Mailing List Archive

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
svetlana <svetlana@...> writes:

>
> I wrote:
>
> > it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating
their rage instead of
> communicating it early
>
> I unintentionally skipped a couple words. I meant to say:
>
> > it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault, *such* *as* for
accumulating their rage instead of
> communicating it early
>

I worked for Wikimedia Foundation for a little over four years. Every year I
(and many other staff members) have expressed worry about the size and
message of the banners. There's been plenty of early communication.

Every year we get promises that they'll work on making the banners better.
However, it seems when they say better, they mean more effective from the
perspective of generating revenue. The message from the fundraising staff
and Lila is more of the same.

This year I've started having people I know worry that Wikipedia is in
financial trouble. It makes me feel ashamed when I have to tell them
Wikipedia is in fact fine, but that the foundation uses this messaging to
more effectively drive donations. It makes them angry to hear it.

I'm not trying to paint this as us vs them. I'm trying to express that
planting heads firmly in the sand is not an effective approach to dealing
with the brand damage that's readily apparent on social media.

- Ryan


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Ryan Lane,

The whole of your post suggests that the fundraising folks are deaf. Your last sentence doesn't make you more to the point. This makes you really unapproachable and puts the fundraising folks into harder position as they have to cry, beg pardon and spend time apologizing -- as if they had killed a kitten -- before they can approach you and ask for help.

On one side, such hostile approach is something you might feel these folks deserve for their awful mistakes. You might feel that you're being more clear about it - but clarity doesn't really have to come at the cost of shaming and not having made a single move toward changing the situation. We are all learning.

We should work out measurable, actionable steps toward solving the problem. Such steps should look pleasant, nice, encouraging, motivating, and informative. When looking at them, everyone reading the thread should smile and feel that they should've come up with these steps long ago (including all of the WMF staff and the fundraising folks), and feel motivated to expand them.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles was mentioned in this thread earlier as a collaboration space. It is probably a good one (although it lacks geometry specs or any kind of time or statistics suggestions or past analysis results). That's a wiki. It is just waiting for you to touch it and put it in better shape.

--
svetlana

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 15:34, Ryan Lane wrote:
> svetlana <svetlana@...> writes:
>
> >
> > I wrote:
> >
> > > it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating
> their rage instead of
> > communicating it early
> >
> > I unintentionally skipped a couple words. I meant to say:
> >
> > > it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault, *such* *as* for
> accumulating their rage instead of
> > communicating it early
> >
>
> I worked for Wikimedia Foundation for a little over four years. Every year I
> (and many other staff members) have expressed worry about the size and
> message of the banners. There's been plenty of early communication.
>
> Every year we get promises that they'll work on making the banners better.
> However, it seems when they say better, they mean more effective from the
> perspective of generating revenue. The message from the fundraising staff
> and Lila is more of the same.
>
> This year I've started having people I know worry that Wikipedia is in
> financial trouble. It makes me feel ashamed when I have to tell them
> Wikipedia is in fact fine, but that the foundation uses this messaging to
> more effectively drive donations. It makes them angry to hear it.
>
> I'm not trying to paint this as us vs them. I'm trying to express that
> planting heads firmly in the sand is not an effective approach to dealing
> with the brand damage that's readily apparent on social media.
>
> - Ryan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
svetlana wrote:
>The whole of your post suggests that the fundraising folks are deaf. Your
>last sentence doesn't make you more to the point. This makes you really
>unapproachable and puts the fundraising folks into harder position as
>they have to cry, beg pardon and spend time apologizing -- as if they had
>killed a kitten -- before they can approach you and ask for help.
>
>On one side, such hostile approach is something you might feel these
>folks deserve for their awful mistakes. You might feel that you're being
>more clear about it - but clarity doesn't really have to come at the cost
>of shaming and not having made a single move toward changing the
>situation. We are all learning.

I think you're being unreasonable here. Ryan pointed to specific examples
of problems with (i.e., negative comments about) the donation
advertisements. This isn't a hostile approach, it's examining and
analyzing evidence in order to reach an informed conclusion.

