Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

Philippe Beaudette-2
Hi everyone,

I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of  
the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in  
the process.  Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010 
  ) will give you an overview as well.  There's a lot of information  
here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to  
read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.

There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong  
message.  We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the  
results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its  
performance last year and the year before.

But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up  
for two months!

So we're issuing a challenge:  Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.

Data informed conclusions
Here's the trick:
We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.  
Please read the summaries below for really important details from our  
focus group and survey of past donors.

Focus Group
Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City  
area in September 2010.  It's important to note that this was a single  
focus group, and in a single city.  We'll need to do more to make sure  
that results correlate universally.  But we came out of it with a few  
important take-away points.  It's important to realize that these  
points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider  
feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging  
points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.

** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of  
people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of  
people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it  
free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were  
highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves  
users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but  
they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a  
user and a donor.

** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should  
be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be  
approaching them for money more often.  Accepting paid ads could  
corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.

** Independence is critically important.
These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high  
premium on the free flow of information.  They have little patience  
for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.  
The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates  
that.

** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an  
important nuance.  These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from  
simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them  
get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270  
languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many  
people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so  
successfully built. And that makes it a cause too.

** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors.
Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The  
idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia  
would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook.  
It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would  
happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy.  
Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same  
concerns.

** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia,  
even when that agenda would extend the current offerings.
An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that  
the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic  
thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would  
disrupt that.  Community support is one of the key values, and not  
everyone in the community would support new initiatives.

** There is room to fundraise more aggressively.
Across the board, respondents were surprised that they didn’t have the  
opportunity to give to Wikimedia more often. Obviously, there is a  
balance and a PBS-style solicitation schedule wouldn’t make sense both  
for Wikimedia’s personality and for this audience, but there is much  
more space available than we are taking.

** Wikimedia donors are highly suspicious of marketing gimmicks.
Simple, direct messages are likely to work best. Jimmy’s message  
worked not so much because he was the founder, but because it was a  
simple plea for support delivered authentically.

As we know, that’s something that also needs quantitative testing to  
prove. Sometimes donor response in a focus group and donor activity  
don’t line up exactly.  But, some things already line up with early  
tests. The more gimmicky the banner, the less likely it is to drive  
donations even if it increases clicks.

Reaction to banners like “572 have donated in New York today” also  
raised concerns about privacy – not a good reaction in an already  
suspicious audience.  Appeals to “keep us growing” or that highlight a  
contributor’s work raise earlier concerns about an agenda.

Donor Survey Highlights
Wikimedia produced a random sample of 20,000 individuals from the much  
larger number of individuals, from many countries, contributing less  
than $1000 between November 1 2009 and June 30 2010. These individuals  
were invited to participate in a 29 item (but around 70 question)  
survey. 3760 agreed to participate, and the survey was conducted in  
August 2010. The participants probably differ from those who declined  
in ways that are associated with survey answers. Hence the respondents  
do not represent an entirely representative sample of the < $1000  
donors.

The survey participants are committed to Wiki[p/m]edia, visiting it  
frequently. They say that they are very likely to donate again, and  
they support all the survey-mentioned reasons for donation. They were  
not aware of Wikipedia chapters. A majority of respondents did not  
appear greatly concerned about possible threats to Wikipedia’s identity.
About 1/3 of these individuals have edited, though not frequently.  
Those who express more support for Wikimedia as a cause appear more  
prone to edit. Those who have not contributed in this way say mostly  
that they haven’t thought about it--suggesting that they haven’t  
really considered the possibility—or that they don’t have time.  
Europeans and the highly educated especially stress lack of time.

Some subgroup differences were found within the sample. The likelihood  
of writing or editing does vary a bit by subgroup, for example.  
Overall, however, responses did not vary greatly by subgroup, whether  
“demographic” (nationality, education, sex) or behavioral (e.g.,  
degree of on-line activity).

* The full details of the survey can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf
* A short overview can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donor_survey_report_excerpts.pdf 
  .

Chapters
Chapters will receive the specifics of how we will work with them  
through their fundraising contacts which were designated on the  
fundraising survey, in order to keep the information communicated here  
to the essentials.

Testing
We have been testing for ten weeks now, and are really pleased with  
the progress that the tech team has made with new tools to support the  
fundraiser.  Geotargetting appears to work now, and we are currently  
testing a 1 step versus 2 step donation process.  We will have solid  
test results this week, we believe.  In all, we believe that we are -  
technically and message-wise - in a really good position.  We're  
working out kinks, definitely, but we're working them out before the  
fundraiser starts, so that we can maximize the dollar-earning  
potential of every day that we have banners up.

We need you
 From the very beginning, Zack charged me with presenting the most  
collaborative fundraiser yet.  I'm thrilled at the level of  
involvement from the community, in everything from banner creation to  
testing structure, to design, to actually sitting on our test  
fundraisers with us in virtual conferences and being a full  
participating member of the team.  We're reporting out frequently, and  
trying very hard to engage with members of the community.  We have  
dedicated staff who are outreaching to our various language wikis in  
an attempt to get ever more broad participation.  I strongly encourage  
you to join in the discussions at the meta pages about the  
fundraiser:  /http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FR2010.  Your involvement  
is not just appreciated - it's crucial.

Thanks for sticking through this email - join us in discussion and  
help us beat the Jimmy appeal!

Thanks,
Philippe


[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing#Test_six_ 
:_September_23rd.2C_2010
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation

[hidden email]

Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

MuZemike
Is it me, or when I saw the word "focus group", I started to develop
some bad feelings about this?

