[Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Craig Franklin
On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
> advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation
> has not yet sunk to that yet.
>

[[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too loudly and give anyone ideas!

Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the size)
of the ads so far this year.

Cheers,
Craig
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

John Mark Vandenberg
On 3 Dec 2015 10:25 am, "Craig Franklin" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
> > advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation
> > has not yet sunk to that yet.
> >
>
> [[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too loudly and give anyone
ideas!
>
> Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the size)
> of the ads so far this year.

You approve of WMF using stock photos?

--
John
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Craig Franklin
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the size)
> of the ads so far this year.
>


Yes, a significant improvement over past years. Thank you.

Andreas
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Craig Franklin
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
No, I was referring to the lack of misleading scare messages; the current
one is a little wishy-washy for my taste but at least it's not implying
that the Foundation is in grave financial danger.  Obviously the use of
what might be paid stock art where there is plenty of free alternatives
available on our own projects is not ideal.  The ads themselves are also as
ugly as hell, although I'm sure there's some A/B testing that shows that
such monstrosities extract slightly more cash from the readers that will be
used to justify that.

Cheers,
Craig

On 3 December 2015 at 10:01, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 3 Dec 2015 10:25 am, "Craig Franklin" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
> > > advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia
> Foundation
> > > has not yet sunk to that yet.
> > >
> >
> > [[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too loudly and give anyone
> ideas!
> >
> > Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the
> size)
> > of the ads so far this year.
>
> You approve of WMF using stock photos?
>
> --
> John
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

K. Peachey-2
In reply to this post by Lisa Gruwell
I would assume you are also going to provide some input some comment into
the discussion other than just dumping a pile of quotes in here?