What you should actually be upset about is the lack of transparency
regarding fundraising statistics. Ryan very politely asked for these
statistics and the response was essentially "we've got higher priorities
right now," which of course is complete rubbish. Of course we're keeping
detailed logs of incoming donations, there's no extra burden there. And of
course people are e-mailing internally and creating internal reports. But
this information isn't being shared and we really must address this.

Nobody is suggesting that the fundraising team kills small furry animals
and I think everyone involved in this discussion (including and perhaps
especially those who are paid or were paid by donations) recognizes the
thankless and stressful job that the fundraising team has. But in the face
of active damage to Wikimedia's brand and reputation, after repeated and
lengthy discussions about the issues with obnoxious, misleading, and
obtrusive donation advertising, it's unsurprising that people are annoyed.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
svetlana, 03/12/2014 23:20:
> It is already co-owned. It is just that people haven't bothered to try talking to the Fundraising Team.

{{citation needed}}
Go look at the number of people who tried on fundraiser@,
m:Talk:Fundraising* and fundraising@ (well, this one you can't; it was
shut down because it was too lively).

Nemo

P.s.: Besides, "talking to" is not the problem, the problem is "talking
with".

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Hello WMF

We agree with the previous posters RYAN about lack of transparency,
and COMPLETE INEFFICIENCY and arrogance in communications by/to/with
your communities and volunteers.

Please inform and educate why anonymous WMF communities are writing
false, concocted and fabricated articles about our organisation
replete with fabricated images, evidently to profit by donations to
WMF {Hosting provider} from Indian citizens to be given into SWISS
BANK ACCOUNTS in complete violation of Indian law by these HUGE SIZE
BANNERS which are highly intrusive.

See this image as evidence
http://www.imagesup.net/?di=014176874722

Please indicate when WMF will comply with Indian cyber law to appoint
a Grievance Officer
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_O.asp?pn=163416&yr=2013
and verifiably stop Indian children under 13 from registering accounts
and becoming admins.

HRA1924 {a jan andalonist}
India Against Corruption,

>What you should actually be upset about is the lack of transparency
>regarding fundraising statistics. Ryan very politely asked for these
>statistics and the response was essentially "we've got higher priorities
>right now," which of course is complete rubbish. Of course we're keeping
>detailed logs of incoming donations, there's no extra burden there. And of
>course people are e-mailing internally and creating internal reports. But
>this information isn't being shared and we really must address this.
>
>Nobody is suggesting that the fundraising team kills small furry animals
>and I think everyone involved in this discussion (including and perhaps
>especially those who are paid or were paid by donations) recognizes the
>thankless and stressful job that the fundraising team has. But in the face
>of active damage to Wikimedia's brand and reputation, after repeated and
>lengthy discussions about the issues with obnoxious, misleading, and
>obtrusive donation advertising, it's unsurprising that people are annoyed.
>
>MZMcBride

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
This is a good thread -- it's important to be unified in our message, proud
of it, and aware of how broadly it spreads. Every campaign both raises
some funds for the project, gives supporters an opportunity to talk about
Wiki*edia with their friends, and shifts public perception of who we are,
what we do, and why.

Liam, you made a series of good comments about the fundraising principles;
I've posted them and some related thoughts at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_principles

Many people mentioned that we could remind readers they can express
gratitude by contributing knowledge. This message bears repeating every
year - it is welcoming to the millions of one-time contributors who read
it; it is encouraging to those who have never contributed; it offers an
option to those who want to be supportive but have no other way to donate.

Sam

PS: The poster below is part of a deranged sockfarm, now blocked from
en:wp, which has started spamming WM mailing lists (see the India list) and
is squatting the site http://www.wikimedia.xyz/ . Please do not feed, and
moderate as needed.

Site Admin <1924.hra@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please inform and educate why anonymous WMF communities are writing
> false, concocted and fabricated articles about our organisation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Dear Mr. Klein

>"PS: The poster below is part of a deranged sockfarm, now blocked from en:wp, which has started spamming WM mailing lists (see the India list) and is squatting the site http://www.wikimedia.xyz/ . Please do not feed, and moderate as needed."