-MuZemike

On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of
> the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in
> the process.  Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010
>    ) will give you an overview as well.  There's a lot of information
> here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to
> read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.
>
> There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong
> message.  We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the
> results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its
> performance last year and the year before.
>
> But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up
> for two months!
>
> So we're issuing a challenge:  Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.
>
> Data informed conclusions
> Here's the trick:
> We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.
> Please read the summaries below for really important details from our
> focus group and survey of past donors.
>
> Focus Group
> Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City
> area in September 2010.  It's important to note that this was a single
> focus group, and in a single city.  We'll need to do more to make sure
> that results correlate universally.  But we came out of it with a few
> important take-away points.  It's important to realize that these
> points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider
> feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging
> points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.
>
> ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of
> people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
> For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of
> people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it
> free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were
> highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves
> users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but
> they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a
> user and a donor.
>
> ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
> Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should
> be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be
> approaching them for money more often.  Accepting paid ads could
> corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.
>
> ** Independence is critically important.
> These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high
> premium on the free flow of information.  They have little patience
> for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.
> The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates
> that.
>
> ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
> This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an
> important nuance.  These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from
> simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them
> get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270
> languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many
> people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so
> successfully built. And that makes it a cause too.
>
> ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors.
> Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The
> idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia
> would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook.
> It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would
> happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy.
> Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same
> concerns.
>
> ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia,
> even when that agenda would extend the current offerings.
> An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that
> the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic
> thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would
> disrupt that.  Community support is one of the key values, and not
> everyone in the community would support new initiatives.
>
> ** There is room to fundraise more aggressively.
> Across the board, respondents were surprised that they didn’t have the
> opportunity to give to Wikimedia more often. Obviously, there is a
> balance and a PBS-style solicitation schedule wouldn’t make sense both
> for Wikimedia’s personality and for this audience, but there is much
> more space available than we are taking.
>
> ** Wikimedia donors are highly suspicious of marketing gimmicks.
> Simple, direct messages are likely to work best. Jimmy’s message
> worked not so much because he was the founder, but because it was a
> simple plea for support delivered authentically.
>
> As we know, that’s something that also needs quantitative testing to
> prove. Sometimes donor response in a focus group and donor activity
> don’t line up exactly.  But, some things already line up with early
> tests. The more gimmicky the banner, the less likely it is to drive
> donations even if it increases clicks.
>
> Reaction to banners like “572 have donated in New York today” also
> raised concerns about privacy – not a good reaction in an already
> suspicious audience.  Appeals to “keep us growing” or that highlight a
> contributor’s work raise earlier concerns about an agenda.
>
> Donor Survey Highlights
> Wikimedia produced a random sample of 20,000 individuals from the much
> larger number of individuals, from many countries, contributing less
> than $1000 between November 1 2009 and June 30 2010. These individuals
> were invited to participate in a 29 item (but around 70 question)
> survey. 3760 agreed to participate, and the survey was conducted in
> August 2010. The participants probably differ from those who declined
> in ways that are associated with survey answers. Hence the respondents
> do not represent an entirely representative sample of the<  $1000
> donors.
>
> The survey participants are committed to Wiki[p/m]edia, visiting it
> frequently. They say that they are very likely to donate again, and
> they support all the survey-mentioned reasons for donation. They were
> not aware of Wikipedia chapters. A majority of respondents did not
> appear greatly concerned about possible threats to Wikipedia’s identity.
> About 1/3 of these individuals have edited, though not frequently.
> Those who express more support for Wikimedia as a cause appear more
> prone to edit. Those who have not contributed in this way say mostly
> that they haven’t thought about it--suggesting that they haven’t
> really considered the possibility—or that they don’t have time.
> Europeans and the highly educated especially stress lack of time.
>
> Some subgroup differences were found within the sample. The likelihood
> of writing or editing does vary a bit by subgroup, for example.
> Overall, however, responses did not vary greatly by subgroup, whether
> “demographic” (nationality, education, sex) or behavioral (e.g.,
> degree of on-line activity).
>
> * The full details of the survey can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf
> * A short overview can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donor_survey_report_excerpts.pdf
>    .
>
> Chapters
> Chapters will receive the specifics of how we will work with them
> through their fundraising contacts which were designated on the
> fundraising survey, in order to keep the information communicated here
> to the essentials.
>
> Testing
> We have been testing for ten weeks now, and are really pleased with
> the progress that the tech team has made with new tools to support the
> fundraiser.  Geotargetting appears to work now, and we are currently
> testing a 1 step versus 2 step donation process.  We will have solid
> test results this week, we believe.  In all, we believe that we are -
> technically and message-wise - in a really good position.  We're
> working out kinks, definitely, but we're working them out before the
> fundraiser starts, so that we can maximize the dollar-earning
> potential of every day that we have banners up.
>
> We need you
>   From the very beginning, Zack charged me with presenting the most
> collaborative fundraiser yet.  I'm thrilled at the level of
> involvement from the community, in everything from banner creation to
> testing structure, to design, to actually sitting on our test
> fundraisers with us in virtual conferences and being a full
> participating member of the team.  We're reporting out frequently, and
> trying very hard to engage with members of the community.  We have
> dedicated staff who are outreaching to our various language wikis in
> an attempt to get ever more broad participation.  I strongly encourage
> you to join in the discussions at the meta pages about the
> fundraiser:  /http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FR2010.  Your involvement
> is not just appreciated - it's crucial.
>
> Thanks for sticking through this email - join us in discussion and
> help us beat the Jimmy appeal!
>
> Thanks,
> Philippe
>
>
> [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing#Test_six_
> :_September_23rd.2C_2010
> ____________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Head of Reader Relations
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> [hidden email]
>
> Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

James Alexander-4
  On 10/6/2010 4:03 PM, MuZemike wrote:
> Is it me, or when I saw the word "focus group", I started to develop
> some bad feelings about this?
>
> -MuZemike

How so? We aren't basing the decisions on which banners to run on the
focus group (or survey for that matter). We're doing that on actual
click and donation data which is why we want to run so many tests. But i
think outside studies can be a great option to see how people are
thinking. It is a lot easier to get an idea of what our editors are
thinking by asking on wiki but asking what our readers or small donors
in general think can be much harder.