On 3 December 2015 at 07:06, Lisa Gruwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I thought this might be a good point in the conversation to share some of
> the comments we have received from donors over the past day and a half. I
> think they really appreciate all of your work:
>
>
> Wikipedia has provided an unfathomable outlet for the inexhaustible chorus
> of "why? why? why?" that has run through my brain since I was old enough to
> think. I also believe its a factor in why I am currently in the eligible
> Jeopardy! contestant pool. In short, thanks Wikipedia.
>
> Wikipedia helps me almost daily, I cannot count the number of times me and
> friends have been debating the answer to life, the universe and everything
> (42, in case you were wondering!) and Wikipedia has dispelled the
> discrepancies in one or more of our arguments. Thanks to wiki, we have been
> able to convince each other we were wrong, and educate on topics we have
> never considered. Wiki is very important, and for this I will continue to
> donate as long as I can afford to. The more the world has open access to
> information for free, the sooner mankind will get along. Wikipedia is
> making the world a better place one article at a time. Thank you.
>
> I've had a roadrunner and wild turkey with poults in my yard and I've used
> Wiki to obtain information about them.
>
> There was a time I used to get embarrassed due to lack of general
> knowledge. Wikipedia gave me confidence. Thank you.
>
> well, over time, using it became a reflex, like breathing but when i pause
> to think about it, it is one of the source of knowledge I use most and I am
> the better for it.
>
> It's one of a tiny number of fund raising calls that I respond to. The
> charter or quest of Wikipedia , I think is among the highest ideals that
> humans can aspire to.
>
> Wikipedia is the first point of call for any research i am performing,
> especially on a new subject. It has been a life-saver on more than one
> occasions
>
> Wikipedia is part of my information ecosystem. It's like a road map for new
> intellectual territory.
>
> There was (more than) one time when I needed to know if some dumb obscure
> TV actor from the 70s was still alive and Wikipedia was there for me. Plus
> all the other times when I just need a quick bit of info: size of a
> country's population, name of a president, details about a math function;
> it's endless.
>
> Helped me with my uni degree, gave me medical information on health
> problems, let me learn new things about animals that I like :D Helps me
> answer questions from my kid about the world that I want to give her, but
> don't know the answers to
>
> I think you're the only organisation that can fundraise that way and you
> deserve it.
>
> My older sister doesn't have a computer (she's 82), so we talk on the phone
> and I look up stuff for her. It's a nice way to spend time with her, and it
> brings us together
>
> As a journalist and travel writer, this online research is often my first
> port of call. For a quick scan of even just the most basic information
> about a topic, I used to have to walk down to the basement of the national
> television building I worked in to ask the archivist to dig out a series of
> reference books that applied to my topic. Sometimes the books were already
> in use by someone else, which meant I had to wait even longer or beg the
> person to share the book with me. Now, I just Google it and often end up on
> Wikipedia. While I always still double check everything I read on these
> pages and use other sources for my actual fact finding, it no longer takes
> hours or days to get started with my research
>
> I've lost many bets because of wikipedia. So because of you I have looked
> stupider than if you didn't exist
>
> Wikipedia is the first step in any student's research. When it comes to
> education, Wikipedia is the real MVP!
>
> As a student, Wikipedia is a goldmine. I love you guys.
>
> I use it for everything from government and politics to celebrities and tv
> shows to authors and books. There's a facebook group I'm a part of called
> "Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club." People post weird, strange, interesting
> wikipedia pages they've found. Basically, wikipedia is awesome! (I'd really
> love there to be an accuracy scale though, since I usually end up
> researching stuff after I read the wikipedia page, just to make sure it's
> correct.)
>
> I'm an engineer. I was not the smartest nor the dumbest in uni. I was
> average and over the years I forget concepts/theories/formulae all the time
> and I use Wikipedia to give my memory the nudge it needs to get back on
> track. Thank you.
>
> It is my main source of information.
>
> Taking AP Physics in high school I would constantly get confused with all
> of the unites and what they actually measured. Joules, watts, newton's,
> difference between power and work. Lucky wiki saved that day with wonderful
> articles that explained what everything meant. It helped me solidify my
> foundation in physics, helping me to conquer a college level class at the
> age of 16.
>
> Keeps Me from lying awake at night wondering about past events & historical
> data
>
> it is just just always super handy
>
> I see Wikipedia as my knowledgeable friend which knows everything on every
> topic. For example, once I was really confused about red giants in
> astronomy, but Wikipedia saved me.
>
> life is better with it than without it.
>
> One of the nicest things about Wikipedia is the explicit information about
> local places -- especially for off-the-beaten-track places in the U.S.
> which are overlooked by guide books. For example, when I had some spare
> time in the SF Bay Area, I having a delightful adventure, finding an
> obscure wine-tasting area and great descriptions of museums which match my
> offbeat tastes, such as The Museum of Computer History in Mountain View,
> California. It is also a great way to find public domain pictures for
> lectures and to find out where my students are starting, as a baseline.
>
> It is my "Encyclopedia"
>
> Writing this I've just turned 28. I was perhaps among the first
> schoolchildren to hear "Don't cite Wikipedia; it's unreliable as a source!"
> by their teachers. Even back then in high school I knew that Wikipedia was
> important. Before I had left for college I had started my own axiom -
> "Wikipedia LEADS to the source!" I use Wikipedia every day of my life. I've
> taken it as a natural given, like it is a simple fact of our daily lives
> now. If I want to understand any subject with more clarity or depth (which
> I almost always do) I type it into Wikipedia. I am continually using it
> throughout the day to learn and re-learn and enrich my life. -but this is
> just me. I fully believe that Wikipedia will be how the younger generations
> will grow up in the future. In the past, kids would ask embarrassing
> questions of their friends or family, or maybe not at all - questions of
> sex and medical issues would torture young minds and could even lead to
> trauma and great frustration...but now any child can access Wikipedia and
> have the Whole of Human Knowledge at their fingertips to learn at their own
> pace. With Wikipedia, we've become our own parents, teaching each other all
> that we know; information is shared globally, and freely, in an unending
> and beautiful cycle. Truly, as romantically tragic as it may sound,
> Wikipedia is one of the few things that gives me hope for the future; as it
> shows people coming together in such a glorious way.
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Trillium, in the "administrative set", I think you'll find that almost
> all
> > of us produced content prior to our involvement in organizational
> matters.
> > Those of us who have formal roles wouldn't be trusted with keys to the
> > kingdom if we lacked track records of positive contributions to the
> > encyclopedia. The exceptions are for WMF staff and affiliate staff who
> > weren't hired from within the community; an ongoing issue is the need to
> > acculturate these staff into the ways of the Wiki and to educate them
> about
> > our (often complex) ways, while leveraging the value that they can bring
> to
> > Wikimedia organizations in areas like legal advocacy, visual design,
> press
> > communications, tech ops, etc.
> >
> > Viewers, content contributors, funders, volunteer tech and organizational
> > leaders, and paid staff are all necessary parts of the Wikimedia
> ecosystem.
> > These groups and individuals interact in complex and intricate ways, and
> > changes to the ecosystem are always in motion.
> >
> > Pine
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Lisa Gruwell
In reply to this post by Pine W
Hi Pine-