As a WMF Trustee, we suggest that you either retract your comments
publicly or take consent from WMF legal counsel before making it on a
publicly archived WMF mailing list.

Our movement and our members are completely transparent about our real
world identities and actions, and we assure you, and this list, that
we are neither "deranged" nor "squatters" nor "sock-puppets". As WMF
is aware, "HRA1924" is a "role" name used by India Against Corruption,
to communicate our concerns to WMF.

The subject issue is actually oversized "in your face" donations
banners being thrust on EN:WP visitors - attracted by misleading and
libelous WP articles / media which are incestuously promoted to no.1
on Google websearch, because Google's and WMF's affairs are so
financially and other-wise inter-twined.

"HRA1924"

On 12/4/14, Samuel Klein <sj@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> This is a good thread -- it's important to be unified in our message, proud
> of it, and aware of how broadly it spreads. Every campaign both raises
> some funds for the project, gives supporters an opportunity to talk about
> Wiki*edia with their friends, and shifts public perception of who we are,
> what we do, and why.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On 04.12.2014 02:30, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana <svetlana@fastmail.com.au>
> wrote:
>> John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>>
>>> i.e. specifically asking
>>> previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped
>>> contributing
>>> whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their
>>> work
>>> being adequately supported?
>>
>> Thanks for your great wording, John.
>>
...
>
> Have you looked into the funding situation of your local chapter?
> Does it have large cash reserves and large predicable revenue flows?

John, you do realize she is most likely talking about the same chapter
you belong to, right?

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
I recommend those of you who would like to come up with some test wording
assuming the current word count do so and after you pick top 3-5 we can
pilot with one of our next user groups.



On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>
wrote:

> On 04.12.2014 02:30, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana <svetlana@fastmail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>>>
>>> i.e. specifically asking
>>>> previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing
>>>> whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work
>>>> being adequately supported?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your great wording, John.
>>>
>>> ...
>
>>
>> Have you looked into the funding situation of your local chapter?
>> Does it have large cash reserves and large predicable revenue flows?
>>
>
> John, you do realize she is most likely talking about the same chapter you
> belong to, right?
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:
> On 04.12.2014 02:30, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana <svetlana@fastmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> i.e. specifically asking
>>>> previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing
>>>> whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work
>>>> being adequately supported?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your great wording, John.
>>>
> ...
>>
>>
>> Have you looked into the funding situation of your local chapter?
>> Does it have large cash reserves and large predicable revenue flows?
>
>
> John, you do realize she is most likely talking about the same chapter you
> belong to, right?

I was aware that svetlana might be referring to Wikimedia Australia,
but didnt know whether she had disclosed her locality (I now see she
is using a .au email address..)
Contrary to their webpage http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Committee
(https://archive.today/5r3TH), and my enwp user page until a few
seconds ago, I dont belong to that chapter.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Just for reference, John is correct - our website has been having technical
issues lately, which sometimes results in old revisions being made
visible. I can confirm that John is not on the board of WMAU:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#.5BAU.5D_Wikimedia_Australia_.28Australia.29

Regards,

Charles Gregory / User:Chuq
Wikimedia Australia



On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:14 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>
> wrote:
> > On 04.12.2014 02:30, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana <svetlana@fastmail.com.au>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> i.e. specifically asking
> >>>> previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing
> >>>> whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work
> >>>> being adequately supported?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your great wording, John.
> >>>
> > ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Have you looked into the funding situation of your local chapter?
> >> Does it have large cash reserves and large predicable revenue flows?
> >
> >
> > John, you do realize she is most likely talking about the same chapter
> you
> > belong to, right?
>
> I was aware that svetlana might be referring to Wikimedia Australia,
> but didnt know whether she had disclosed her locality (I now see she
> is using a .au email address..)
> Contrary to their webpage http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Committee
> (https://archive.today/5r3TH), and my enwp user page until a few
> seconds ago, I dont belong to that chapter.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
I checked my inbox today to find a note from a friend asking if
Wikipedia was okay. My reply was essentially "Wikipedia is fine, if you
want to donate, make an edit or two."