James

--
James Alexander
Associate Community Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
[hidden email]
+1-415-839-6885 x6716


> On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of
>> the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in
>> the process.  Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010
>>     ) will give you an overview as well.  There's a lot of information
>> here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to
>> read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.
>>
>> There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong
>> message.  We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the
>> results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its
>> performance last year and the year before.
>>
>> But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up
>> for two months!
>>
>> So we're issuing a challenge:  Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.
>>
>> Data informed conclusions
>> Here's the trick:
>> We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.
>> Please read the summaries below for really important details from our
>> focus group and survey of past donors.
>>
>> Focus Group
>> Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City
>> area in September 2010.  It's important to note that this was a single
>> focus group, and in a single city.  We'll need to do more to make sure
>> that results correlate universally.  But we came out of it with a few
>> important take-away points.  It's important to realize that these
>> points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider
>> feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging
>> points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.
>>
>> ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of
>> people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
>> For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of
>> people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it
>> free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were
>> highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves
>> users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but
>> they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a
>> user and a donor.
>>
>> ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
>> Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should
>> be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be
>> approaching them for money more often.  Accepting paid ads could
>> corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.
>>
>> ** Independence is critically important.
>> These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high
>> premium on the free flow of information.  They have little patience
>> for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.
>> The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates
>> that.
>>
>> ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
>> This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an
>> important nuance.  These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from
>> simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them
>> get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270
>> languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many
>> people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so
>> successfully built. And that makes it a cause too.
>>
>> ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors.
>> Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The
>> idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia
>> would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook.
>> It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would
>> happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy.
>> Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same
>> concerns.
>>
>> ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia,
>> even when that agenda would extend the current offerings.
>> An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that
>> the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic
>> thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would
>> disrupt that.  Community support is one of the key values, and not
>> everyone in the community would support new initiatives.
>>
>> ** There is room to fundraise more aggressively.
>> Across the board, respondents were surprised that they didn’t have the
>> opportunity to give to Wikimedia more often. Obviously, there is a
>> balance and a PBS-style solicitation schedule wouldn’t make sense both
>> for Wikimedia’s personality and for this audience, but there is much
>> more space available than we are taking.
>>
>> ** Wikimedia donors are highly suspicious of marketing gimmicks.
>> Simple, direct messages are likely to work best. Jimmy’s message
>> worked not so much because he was the founder, but because it was a
>> simple plea for support delivered authentically.
>>
>> As we know, that’s something that also needs quantitative testing to
>> prove. Sometimes donor response in a focus group and donor activity
>> don’t line up exactly.  But, some things already line up with early
>> tests. The more gimmicky the banner, the less likely it is to drive
>> donations even if it increases clicks.
>>
>> Reaction to banners like “572 have donated in New York today” also
>> raised concerns about privacy – not a good reaction in an already
>> suspicious audience.  Appeals to “keep us growing” or that highlight a
>> contributor’s work raise earlier concerns about an agenda.
>>
>> Donor Survey Highlights
>> Wikimedia produced a random sample of 20,000 individuals from the much
>> larger number of individuals, from many countries, contributing less
>> than $1000 between November 1 2009 and June 30 2010. These individuals
>> were invited to participate in a 29 item (but around 70 question)
>> survey. 3760 agreed to participate, and the survey was conducted in
>> August 2010. The participants probably differ from those who declined
>> in ways that are associated with survey answers. Hence the respondents
>> do not represent an entirely representative sample of the<   $1000
>> donors.
>>
>> The survey participants are committed to Wiki[p/m]edia, visiting it
>> frequently. They say that they are very likely to donate again, and
>> they support all the survey-mentioned reasons for donation. They were
>> not aware of Wikipedia chapters. A majority of respondents did not
>> appear greatly concerned about possible threats to Wikipedia’s identity.
>> About 1/3 of these individuals have edited, though not frequently.
>> Those who express more support for Wikimedia as a cause appear more
>> prone to edit. Those who have not contributed in this way say mostly
>> that they haven’t thought about it--suggesting that they haven’t
>> really considered the possibility—or that they don’t have time.
>> Europeans and the highly educated especially stress lack of time.
>>
>> Some subgroup differences were found within the sample. The likelihood
>> of writing or editing does vary a bit by subgroup, for example.
>> Overall, however, responses did not vary greatly by subgroup, whether
>> “demographic” (nationality, education, sex) or behavioral (e.g.,
>> degree of on-line activity).
>>
>> * The full details of the survey can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf
>> * A short overview can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donor_survey_report_excerpts.pdf
>>     .
>>
>> Chapters
>> Chapters will receive the specifics of how we will work with them
>> through their fundraising contacts which were designated on the
>> fundraising survey, in order to keep the information communicated here
>> to the essentials.
>>
>> Testing
>> We have been testing for ten weeks now, and are really pleased with
>> the progress that the tech team has made with new tools to support the
>> fundraiser.  Geotargetting appears to work now, and we are currently
>> testing a 1 step versus 2 step donation process.  We will have solid
>> test results this week, we believe.  In all, we believe that we are -
>> technically and message-wise - in a really good position.  We're
>> working out kinks, definitely, but we're working them out before the
>> fundraiser starts, so that we can maximize the dollar-earning
>> potential of every day that we have banners up.
>>
>> We need you
>>    From the very beginning, Zack charged me with presenting the most
>> collaborative fundraiser yet.  I'm thrilled at the level of
>> involvement from the community, in everything from banner creation to
>> testing structure, to design, to actually sitting on our test
>> fundraisers with us in virtual conferences and being a full
>> participating member of the team.  We're reporting out frequently, and
>> trying very hard to engage with members of the community.  We have
>> dedicated staff who are outreaching to our various language wikis in
>> an attempt to get ever more broad participation.  I strongly encourage
>> you to join in the discussions at the meta pages about the
>> fundraiser:  /http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FR2010.  Your involvement
>> is not just appreciated - it's crucial.
>>
>> Thanks for sticking through this email - join us in discussion and
>> help us beat the Jimmy appeal!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Philippe
>>
>>
>> [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing#Test_six_
>> :_September_23rd.2C_2010
>> ____________________
>> Philippe Beaudette
>> Head of Reader Relations
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
>> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
>>
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


--
James Alexander
Associate Community Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
[hidden email]
+1-415-839-6885 x6716

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

Deniz Gultekin
In reply to this post by MuZemike
MuZemike,

Bad feelings? We're learning more about our donors to maximize the
fundraising potential of our messages during the two month campaign. We
have a lofty goal - and a short time period to accomplish it in.

