership across organizations from startups to multi-billion dollar companies operating in 150+ countries.

His professional background includes Director of Operations & Systems Architect at Franklin Covey (serving 150+ countries), CTO at MightyWords Inc. (2000-2002, building the #1 global eBook platform), and CTO at Zombie Orpheus Entertainment. His track record includes building ASR/NLP systems running 150% faster than Google's, scaling platforms from 100 to 60,000+ concurrent users per second, and achieving 99.999% uptime across mission-critical systems.

Hawke is creator of the Brain-Computer Interface Role-Playing Game (BCI RPG), The RPG Mobile Fleet (wheelchair-accessible gaming vehicles), and wind & solar powered self-sufficient WiFi broadband systems for extreme rural conditions. He has been featured in HBO Vice, Hasbro's "Dragon Talk," and the documentary "Let's Play: Dungeons & Dragons Behind Bars." He hosts Tech Talk With Hawke, The Therapeutic Recreation Talk Show, Middle-earth Talk Radio, Tolkien Moot, and The RPG Talk Show.

Cross-domain convergence enables unique solutions at the intersection of AI, EdTech, NeuroTech, HealthTech, and Therapeutic Gaming. His work with ClimbHigh.AI (Microsoft Founders Hub, Nvidia Inception, AWS-backed) focuses on platforms where collective wisdom meets AI—technology that doesn't replace human expertise but amplifies it. Learn more:

🌐 Professional portfolio: https://www.hawkerobinson.com
📧 Calendar: https://calendly.com/hawkerobinson
🔬 RPG Research: https://www.rpgresearch.com
🧠 NeuroRPG: https://www.neurorpg.com
💻 Technical blog: https://www.techtalkhawke.com
🏢 Business consulting: https://www.hawkenterprising.com