I wonder how many Wikimedians are getting the same notes of concern. I'd
be quite surprised, for example, if Wikimedia Foundation department heads
weren't getting these types of notes right now. It's a bit sad. And I
wonder how others reply to sincere concerns about Wikipedia's health.
(Again, nobody knows what Wikimedia is, for better or worse.)

Meanwhile, also in my inbox, the author of this piece sent me a link to
<http://newslines.org/blog/stop-giving-wikipedia-money/>, which was silly
in parts, but an interesting perspective to read.

Lila Tretikov wrote:
>I recommend those of you who would like to come up with some test wording
>assuming the current word count do so and after you pick top 3-5 we can
>pilot with one of our next user groups.

Eh, fair play. I've started a page here:
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_banners/December_2014>. I'm
busy today, but I'll try to brainstorm some better options. If we must
have donation advertising (a necessary evil, for now, we assume), we can
probably at least stop shouting at and misleading our readers/donors. :-)

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:26 PM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> I checked my inbox today to find a note from a friend asking if
> Wikipedia was okay. My reply was essentially "Wikipedia is fine, if you
> want to donate, make an edit or two."
>
> I wonder how many Wikimedians are getting the same notes of concern. I'd
> be quite surprised, for example, if Wikimedia Foundation department heads
> weren't getting these types of notes right now. It's a bit sad. And I
> wonder how others reply to sincere concerns about Wikipedia's health.
> (Again, nobody knows what Wikimedia is, for better or worse.)
>
> Meanwhile, also in my inbox, the author of this piece sent me a link to
> <http://newslines.org/blog/stop-giving-wikipedia-money/>, which was silly
> in parts, but an interesting perspective to read.
>
> Lila Tretikov wrote:
> >I recommend those of you who would like to come up with some test wording
> >assuming the current word count do so and after you pick top 3-5 we can
> >pilot with one of our next user groups.
>
> Eh, fair play. I've started a page here:
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_banners/December_2014>. I'm
> busy today, but I'll try to brainstorm some better options. If we must
> have donation advertising (a necessary evil, for now, we assume), we can
> probably at least stop shouting at and misleading our readers/donors. :-)
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
I gave it a go. It's not good, but it's a wiki, so someone go make it good
:)

As a positive (non-statistically significant) datapoint, I did some asking
around with people who didn't know I was a wikipedian what their general
impressions on the banners were (from memory, everybody did indeed see
them), and what they thought the financial health of the Foundation was
like. They didn't feel that the text implied that the foundation was in
financial trouble/crisis or anything like that. When I explained the
financial situation of the Foundation, and the distribution of money to
development, operations/keeping the lights on and programmatic work
(roughly), they were fine with it, and didn't find the copy misleading. One
of them told me he donated again after I told him why I was asking those
questions, and that we're so concerned we're not being honest enough with
our readers/donors.

A couple did however note that they've seen banners earlier this year, and
started questioning the honesty of the statement that it was a once a year
thing to raise sufficient funds for another year now they were seeing
banners again a few months later. That possibility never really occurred to
me. Turns out the Quantum Mechanical idea that you can't measure something
without affecting its outcome holds for A/B testing in fundraising.

-- Martijn



> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising
team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being
concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and
financial health and future.

Some perspective from my role as a trustee:
One section of our recent board meeting was spent discussing the
fundraising trends that Lila refers to, and thinking about the
longer-term future of fundraising on our projects. These trends
include: on-site page views are dramatically down over the past two
years in the US & Europe, where the majority of our revenue is raised.
At the same time, there are challenges with fundraising in many of the
places where readership is growing. Additionally, of course we want
and need a strong financial basis for the projects over the long-term
-- not only to keep the lights on but also to build better
infrastructure (ranging from current contributor-supporting projects
-- see the recent product survey -- to making the software easier on
new editors).

And, of course, fundraising is only one small supporting piece of the
overall picture -- so we discussed how shifting patterns in Wikimedia
project consumption, ranging from mobile to Google knowledge graph
type products, might affect our mission long-term.