-Deniz

On 10/6/10 1:03 PM, MuZemike wrote:

> Is it me, or when I saw the word "focus group", I started to develop
> some bad feelings about this?
>
> -MuZemike
>
> On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>    
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of
>> the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in
>> the process.  Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010
>>     ) will give you an overview as well.  There's a lot of information
>> here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to
>> read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.
>>
>> There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong
>> message.  We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the
>> results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its
>> performance last year and the year before.
>>
>> But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up
>> for two months!
>>
>> So we're issuing a challenge:  Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.
>>
>> Data informed conclusions
>> Here's the trick:
>> We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.
>> Please read the summaries below for really important details from our
>> focus group and survey of past donors.
>>
>> Focus Group
>> Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City
>> area in September 2010.  It's important to note that this was a single
>> focus group, and in a single city.  We'll need to do more to make sure
>> that results correlate universally.  But we came out of it with a few
>> important take-away points.  It's important to realize that these
>> points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider
>> feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging
>> points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.
>>
>> ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of
>> people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
>> For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of
>> people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it
>> free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were
>> highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves
>> users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but
>> they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a
>> user and a donor.
>>
>> ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
>> Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should
>> be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be
>> approaching them for money more often.  Accepting paid ads could
>> corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.
>>
>> ** Independence is critically important.
>> These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high
>> premium on the free flow of information.  They have little patience
>> for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.
>> The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates
>> that.
>>
>> ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
>> This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an
>> important nuance.  These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from
>> simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them
>> get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270
>> languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many
>> people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so
>> successfully built. And that makes it a cause too.
>>
>> ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors.
>> Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The
>> idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia
>> would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook.
>> It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would
>> happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy.
>> Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same
>> concerns.
>>
>> ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia,
>> even when that agenda would extend the current offerings.
>> An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that
>> the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic
>> thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would
>> disrupt that.  Community support is one of the key values, and not
>> everyone in the community would support new initiatives.
>>
>> ** There is room to fundraise more aggressively.
>> Across the board, respondents were surprised that they didn’t have the
>> opportunity to give to Wikimedia more often. Obviously, there is a
>> balance and a PBS-style solicitation schedule wouldn’t make sense both
>> for Wikimedia’s personality and for this audience, but there is much
>> more space available than we are taking.
>>
>> ** Wikimedia donors are highly suspicious of marketing gimmicks.
>> Simple, direct messages are likely to work best. Jimmy’s message
>> worked not so much because he was the founder, but because it was a
>> simple plea for support delivered authentically.
>>
>> As we know, that’s something that also needs quantitative testing to
>> prove. Sometimes donor response in a focus group and donor activity
>> don’t line up exactly.  But, some things already line up with early
>> tests. The more gimmicky the banner, the less likely it is to drive
>> donations even if it increases clicks.
>>
>> Reaction to banners like “572 have donated in New York today” also
>> raised concerns about privacy – not a good reaction in an already
>> suspicious audience.  Appeals to “keep us growing” or that highlight a
>> contributor’s work raise earlier concerns about an agenda.
>>
>> Donor Survey Highlights
>> Wikimedia produced a random sample of 20,000 individuals from the much
>> larger number of individuals, from many countries, contributing less
>> than $1000 between November 1 2009 and June 30 2010. These individuals
>> were invited to participate in a 29 item (but around 70 question)
>> survey. 3760 agreed to participate, and the survey was conducted in
>> August 2010. The participants probably differ from those who declined
>> in ways that are associated with survey answers. Hence the respondents
>> do not represent an entirely representative sample of the<   $1000
>> donors.
>>
>> The survey participants are committed to Wiki[p/m]edia, visiting it
>> frequently. They say that they are very likely to donate again, and
>> they support all the survey-mentioned reasons for donation. They were
>> not aware of Wikipedia chapters. A majority of respondents did not
>> appear greatly concerned about possible threats to Wikipedia’s identity.
>> About 1/3 of these individuals have edited, though not frequently.
>> Those who express more support for Wikimedia as a cause appear more
>> prone to edit. Those who have not contributed in this way say mostly
>> that they haven’t thought about it--suggesting that they haven’t
>> really considered the possibility—or that they don’t have time.
>> Europeans and the highly educated especially stress lack of time.
>>
>> Some subgroup differences were found within the sample. The likelihood
>> of writing or editing does vary a bit by subgroup, for example.
>> Overall, however, responses did not vary greatly by subgroup, whether
>> “demographic” (nationality, education, sex) or behavioral (e.g.,
>> degree of on-line activity).
>>
>> * The full details of the survey can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf
>> * A short overview can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donor_survey_report_excerpts.pdf
>>     .
>>
>> Chapters
>> Chapters will receive the specifics of how we will work with them
>> through their fundraising contacts which were designated on the
>> fundraising survey, in order to keep the information communicated here
>> to the essentials.
>>
>> Testing
>> We have been testing for ten weeks now, and are really pleased with
>> the progress that the tech team has made with new tools to support the
>> fundraiser.  Geotargetting appears to work now, and we are currently
>> testing a 1 step versus 2 step donation process.  We will have solid
>> test results this week, we believe.  In all, we believe that we are -
>> technically and message-wise - in a really good position.  We're
>> working out kinks, definitely, but we're working them out before the
>> fundraiser starts, so that we can maximize the dollar-earning
>> potential of every day that we have banners up.
>>
>> We need you
>>    From the very beginning, Zack charged me with presenting the most
>> collaborative fundraiser yet.  I'm thrilled at the level of
>> involvement from the community, in everything from banner creation to
>> testing structure, to design, to actually sitting on our test
>> fundraisers with us in virtual conferences and being a full
>> participating member of the team.  We're reporting out frequently, and
>> trying very hard to engage with members of the community.  We have
>> dedicated staff who are outreaching to our various language wikis in
>> an attempt to get ever more broad participation.  I strongly encourage
>> you to join in the discussions at the meta pages about the
>> fundraiser:  /http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FR2010.  Your involvement
>> is not just appreciated - it's crucial.
>>
>> Thanks for sticking through this email - join us in discussion and
>> help us beat the Jimmy appeal!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Philippe
>>
>>
>> [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing#Test_six_
>> :_September_23rd.2C_2010
>> ____________________
>> Philippe Beaudette
>> Head of Reader Relations
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
>> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
>>
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>      
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>    