We are definitely trying to disrupt the user experience as little as
possible, while still reaching the fundraising target. It is a bit of a
balancing act. We have looked into the issue of the size of the banner
some.  Of course, A/B tests show the larger banners raise more donations,
more quickly.  We have also looked into reader opinions of the
intrusiveness of the banner.  Readers found the larger banners only
slightly more intrusive than the smaller ones.  Those findings are here
(slide 24):
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fundraiser_Survey.pdf&page=24
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fundraiser_Survey.pdf&page=24>

We also know that most donors give the very first time they see a banner.
The donation rate drops off significantly on each subsequent impression, so
lengthening the campaign has a diminished return.  Here is the data on that
from last December:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fundraising_Quarterly_Review_-_Q2-1415.pdf&page=12


With these learnings, we use a large banner on the first impressions and
then switch to the smaller banner for later impressions.  Not everyone
visits the site everyday, so the first banner impressions happen over the
course of weeks.

Also, we have a new banner running now – with a lightbulb graphic.  Let us
know what you think.

Thank you,
Lisa

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks Lisa.
>
> More directly on the topic of fundraising banners, I appreciate that the
> wording has been tweaked this year to address the major integrity concerns.
> I can appreciate that fundraising is necessary for Wikipedia. It would be
> nice to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, so one issue I
> think should get a look going forward (if it hasn't already) is the size of
> the banner in proportion to viewer screen size. Others have mentioned the
> color issue. I suppose that the trick is to get the reader's attention
> while minimizing the disruption to the content experience. It seems to me
> that a moderately longer campaign in exchange for less intrusive banners
> might be a good tradeoff.
>
> I'm also continuing to hope that WMF will have a top-line budget freeze for
> next year, which could take some pressure off of the online campaigns to
> continue to grow income.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Pine W
Lisa, I was just about to say that I like the new banner. It's a pleasant
surprise. Who designed the lightbulb? I like how it's cohesive with the
theme of "Keep Wikipedia Growing", and the lightbulb works well with the
"light of knowledge" concept of an encyclopedia.