Given all this context, in our meeting the board discussed whether we
should try to raise more money now to build our long-term reserves
(which I personally think is wise, given current trends). We also
discussed and deeply appreciate the delicate balance that fundraising
has: yes, we can raise more by running more banners, but at what cost?
I should note that the board didn't set new targets in this meeting.
But we did express our support and thanks for the fundraising team's
efforts, which have been remarkable at making sure that our projects
are funded by a world-wide group of independent readers.

One side note about the evolution of fundraising in Wikimedia that I
think is worth noting is that the overall length of the fundraiser has
shrunk dramatically in the last 7-8 years -- from a month at 100% in
2006 to a targeted 2 weeks (or less) today. Individual readers see
many fewer banner impressions now than they used to.

Personally, I think readers should worry about Wikipedia. We are a
nonprofit that exists because of the labor of volunteers. Our readers
who rely on our work and don't think much about how it gets on their
screens should recognize that what we do isn't guaranteed in
perpetuity -- it all depends on help, support and work from our global
community. If that knowledge motivates people to contribute,
fantastic. If contributing means donating 3$, great. And if it means
becoming an editor: even better. Let's all work towards that.

-- Phoebe



On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lila - thank you for this thoughtful update. Fundraising trends and data
> are always welcome, particularly where communities can help improve and
> test local messages.
>
> I am also deeply thankful for the smooth work of the fundraising team, who
> have made great progress over the last few years – in storytelling &
> translation, mobile giving, testing & data analysis. I look forward to
> seeing what we learn this year.
>
> Sam
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.
>>
>> I know you want more insight into the trends: we will provide some of those
>> in our upcoming reports and metrics and we will plan to shift to a
>> quarterly cadence of a more specific metrics report that will include
>> fundraising.
>>
>> Just to cover some basic trends: the last two years have significantly
>> changed our traffic composition. Regionally, we are seeing growth in
>> emerging languages and regions. This is great: people who need the
>> knowledge most, but cannot afford it and often live in countries where free
>> speech is criminalized are learning about Wikipedia. We need to keep
>> supporting that. In Europe, North America, Australia, etc. we see Wikipedia
>> becoming a part of the fabric of the internet itself: embedded in web
>> searches, operating systems, and other online resources. This is great too:
>> people get knowledge wherever they are. Both of those trends however can
>> make it more difficult to raise funds (and sometimes contribute), so we
>> have to make sure we adapt.
>>
>> We are doing a lot of work around thinking through a diversified
>> fundraising strategy. That said, our main tool today are the site banners.
>> Just to be clear: the pop-up banner had advantages. It tested high with
>> readers, was only shown once to each user and cut the total number of
>> impressions needed by a factor of 7! We did hear your concerns however. The
>> Fundraising team listened and quickly integrated your feedback. While our
>> launch banner will be different from last year’s, it will not be a pop-up,
>> overlay content, or be sticky. As always this starting design will iterate
>> daily and have parallel tests, so you may see variations at any given time.
>>
>> Megan Hernandez will send another email with more details about the process
>> to-date, and how best to communicate with Fundraising during the coming
>> month.
>>
>> And in the spirit of the holidays I'd like to thank the fundraising team
>> for all of their hard work and to all of the volunteers who have helped
>> with the campaigns.
>>
>> ~~~~ Lila
>>

--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
I think this discussion and the uproar is only in part because of the
wordings used, the size of the banners (which are maybe terrible, and I get
exhausted from seeing the banner all year round because I have bad luck to
be in so many test groups somehow). A big chunk is about the usual:
communication. Somehow we seem to be unable to set up a communication
workflow where the community feels that they have been involved in the
process. That they have been able to contribute ideas, thoughts,
improvements.

Life is not all about A/B testing and success rates. Keeping Wikipedia up
is not just about getting enough money as quickly as possible. It is much
more about growing the community, and involving it - using its strengths
and diversity on as many places as possible. And somehow, in the field of
fundraiser and everything surrounding that there seems to be a lot to be
improved.