--
Deniz Gültekin
Community Associate
Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge
http://donate.wikimedia.org/



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

Carcharoth
In reply to this post by MuZemike
Depends on the results, I suppose. Though as I've just watched the
first show of 'The Apprentice' (BBC show in the UK - and they have a
version in the USA as well), I'm probably a bit more cynical than
usual about business and jargon-speak right now. At the end of the day
it is about results. Hang on, did I just trot out a cliche myself
there? :-)

The idea of trying to beat Jimmy's fundraising power is an interesting
one. I wonder if anyone will be brave enough to do a talking head
video of themselves and try and beat Jimmy using that! Maybe a video
clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a
very short time? Do I get a prize if anyone actually goes with that
idea?

Carcharoth

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:03 PM, MuZemike <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Is it me, or when I saw the word "focus group", I started to develop
> some bad feelings about this?
>
> -MuZemike
>
> On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of
>> the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in
>> the process.  Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010
>>    ) will give you an overview as well.  There's a lot of information
>> here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to
>> read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.
>>
>> There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong
>> message.  We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the
>> results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its
>> performance last year and the year before.
>>
>> But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up
>> for two months!
>>
>> So we're issuing a challenge:  Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.
>>
>> Data informed conclusions
>> Here's the trick:
>> We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.
>> Please read the summaries below for really important details from our
>> focus group and survey of past donors.
>>
>> Focus Group
>> Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City
>> area in September 2010.  It's important to note that this was a single
>> focus group, and in a single city.  We'll need to do more to make sure
>> that results correlate universally.  But we came out of it with a few
>> important take-away points.  It's important to realize that these
>> points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider
>> feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging
>> points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.
>>
>> ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of
>> people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
>> For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of
>> people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it
>> free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were
>> highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves
>> users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but
>> they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a
>> user and a donor.
>>
>> ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
>> Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should
>> be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be
>> approaching them for money more often.  Accepting paid ads could
>> corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.
>>
>> ** Independence is critically important.
>> These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high
>> premium on the free flow of information.  They have little patience
>> for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.
>> The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates
>> that.
>>
>> ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
>> This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an
>> important nuance.  These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from
>> simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them
>> get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270
>> languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many
>> people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so
>> successfully built. And that makes it a cause too.
>>
>> ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors.
>> Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The
>> idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia
>> would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook.
>> It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would
>> happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy.
>> Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same
>> concerns.
>>
>> ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia,
>> even when that agenda would extend the current offerings.
>> An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that
>> the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic
>> thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would
>> disrupt that.  Community support is one of the key values, and not
>> everyone in the community would support new initiatives.
>>
>> ** There is room to fundraise more aggressively.
>> Across the board, respondents were surprised that they didn’t have the
>> opportunity to give to Wikimedia more often. Obviously, there is a
>> balance and a PBS-style solicitation schedule wouldn’t make sense both
>> for Wikimedia’s personality and for this audience, but there is much
>> more space available than we are taking.
>>
>> ** Wikimedia donors are highly suspicious of marketing gimmicks.
>> Simple, direct messages are likely to work best. Jimmy’s message
>> worked not so much because he was the founder, but because it was a
>> simple plea for support delivered authentically.
>>
>> As we know, that’s something that also needs quantitative testing to
>> prove. Sometimes donor response in a focus group and donor activity
>> don’t line up exactly.  But, some things already line up with early
>> tests. The more gimmicky the banner, the less likely it is to drive
>> donations even if it increases clicks.
>>
>> Reaction to banners like “572 have donated in New York today” also
>> raised concerns about privacy – not a good reaction in an already
>> suspicious audience.  Appeals to “keep us growing” or that highlight a
>> contributor’s work raise earlier concerns about an agenda.
>>
>> Donor Survey Highlights
>> Wikimedia produced a random sample of 20,000 individuals from the much
>> larger number of individuals, from many countries, contributing less
>> than $1000 between November 1 2009 and June 30 2010. These individuals
>> were invited to participate in a 29 item (but around 70 question)
>> survey. 3760 agreed to participate, and the survey was conducted in
>> August 2010. The participants probably differ from those who declined
>> in ways that are associated with survey answers. Hence the respondents
>> do not represent an entirely representative sample of the<  $1000
>> donors.
>>
>> The survey participants are committed to Wiki[p/m]edia, visiting it
>> frequently. They say that they are very likely to donate again, and
>> they support all the survey-mentioned reasons for donation. They were
>> not aware of Wikipedia chapters. A majority of respondents did not
>> appear greatly concerned about possible threats to Wikipedia’s identity.
>> About 1/3 of these individuals have edited, though not frequently.
>> Those who express more support for Wikimedia as a cause appear more
>> prone to edit. Those who have not contributed in this way say mostly
>> that they haven’t thought about it--suggesting that they haven’t
>> really considered the possibility—or that they don’t have time.
>> Europeans and the highly educated especially stress lack of time.
>>
>> Some subgroup differences were found within the sample. The likelihood
>> of writing or editing does vary a bit by subgroup, for example.
>> Overall, however, responses did not vary greatly by subgroup, whether
>> “demographic” (nationality, education, sex) or behavioral (e.g.,
>> degree of on-line activity).
>>
>> * The full details of the survey can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf
>> * A short overview can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donor_survey_report_excerpts.pdf
>>    .
>>
>> Chapters
>> Chapters will receive the specifics of how we will work with them
>> through their fundraising contacts which were designated on the
>> fundraising survey, in order to keep the information communicated here
>> to the essentials.
>>
>> Testing
>> We have been testing for ten weeks now, and are really pleased with
>> the progress that the tech team has made with new tools to support the
>> fundraiser.  Geotargetting appears to work now, and we are currently
>> testing a 1 step versus 2 step donation process.  We will have solid
>> test results this week, we believe.  In all, we believe that we are -
>> technically and message-wise - in a really good position.  We're
>> working out kinks, definitely, but we're working them out before the
>> fundraiser starts, so that we can maximize the dollar-earning
>> potential of every day that we have banners up.
>>
>> We need you
>>   From the very beginning, Zack charged me with presenting the most
>> collaborative fundraiser yet.  I'm thrilled at the level of
>> involvement from the community, in everything from banner creation to
>> testing structure, to design, to actually sitting on our test
>> fundraisers with us in virtual conferences and being a full
>> participating member of the team.  We're reporting out frequently, and
>> trying very hard to engage with members of the community.  We have
>> dedicated staff who are outreaching to our various language wikis in
>> an attempt to get ever more broad participation.  I strongly encourage
>> you to join in the discussions at the meta pages about the
>> fundraiser:  /http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FR2010.  Your involvement
>> is not just appreciated - it's crucial.
>>
>> Thanks for sticking through this email - join us in discussion and
>> help us beat the Jimmy appeal!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Philippe
>>
>>
>> [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing#Test_six_
>> :_September_23rd.2C_2010
>> ____________________
>> Philippe Beaudette
>> Head of Reader Relations
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
>> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
>>
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