Pine


On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Lisa Gruwell <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Pine-
>
> We are definitely trying to disrupt the user experience as little as
> possible, while still reaching the fundraising target. It is a bit of a
> balancing act. We have looked into the issue of the size of the banner
> some.  Of course, A/B tests show the larger banners raise more donations,
> more quickly.  We have also looked into reader opinions of the
> intrusiveness of the banner.  Readers found the larger banners only
> slightly more intrusive than the smaller ones.  Those findings are here
> (slide 24):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fundraiser_Survey.pdf&page=24
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fundraiser_Survey.pdf&page=24
> >
>
> We also know that most donors give the very first time they see a banner.
> The donation rate drops off significantly on each subsequent impression, so
> lengthening the campaign has a diminished return.  Here is the data on that
> from last December:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fundraising_Quarterly_Review_-_Q2-1415.pdf&page=12
>
>
> With these learnings, we use a large banner on the first impressions and
> then switch to the smaller banner for later impressions.  Not everyone
> visits the site everyday, so the first banner impressions happen over the
> course of weeks.
>
> Also, we have a new banner running now – with a lightbulb graphic.  Let us
> know what you think.
>
> Thank you,
> Lisa
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Lisa.
> >
> > More directly on the topic of fundraising banners, I appreciate that the
> > wording has been tweaked this year to address the major integrity
> concerns.
> > I can appreciate that fundraising is necessary for Wikipedia. It would be
> > nice to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, so one issue I
> > think should get a look going forward (if it hasn't already) is the size
> of
> > the banner in proportion to viewer screen size. Others have mentioned the
> > color issue. I suppose that the trick is to get the reader's attention
> > while minimizing the disruption to the content experience. It seems to me
> > that a moderately longer campaign in exchange for less intrusive banners
> > might be a good tradeoff.
> >
> > I'm also continuing to hope that WMF will have a top-line budget freeze
> for
> > next year, which could take some pressure off of the online campaigns to
> > continue to grow income.
> >
> > Pine
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Andreas Kolbe-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Liam Wyatt
TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising
model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs
to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning
transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just
about fullscreen advertising.

I, along with many here, am dismayed that the banners are now at the
stage of being fullscreen. However, as others have mentioned, the
actual text of the request has been adjusted following a reasonably
collaborative process to identify text that is both effective and
acceptable to the community. Also, the fundraising team have been
placed in the difficult position of being told to raise a LOT more
money without being given more methods to do so.[1] Naturally then,
there is a point where the existing methods reach their maximum
effectiveness, and capacity is stretched to the point where awkward
mistakes happen.[2]

At this point, I suspect we've reached "peak banner".

Rather like "peak oil" - after drilling the same oil reserve for a
long time, you have to pump exponentially harder to maintain a steady
flow.[2] Furthermore, the harder you pump today, the more difficult it
will be tomorrow. I think we've reached that point with the
fundraising advertising and emails. We know that the donation amounts
are decreasing, but the budget is increasing. There are many suggested
reasons for the decreased supply (relevant parables for this include
"killing the goose that laid the golden egg" and "the boy who cried
wolf"). So it's now time to talk about pumping smarter, not harder.

An important part of that shift is the recently-opened (but longtime
mooted) discussion about an endowment. I commend Lisa's essay[3] as an
excellent start to formulating a long-term plan. There are many
important questions that would need to be answered as part of that
strategy. People interested in this really ought to read her thoughts
on creating a "growing endowment" and the advantages/challenges this
would bring. Carefully and consultatively addressing the challenges in
creating an endowment would also go a long way towards fixing other
related concerns:

- Improving the transparency of the WMF strategy and the way decisions
are made (see also the discussion about the FDC recommendations[4])
- Having the global community, especially the Chapters which have
local fundraising capacity, involved in the fundraising process -
rather than being held at arms length. The community should be seen as
the fundraiser's biggest asset, not the pageview numbers.
- culturally sensitive communication (to avoid things like the email
saying "let's end this" being translated into French as the
*equivalent* of "I challenge you to a fight to the death")
- Integrating the activities of fundraising as "part of the movement"
rather than as something that is held/holds itself apart. The WMF
donor database, for example, has tens of thousands of people who would
be interested in learning to edit. Why have we never tried to create a
[privacy-policy-compliant] way of introducing those people to their
local communities/chapters to help address the other strategic
challenge of "editor recruitment and retention".
- Addressing some of the inequities of how money is
raised/disseminated across our movement which are based on rules
"grandfathered in" from chapter-fundraising rules prior to the "Haifa
letter".
- movement calendars (to avoid things like this year's fundraising
clash with WikiLovesMonuments)

Some people say that the fundraising goal is too high. Perhaps, but we
also have a long list of fixes-needed and wanted-features. We can't do
a lot more with a lot less, although we can certainly increase the
efficiency/transparency of how the existing WMF budget is spent!
However, with the increased total budget, also comes a increased
expectation of results. I think that a lot of my own frustration comes
from this - I could probably be supportive of a fullscreen banner IF I
felt the results justified it. But, for just one example, as Andrea
described today[5], Wikisource has NEVER received any dedicated
support despite years of that community begging for it.