I don't agree things can't get better. After the Wikipedia Forever drama,
things did get better. Communication was improved a lot, and both chapters
and individuals were actively involved. Unfortunately, it seems that it has
gotten worse since. I would appreciate efforts to improve this again.And
that has to be more than just asking suggestions for more A/B testing. It
may cost more work in the short run, but I sincerely believe that in the
long run, it is worth it: better results, more creativity and less
frustration.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:20 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising
> team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
> running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being
> concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and
> financial health and future.
>
> Some perspective from my role as a trustee:
> One section of our recent board meeting was spent discussing the
> fundraising trends that Lila refers to, and thinking about the
> longer-term future of fundraising on our projects. These trends
> include: on-site page views are dramatically down over the past two
> years in the US & Europe, where the majority of our revenue is raised.
> At the same time, there are challenges with fundraising in many of the
> places where readership is growing. Additionally, of course we want
> and need a strong financial basis for the projects over the long-term
> -- not only to keep the lights on but also to build better
> infrastructure (ranging from current contributor-supporting projects
> -- see the recent product survey -- to making the software easier on
> new editors).
>
> And, of course, fundraising is only one small supporting piece of the
> overall picture -- so we discussed how shifting patterns in Wikimedia
> project consumption, ranging from mobile to Google knowledge graph
> type products, might affect our mission long-term.
>
> Given all this context, in our meeting the board discussed whether we
> should try to raise more money now to build our long-term reserves
> (which I personally think is wise, given current trends). We also
> discussed and deeply appreciate the delicate balance that fundraising
> has: yes, we can raise more by running more banners, but at what cost?
> I should note that the board didn't set new targets in this meeting.
> But we did express our support and thanks for the fundraising team's
> efforts, which have been remarkable at making sure that our projects
> are funded by a world-wide group of independent readers.
>
> One side note about the evolution of fundraising in Wikimedia that I
> think is worth noting is that the overall length of the fundraiser has
> shrunk dramatically in the last 7-8 years -- from a month at 100% in
> 2006 to a targeted 2 weeks (or less) today. Individual readers see
> many fewer banner impressions now than they used to.
>
> Personally, I think readers should worry about Wikipedia. We are a
> nonprofit that exists because of the labor of volunteers. Our readers
> who rely on our work and don't think much about how it gets on their
> screens should recognize that what we do isn't guaranteed in
> perpetuity -- it all depends on help, support and work from our global
> community. If that knowledge motivates people to contribute,
> fantastic. If contributing means donating 3$, great. And if it means
> becoming an editor: even better. Let's all work towards that.
>
> -- Phoebe
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Lila - thank you for this thoughtful update. Fundraising trends and data
> > are always welcome, particularly where communities can help improve and
> > test local messages.
> >
> > I am also deeply thankful for the smooth work of the fundraising team,
> who
> > have made great progress over the last few years – in storytelling &
> > translation, mobile giving, testing & data analysis. I look forward to
> > seeing what we learn this year.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.
> >>
> >> I know you want more insight into the trends: we will provide some of
> those
> >> in our upcoming reports and metrics and we will plan to shift to a
> >> quarterly cadence of a more specific metrics report that will include
> >> fundraising.
> >>
> >> Just to cover some basic trends: the last two years have significantly
> >> changed our traffic composition. Regionally, we are seeing growth in
> >> emerging languages and regions. This is great: people who need the
> >> knowledge most, but cannot afford it and often live in countries where
> free
> >> speech is criminalized are learning about Wikipedia. We need to keep
> >> supporting that. In Europe, North America, Australia, etc. we see
> Wikipedia
> >> becoming a part of the fabric of the internet itself: embedded in web
> >> searches, operating systems, and other online resources. This is great
> too:
> >> people get knowledge wherever they are. Both of those trends however can
> >> make it more difficult to raise funds (and sometimes contribute), so we
> >> have to make sure we adapt.
> >>
> >> We are doing a lot of work around thinking through a diversified
> >> fundraising strategy. That said, our main tool today are the site
> banners.
> >> Just to be clear: the pop-up banner had advantages. It tested high with
> >> readers, was only shown once to each user and cut the total number of
> >> impressions needed by a factor of 7! We did hear your concerns however.
> The
> >> Fundraising team listened and quickly integrated your feedback. While
> our
> >> launch banner will be different from last year’s, it will not be a
> pop-up,
> >> overlay content, or be sticky. As always this starting design will
> iterate
> >> daily and have parallel tests, so you may see variations at any given
> time.
> >>
> >> Megan Hernandez will send another email with more details about the
> process
> >> to-date, and how best to communicate with Fundraising during the coming
> >> month.
> >>
> >> And in the spirit of the holidays I'd like to thank the fundraising team
> >> for all of their hard work and to all of the volunteers who have helped
> >> with the campaigns.
> >>
> >> ~~~~ Lila
> >>
>
> --
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
> <at> gmail.com *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Lila, when you say, "pilot with one of our next user groups", when would
this pilot happen, and whom/how many people would this pilot "user group"
comprise?