Casey Brown-5
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Carcharoth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Maybe a video
> clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a
> very short time?

Haha, like <http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/24/four-videos-of-wikipedias-volunteers/>
? ;-)

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

Carcharoth
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Carcharoth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Maybe a video
>> clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a
>> very short time?
>
> Haha, like <http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/24/four-videos-of-wikipedias-volunteers/>
> ? ;-)

Something like that yes, but even better, and with Jedi special effects! :-)

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

Deniz Gultekin
Wikipedians and Jedi-themed special effects?! *gets popcorn*

But yes, I agree, it'd be fantastic to have even more high quality
videos of editors *and* readers, with or without lightsabers.

On 10/6/10 6:05 PM, Carcharoth wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Casey Brown<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>    
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Carcharoth<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>      
>>> Maybe a video
>>> clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a
>>> very short time?
>>>        
>> Haha, like<http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/24/four-videos-of-wikipedias-volunteers/>
>> ? ;-)
>>      
> Something like that yes, but even better, and with Jedi special effects! :-)
>
> Carcharoth
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>    


--
Deniz Gültekin
Community Associate
Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge
http://donate.wikimedia.org/


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

MuZemike
In reply to this post by James Alexander-4
I'm just saying that I know instances in which focus groups sometimes
don't accomplish what they're set to do. Apparently, Apple has gone
against this concept of doing focus groups to make decisions so they can
keep moving forward with various products (citation needed). Coca-Cola
did the same thing when they rolled out "New Coke" in 1985 to disastrous
results. Time Warner/JVC professed their usage of focus groups in their
trailer of the video game "Rise of the Robots" as shown here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zafl_68PfOo . That game is one of the
worst fighting games of all time, failing on many levels.

That is why I am very wary and cautious about focus groups, as they tend
to blindly serve their clientele instead of giving actual feedback on
whatever their assessing.

-MuZemike

On 10/6/2010 3:24 PM, James Alexander wrote:

>    On 10/6/2010 4:03 PM, MuZemike wrote:
>> Is it me, or when I saw the word "focus group", I started to develop
>> some bad feelings about this?
>>
>> -MuZemike
>
> How so? We aren't basing the decisions on which banners to run on the
> focus group (or survey for that matter). We're doing that on actual
> click and donation data which is why we want to run so many tests. But i
> think outside studies can be a great option to see how people are
> thinking. It is a lot easier to get an idea of what our editors are
> thinking by asking on wiki but asking what our readers or small donors
> in general think can be much harder.
>
> James
>
> --
> James Alexander
> Associate Community Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> [hidden email]
> +1-415-839-6885 x6716
>
>
>> On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of
>>> the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in
>>> the process.  Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010
>>>      ) will give you an overview as well.  There's a lot of information
>>> here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to
>>> read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.
>>>
>>> There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong
>>> message.  We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the
>>> results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its
>>> performance last year and the year before.
>>>
>>> But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up
>>> for two months!
>>>
>>> So we're issuing a challenge:  Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.
>>>
>>> Data informed conclusions
>>> Here's the trick:
>>> We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.
>>> Please read the summaries below for really important details from our
>>> focus group and survey of past donors.
>>>
>>> Focus Group
>>> Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City
>>> area in September 2010.  It's important to note that this was a single
>>> focus group, and in a single city.  We'll need to do more to make sure
>>> that results correlate universally.  But we came out of it with a few
>>> important take-away points.  It's important to realize that these
>>> points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider
>>> feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging
>>> points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.
>>>
>>> ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of
>>> people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
>>> For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of
>>> people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it
>>> free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were
>>> highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves
>>> users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but
>>> they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a
>>> user and a donor.
>>>
>>> ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
>>> Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should
>>> be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be
>>> approaching them for money more often.  Accepting paid ads could
>>> corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.
>>>
>>> ** Independence is critically important.
>>> These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high
>>> premium on the free flow of information.  They have little patience
>>> for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.
>>> The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates
>>> that.
>>>
>>> ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
>>> This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an
>>> important nuance.  These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from
>>> simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them
>>> get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270
>>> languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many
>>> people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so
>>> successfully built. And that makes it a cause too.
>>>
>>> ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors.
>>> Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The
>>> idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia
>>> would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook.
>>> It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would
>>> happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy.
>>> Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>> ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia,
>>> even when that agenda would extend the current offerings.
>>> An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that
>>> the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic
>>> thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would
>>> disrupt that.  Community support is one of the key values, and not
>>> everyone in the community would support new initiatives.
>>>
>>> ** There is room to fundraise more aggressively.
>>> Across the board, respondents were surprised that they didn’t have the
>>> opportunity to give to Wikimedia more often. Obviously, there is a
>>> balance and a PBS-style solicitation schedule wouldn’t make sense both
>>> for Wikimedia’s personality and for this audience, but there is much
>>> more space available than we are taking.
>>>
>>> ** Wikimedia donors are highly suspicious of marketing gimmicks.
>>> Simple, direct messages are likely to work best. Jimmy’s message
>>> worked not so much because he was the founder, but because it was a
>>> simple plea for support delivered authentically.
>>>
>>> As we know, that’s something that also needs quantitative testing to
>>> prove. Sometimes donor response in a focus group and donor activity
>>> don’t line up exactly.  But, some things already line up with early
>>> tests. The more gimmicky the banner, the less likely it is to drive
>>> donations even if it increases clicks.
>>>
>>> Reaction to banners like “572 have donated in New York today” also
>>> raised concerns about privacy – not a good reaction in an already
>>> suspicious audience.  Appeals to “keep us growing” or that highlight a
>>> contributor’s work raise earlier concerns about an agenda.
>>>
>>> Donor Survey Highlights
>>> Wikimedia produced a random sample of 20,000 individuals from the much
>>> larger number of individuals, from many countries, contributing less
>>> than $1000 between November 1 2009 and June 30 2010. These individuals
>>> were invited to participate in a 29 item (but around 70 question)
>>> survey. 3760 agreed to participate, and the survey was conducted in
>>> August 2010. The participants probably differ from those who declined
>>> in ways that are associated with survey answers. Hence the respondents
>>> do not represent an entirely representative sample of the<    $1000
>>> donors.
>>>
>>> The survey participants are committed to Wiki[p/m]edia, visiting it
>>> frequently. They say that they are very likely to donate again, and
>>> they support all the survey-mentioned reasons for donation. They were
>>> not aware of Wikipedia chapters. A majority of respondents did not
>>> appear greatly concerned about possible threats to Wikipedia’s identity.
>>> About 1/3 of these individuals have edited, though not frequently.
>>> Those who express more support for Wikimedia as a cause appear more
>>> prone to edit. Those who have not contributed in this way say mostly
>>> that they haven’t thought about it--suggesting that they haven’t
>>> really considered the possibility—or that they don’t have time.
>>> Europeans and the highly educated especially stress lack of time.
>>>
>>> Some subgroup differences were found within the sample. The likelihood
>>> of writing or editing does vary a bit by subgroup, for example.
>>> Overall, however, responses did not vary greatly by subgroup, whether
>>> “demographic” (nationality, education, sex) or behavioral (e.g.,
>>> degree of on-line activity).
>>>
>>> * The full details of the survey can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf
>>> * A short overview can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donor_survey_report_excerpts.pdf
>>>      .
>>>
>>> Chapters
>>> Chapters will receive the specifics of how we will work with them
>>> through their fundraising contacts which were designated on the
>>> fundraising survey, in order to keep the information communicated here
>>> to the essentials.
>>>
>>> Testing
>>> We have been testing for ten weeks now, and are really pleased with
>>> the progress that the tech team has made with new tools to support the
>>> fundraiser.  Geotargetting appears to work now, and we are currently
>>> testing a 1 step versus 2 step donation process.  We will have solid
>>> test results this week, we believe.  In all, we believe that we are -
>>> technically and message-wise - in a really good position.  We're
>>> working out kinks, definitely, but we're working them out before the
>>> fundraiser starts, so that we can maximize the dollar-earning
>>> potential of every day that we have banners up.
>>>
>>> We need you
>>>     From the very beginning, Zack charged me with presenting the most
>>> collaborative fundraiser yet.  I'm thrilled at the level of
>>> involvement from the community, in everything from banner creation to
>>> testing structure, to design, to actually sitting on our test
>>> fundraisers with us in virtual conferences and being a full
>>> participating member of the team.  We're reporting out frequently, and
>>> trying very hard to engage with members of the community.  We have
>>> dedicated staff who are outreaching to our various language wikis in
>>> an attempt to get ever more broad participation.  I strongly encourage
>>> you to join in the discussions at the meta pages about the
>>> fundraiser:  /http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FR2010.  Your involvement
>>> is not just appreciated - it's crucial.
>>>
>>> Thanks for sticking through this email - join us in discussion and
>>> help us beat the Jimmy appeal!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Philippe
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing#Test_six_
>>> :_September_23rd.2C_2010
>>> ____________________
>>> Philippe Beaudette
>>> Head of Reader Relations
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>> Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
>>> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
>>>
>>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> --
> James Alexander
> Associate Community Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> [hidden email]
> +1-415-839-6885 x6716
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

James Alexander-4
  On 10/7/2010 1:20 AM, MuZemike wrote:

> I'm just saying that I know instances in which focus groups sometimes
> don't accomplish what they're set to do. Apparently, Apple has gone
> against this concept of doing focus groups to make decisions so they can
> keep moving forward with various products (citation needed). Coca-Cola
> did the same thing when they rolled out "New Coke" in 1985 to disastrous
> results. Time Warner/JVC professed their usage of focus groups in their
> trailer of the video game "Rise of the Robots" as shown here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zafl_68PfOo . That game is one of the
> worst fighting games of all time, failing on many levels.
>
> That is why I am very wary and cautious about focus groups, as they tend
> to blindly serve their clientele instead of giving actual feedback on
> whatever their assessing.
>
> -MuZemike
This is totally understandable, especially on the basis of 1 focus
group. The one thing that is nice is that a lot of the data that we got
from the focus group matched up with the data from the donor survey
which helps validate it some. But again the real important data is
actual concrete testing data that we've both gotten and will be getting
a lot more of over the next month. It is THAT data that will really
inform us on what messages, landing pages, design etc work the best.