I've probably written too much now... sorry!

-Liam

[1] Side note: If you'd like to apply for what is think is probably
the hardest (and therefore very important) job in Wikimedia, WMF
Fundraising is hiring a community-liaison role:
https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/113040?t=26r71l
[2] like saying "A year ago, you gave 0.00 € to keep Wikipedia online
and ad-free." https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120214
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Yes, I realise the metaphor
isn't perfect. Oil is a non-renewable resource while donations are
potentially renewable.
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay
[4] and thank you Lila for your response on that topic thus far
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-November/079940.html
[5] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080150.html
wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata


On 3 December 2015 at 09:16, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Article in the Washington Post:
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

rupert THURNER-2
One feedback I got today is to not display the banner any more if the
person donated.
On Dec 3, 2015 16:37, "Liam Wyatt" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising
> model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs
> to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning
> transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just
> about fullscreen advertising.
>
> I, along with many here, am dismayed that the banners are now at the
> stage of being fullscreen. However, as others have mentioned, the
> actual text of the request has been adjusted following a reasonably
> collaborative process to identify text that is both effective and
> acceptable to the community. Also, the fundraising team have been
> placed in the difficult position of being told to raise a LOT more
> money without being given more methods to do so.[1] Naturally then,
> there is a point where the existing methods reach their maximum
> effectiveness, and capacity is stretched to the point where awkward
> mistakes happen.[2]
>
> At this point, I suspect we've reached "peak banner".
>
> Rather like "peak oil" - after drilling the same oil reserve for a
> long time, you have to pump exponentially harder to maintain a steady
> flow.[2] Furthermore, the harder you pump today, the more difficult it
> will be tomorrow. I think we've reached that point with the
> fundraising advertising and emails. We know that the donation amounts
> are decreasing, but the budget is increasing. There are many suggested
> reasons for the decreased supply (relevant parables for this include
> "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" and "the boy who cried
> wolf"). So it's now time to talk about pumping smarter, not harder.
>
> An important part of that shift is the recently-opened (but longtime
> mooted) discussion about an endowment. I commend Lisa's essay[3] as an
> excellent start to formulating a long-term plan. There are many
> important questions that would need to be answered as part of that
> strategy. People interested in this really ought to read her thoughts
> on creating a "growing endowment" and the advantages/challenges this
> would bring. Carefully and consultatively addressing the challenges in
> creating an endowment would also go a long way towards fixing other
> related concerns:
>
> - Improving the transparency of the WMF strategy and the way decisions
> are made (see also the discussion about the FDC recommendations[4])
> - Having the global community, especially the Chapters which have
> local fundraising capacity, involved in the fundraising process -
> rather than being held at arms length. The community should be seen as
> the fundraiser's biggest asset, not the pageview numbers.
> - culturally sensitive communication (to avoid things like the email
> saying "let's end this" being translated into French as the
> *equivalent* of "I challenge you to a fight to the death")
> - Integrating the activities of fundraising as "part of the movement"
> rather than as something that is held/holds itself apart. The WMF
> donor database, for example, has tens of thousands of people who would
> be interested in learning to edit. Why have we never tried to create a
> [privacy-policy-compliant] way of introducing those people to their
> local communities/chapters to help address the other strategic
> challenge of "editor recruitment and retention".
> - Addressing some of the inequities of how money is
> raised/disseminated across our movement which are based on rules
> "grandfathered in" from chapter-fundraising rules prior to the "Haifa
> letter".
> - movement calendars (to avoid things like this year's fundraising
> clash with WikiLovesMonuments)
>
> Some people say that the fundraising goal is too high. Perhaps, but we
> also have a long list of fixes-needed and wanted-features. We can't do
> a lot more with a lot less, although we can certainly increase the
> efficiency/transparency of how the existing WMF budget is spent!
> However, with the increased total budget, also comes a increased
> expectation of results. I think that a lot of my own frustration comes
> from this - I could probably be supportive of a fullscreen banner IF I
> felt the results justified it. But, for just one example, as Andrea
> described today[5], Wikisource has NEVER received any dedicated
> support despite years of that community begging for it.
>
> I've probably written too much now... sorry!
>
> -Liam
>
> [1] Side note: If you'd like to apply for what is think is probably
> the hardest (and therefore very important) job in Wikimedia, WMF
> Fundraising is hiring a community-liaison role:
> https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/113040?t=26r71l
> [2] like saying "A year ago, you gave 0.00 € to keep Wikipedia online
> and ad-free." https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120214
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Yes, I realise the metaphor
> isn't perfect. Oil is a non-renewable resource while donations are
> potentially renewable.
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay
> [4] and thank you Lila for your response on that topic thus far
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-November/079940.html
> [5]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080150.html
> wittylama.com
> Peace, love & metadata
>
>
> On 3 December 2015 at 09:16, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Article in the Washington Post:
> >
> >
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Peter Coombe-2
(resending to thread with subject line, apologies if this comes through
twice!)