Best,
Andreas

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I recommend those of you who would like to come up with some test wording
> assuming the current word count do so and after you pick top 3-5 we can
> pilot with one of our next user groups.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>
> wrote:
>
> > On 04.12.2014 02:30, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana <svetlana@fastmail.com.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> >>>
> >>> i.e. specifically asking
> >>>> previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing
> >>>> whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work
> >>>> being adequately supported?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your great wording, John.
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >
> >>
> >> Have you looked into the funding situation of your local chapter?
> >> Does it have large cash reserves and large predicable revenue flows?
> >>
> >
> > John, you do realize she is most likely talking about the same chapter
> you
> > belong to, right?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> writes:

>
> With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising
> team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
> running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being
> concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and
> financial health and future.
>

The fundraising team is amazing at their jobs. They raise money incredibly
efficiently. So indeed, thank you fundraising team for your work. It's a
high pressure job, which I can empathize with.

As one of the people concerned about the projects' public image, I read your
words of thanks, but don't feel thanked by the content of your post, since
it doesn't address the raised concerns.

Have you seen the data that suggests the public image isn't being damaged?
The board members have signed NDAs, so they are allowed access to the raw
data. I also have a signed NDA, so technically I should be allowed to see it
as well.

Can you answer some direct questions? Do you feel the size of the banners is
appropriate to the mission, given that it obscures the content significantly
(and in many cases completely)? Do you feel the messaging is accurate to the
financial situation of the Foundation?

> Some perspective from my role as a trustee:
> One section of our recent board meeting was spent discussing the
> fundraising trends that Lila refers to, and thinking about the
> longer-term future of fundraising on our projects. These trends
> include: on-site page views are dramatically down over the past two
> years in the US & Europe, where the majority of our revenue is raised.
> At the same time, there are challenges with fundraising in many of the
> places where readership is growing. Additionally, of course we want
> and need a strong financial basis for the projects over the long-term

gmane seems to be cutting off most of your message in the followup view,
which is unfortunate.

Your post mostly discusses the financial situation and the efficacy of the
banners. There's no question about the efficacy of the banners. They work
extremely well and there's shared data that proves it. There's question
about the content and the size of the banners and there's no shared data
that shows harm isn't being caused.

It's disappointing that a member of the board sees it as appropriate to
scare people as a means of generating funding. The foundation meets its
goals every year. As you've pointed out in this post, it does so faster than
ever, even while increasing the budget every year. This shows well that the
situation isn't dire.

- Ryan


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ryan Lane <rlane32@gmail.com> wrote:
> phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> writes:
>
>>
>> With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising
>> team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
>> running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being
>> concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and
>> financial health and future.
>>
>
> The fundraising team is amazing at their jobs. They raise money incredibly
> efficiently. So indeed, thank you fundraising team for your work. It's a
> high pressure job, which I can empathize with.
>
> As one of the people concerned about the projects' public image, I read your
> words of thanks, but don't feel thanked by the content of your post, since
> it doesn't address the raised concerns.
>
> Have you seen the data that suggests the public image isn't being damaged?
> The board members have signed NDAs, so they are allowed access to the raw
> data. I also have a signed NDA, so technically I should be allowed to see it
> as well.