James

--
James Alexander
Associate Community Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
[hidden email]
+1-415-839-6885 x6716


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Deniz Gultekin
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Deniz Gultekin <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Wikipedians and Jedi-themed special effects?! *gets popcorn*
>
> But yes, I agree, it'd be fantastic to have even more high quality
> videos of editors *and* readers, with or without lightsabers.
>
> On 10/6/10 6:05 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Casey Brown<[hidden email]>
>  wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Carcharoth<[hidden email]>
>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Maybe a video
> >>> clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a
> >>> very short time?
> >>>
> >> Haha, like<
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/24/four-videos-of-wikipedias-volunteers/
> >
> >> ? ;-)
> >>
> > Something like that yes, but even better, and with Jedi special effects!
> :-)
> >
> > Carcharoth
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Deniz Gültekin
> Community Associate
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge
> http://donate.wikimedia.org/
>
>
I would like to add to this that I think the key factor is the personal
appeal. You should definitely pick a random Wikimedian and give them a high
falutin message akin to the one in Jimmy's appeal and see how it stacks up.
Chances are it's going to work very well. After all, people don't know who
Jimmy Wales is, and yet his appeal causes them to donate. That boils it down
to the personal nature of the appeal and the content of the message.

If this turns out to be correct you should, pronto, start making LOTS of
these.

- Brian
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by MuZemike
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:20 AM, MuZemike <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Apparently, Apple has gone
> against this concept of doing focus groups to make decisions so they can
> keep moving forward with various products (citation needed).

"On November 8, the Wikimedia Foundation will re-introduce banner ads.
 And you'll see why 2010 won't be like ''2010''."  (Cue shot of Erik
Möller staring at a monolith, which suddenly displays the
language-specific version of
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Support_Wikipedia on it.)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

Erik Moeller-4
2010/10/7 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> "On November 8, the Wikimedia Foundation will re-introduce banner ads.
>  And you'll see why 2010 won't be like ''2010''."  (Cue shot of Erik
> Möller staring at a monolith, which suddenly displays the
> language-specific version of
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Support_Wikipedia on it.)

All these worlds are yours except Simple English. Attempt no landings there...

--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

Steve Bennett-8
In reply to this post by Deniz Gultekin
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Deniz Gultekin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> MuZemike,
>
> Bad feelings? We're learning more about our donors to maximize the
> fundraising potential of our messages during the two month campaign. We
> have a lofty goal - and a short time period to accomplish it in.

At an intellectual level, I agree with the premise that if an
organisation like WMF wants to raise money through banner ads, and
wants to raise *a lot* of money, it makes sense to engineer that
process: experimenting, collecting data, refining the message,
implementing improvements.

But at a gut reaction level, I find this process distasteful. I don't
know why, exactly. There's this feeling of treating the people who
support WMF as lab rats, working out which experimental conditions are
ideal for extracting maximum dollar per eyeball. And the inherent
irony in an idea like "donors respond well to authenticity, so we
carefully concocted a message full of maximum authenticity..."

It's something like intellectually being ok with eating meat, but not
wanting to observe the process of butchery.

Just posting to back anyone else up who feels a bit uncomfortable with
seeing this kind of report, and the thinking implied behind it.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

Liam Wyatt
On 18/11/2010, at 7:14, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Deniz Gultekin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> MuZemike,
>>
>> Bad feelings? We're learning more about our donors to maximize the
>> fundraising potential of our messages during the two month campaign. We
>> have a lofty goal - and a short time period to accomplish it in.
>
> At an intellectual level, I agree with the premise that if an
> organisation like WMF wants to raise money through banner ads, and
> wants to raise *a lot* of money, it makes sense to engineer that
> process: experimenting, collecting data, refining the message,
> implementing improvements.
>
> But at a gut reaction level, I find this process distasteful. I don't
> know why, exactly. There's this feeling of treating the people who
> support WMF as lab rats, working out which experimental conditions are
> ideal for extracting maximum dollar per eyeball. And the inherent
> irony in an idea like "donors respond well to authenticity, so we
> carefully concocted a message full of maximum authenticity..."
>
> It's something like intellectually being ok with eating meat, but not
> wanting to observe the process of butchery.
>
> Just posting to back anyone else up who feels a bit uncomfortable with
> seeing this kind of report, and the thinking implied behind it.
>
> Steve
>
I see what you mean/where you're coming from but I would like to raise something to contest your saying that it is about "extracting maximum dollars per eyeball".
Have a looks at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics
And specifically the tabs for "number of donors" and "average donation" (the current year are they dark red lines). You will see that this year is vastly more successful in terms of number of people participating in the fundraiser - and in this sense it could be seen as either successful or exploitative depending on one's point of view. However, you can also see the that average amount being donated per person is either stable or has actually decreased relative to previous years. This is not by chance and is a fundraising campaign design decision to try to maximize participation in the fundraiser and not merely get as much money as possible. I think this is a very interesting statistic as it validates the decision of the WMF to move away from looking to attract major donors - it ultimately means the wikimedia movement is more accountable to individual donors who give at the level of $20 than the rich few. This is "carefully concocted", as you rightly say, but done so in a way that is true to ourselves IMO.


-Liam
Wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

Steve Bennett-8
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Have a looks at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics
> And specifically the tabs for "number of donors" and "average donation" (the current year are they dark red lines). You will see that this year is vastly more successful in terms of number of people participating in the fundraiser

Very interesting, thanks for posting that.

Maybe what I'm also feeling here is an uneasiness I get whenever
someone (particularly corporations) take credit for "raising money" or
being "good fundraisers". Credit should always go to the people who
pay the money. According to those graphs, each day more than 10,000
people have made a donation, averaging close to $30. That's amazing.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l