Hi all, just wanted to weigh in on a few things brought up in this and the
other threads.

* The coffee cup stock image was a mistake and miscommunication with a
contractor. IANAL but my understanding is that they had a license from the
stock photo company, so the use was legal, but not free use as we would
like. Once we became aware there was a problem, we stopped using the image
and switched to the current lightbulb graphics. We'll certainly be more
careful about this in future.

* A number of people have suggested using
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_of_Coffee.svg, which is a very
nice image but unfortunately seems to be lacking permission and is pending
deletion from Commons. We've found some other alternative freely licensed
coffee cup images, but for now the lightbulb graphics are doing very well
so we're concentrating on them.

* In the past we have tested a few banners which focused on highlighting
great images from Commons (with attribution of course). [1] Unfortunately
these didn't perform as well as our other banners, but it's something we
would like to revisit in future. We have also been testing using Commons
images in some of our emails to past donors, which has seen more success.

* Uploading fundraising banner images to donate.wikimedia.org was simply a
pragmatic decision. Because these images are so widely seen, they could be
a tempting target for vandalism. Uploading to Commons would require
protecting them, which is an extra step that's easy to forget, and would
also require granting Commons administrator or staff rights to multiple
people. We could have used wikimediafoundation.org, but it was thought
better to keep all the fundraising images together, and avoid overloading
that project with something it wasn't really intended for. When we produce
artwork or an image that is Commons worthy, we share it there.

* Not showing the banner again if someone donated is a great suggestion,
and in fact it's something we already do by setting cookies when people
reach the Thank You page.

Thanks,
Peter

[1] You can see some examples here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#2015-2016_Q1_Update

--
Peter Coombe
Fundraising Production Manager
Wikimedia Foundation


On 3 December 2015 at 17:54, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> One feedback I got today is to not display the banner any more if the
> person donated.
> On Dec 3, 2015 16:37, "Liam Wyatt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising
> > model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs
> > to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning
> > transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just
> > about fullscreen advertising.
> >
> > I, along with many here, am dismayed that the banners are now at the
> > stage of being fullscreen. However, as others have mentioned, the
> > actual text of the request has been adjusted following a reasonably
> > collaborative process to identify text that is both effective and
> > acceptable to the community. Also, the fundraising team have been
> > placed in the difficult position of being told to raise a LOT more
> > money without being given more methods to do so.[1] Naturally then,
> > there is a point where the existing methods reach their maximum
> > effectiveness, and capacity is stretched to the point where awkward
> > mistakes happen.[2]
> >
> > At this point, I suspect we've reached "peak banner".
> >
> > Rather like "peak oil" - after drilling the same oil reserve for a
> > long time, you have to pump exponentially harder to maintain a steady
> > flow.[2] Furthermore, the harder you pump today, the more difficult it
> > will be tomorrow. I think we've reached that point with the
> > fundraising advertising and emails. We know that the donation amounts
> > are decreasing, but the budget is increasing. There are many suggested
> > reasons for the decreased supply (relevant parables for this include
> > "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" and "the boy who cried
> > wolf"). So it's now time to talk about pumping smarter, not harder.
> >
> > An important part of that shift is the recently-opened (but longtime
> > mooted) discussion about an endowment. I commend Lisa's essay[3] as an
> > excellent start to formulating a long-term plan. There are many
> > important questions that would need to be answered as part of that
> > strategy. People interested in this really ought to read her thoughts
> > on creating a "growing endowment" and the advantages/challenges this
> > would bring. Carefully and consultatively addressing the challenges in
> > creating an endowment would also go a long way towards fixing other
> > related concerns:
> >
> > - Improving the transparency of the WMF strategy and the way decisions
> > are made (see also the discussion about the FDC recommendations[4])
> > - Having the global community, especially the Chapters which have
> > local fundraising capacity, involved in the fundraising process -
> > rather than being held at arms length. The community should be seen as
> > the fundraiser's biggest asset, not the pageview numbers.
> > - culturally sensitive communication (to avoid things like the email
> > saying "let's end this" being translated into French as the
> > *equivalent* of "I challenge you to a fight to the death")
> > - Integrating the activities of fundraising as "part of the movement"
> > rather than as something that is held/holds itself apart. The WMF
> > donor database, for example, has tens of thousands of people who would
> > be interested in learning to edit. Why have we never tried to create a
> > [privacy-policy-compliant] way of introducing those people to their
> > local communities/chapters to help address the other strategic
> > challenge of "editor recruitment and retention".
> > - Addressing some of the inequities of how money is
> > raised/disseminated across our movement which are based on rules
> > "grandfathered in" from chapter-fundraising rules prior to the "Haifa
> > letter".
> > - movement calendars (to avoid things like this year's fundraising
> > clash with WikiLovesMonuments)
> >
> > Some people say that the fundraising goal is too high. Perhaps, but we
> > also have a long list of fixes-needed and wanted-features. We can't do
> > a lot more with a lot less, although we can certainly increase the
> > efficiency/transparency of how the existing WMF budget is spent!
> > However, with the increased total budget, also comes a increased
> > expectation of results. I think that a lot of my own frustration comes
> > from this - I could probably be supportive of a fullscreen banner IF I
> > felt the results justified it. But, for just one example, as Andrea
> > described today[5], Wikisource has NEVER received any dedicated
> > support despite years of that community begging for it.
> >
> > I've probably written too much now... sorry!
> >
> > -Liam
> >
> > [1] Side note: If you'd like to apply for what is think is probably
> > the hardest (and therefore very important) job in Wikimedia, WMF
> > Fundraising is hiring a community-liaison role:
> > https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/113040?t=26r71l
> > [2] like saying "A year ago, you gave 0.00 € to keep Wikipedia online
> > and ad-free." https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120214
> > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Yes, I realise the metaphor
> > isn't perfect. Oil is a non-renewable resource while donations are
> > potentially renewable.
> > [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay
> > [4] and thank you Lila for your response on that topic thus far
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-November/079940.html
> > [5]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080150.html
> > wittylama.com
> > Peace, love & metadata
> >
> >
> > On 3 December 2015 at 09:16, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Article in the Washington Post:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Pine W
I like the new mini banner: "Find what you're looking for? Keep Wikipedia
thriving." (:

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Anna Stillwell
+1

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I like the new mini banner: "Find what you're looking for? Keep Wikipedia
> thriving." (:
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12