You're asking me to prove a negative. My inability to do so has
nothing to do with NDAs or the lack of them. There's no secret data
that shows that "well, the banners make people hate Wikipedia but they
have a good donation rate." And if there was, why in the world would
anyone who cares about the projects make that choice? We are all on
the same side here regarding wanting to preserve the love that people
have for our projects.

So no, I don't have data for you about the no doubt diverse set of
reactions that exist in the world to the banners. (Beyond anecdotal
info that we all have access to: twitter, this mailing list, etc.)
What I do have is information about whether the banners are compelling
enough to donate -- that's where the a/b testing etc. comes in -- and
that is info that Megan et al shares with everyone.


> Can you answer some direct questions? Do you feel the size of the banners is
> appropriate to the mission, given that it obscures the content significantly
> (and in many cases completely)? Do you feel the messaging is accurate to the
> financial situation of the Foundation?

Personally speaking: I happen to like this year's banners, more than
last year's. The boxes and disclaimers are clearer, the text is to the
point. And yes, I think the messaging is accurate. This is the text
I'm seeing in the U.S. at the moment:

"This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence,
we'll never run ads. We survive on donations averaging about $15. Now
is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our
fundraiser would be done within an hour. Yep, that’s about the price
of buying a programmer a coffee. We’re a small non-profit with costs
of a top website: servers, staff and programs. Wikipedia is something
special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to
think and learn. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to
keep it online and ad-free another year.Thank you."

And all of that is certainly true. We do have the costs of a top
website, we are a small nonprofit (bigger than many, but smaller than
most brand-name NGOs), and we do survive on donations averaging $15
(something like 85% of our revenue comes from these donations, IIRC).
Additionally, I think we're all in agreement that we never will and
should never run ads.

I am not just saying this because I am a trustee -- I've seen every
fundraising campaign that the WMF has ever run, and participated in
discussions about most of them, and I genuinely do like this year's.
Yes, the banners are in your face, and I'm OK with that, given that
it's a quick campaign and as always one click makes them go away
(forever, I think). Obviously, opinions on the banner aesthetics can
and will vary. But discussions on how much money we should raise
(which, of course, is not an either/or choice) -- that's a different
conversation.

-- Phoebe

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:49 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Personally speaking: I happen to like this year's banners, more than
> last year's. The boxes and disclaimers are clearer, the text is to the
> point. And yes, I think the messaging is accurate. This is the text
> I'm seeing in the U.S. at the moment:
>
> "This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence,
> we'll never run ads. We survive on donations averaging about $15. Now
> is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our
> fundraiser would be done within an hour. Yep, that’s about the price
> of buying a programmer a coffee. We’re a small non-profit with costs
> of a top website: servers, staff and programs. Wikipedia is something
> special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to
> think and learn. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to
> keep it online and ad-free another year.Thank you."
>


For me, the problem is with the combined impact of the phrase "ask our
readers to help us", the word "survive" and the words "keep it online and
ad-free for another year".

You already have money to "keep it online and ad-free another year" – not
just for another year, but at least another five years. About $50 million
in cash and investments, according to the latest financial statement. More
than the Foundation has ever had: about $12 million more than this time
last year, and $50 million more than in 2009, just five years ago.[1]

Keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free is a small part of your budget today.
Funding for the continuation of that basic service is in no way in
jeopardy. You are above all collecting money to pay for the recent
aggressive expansion of software engineering staff.

(Also, while I am writing to you, will we ever see the results of the 2012
editor survey, especially the gender split? I and others have made numerous
inquiries about this over the past four months, on Meta[2] and on Tilman's
various user pages, and the response from the Foundation has been absolute
silence.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Finances
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#Looking_for_survey_results
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> writes:

>
>
> You're asking me to prove a negative. My inability to do so has
> nothing to do with NDAs or the lack of them. There's no secret data
> that shows that "well, the banners make people hate Wikipedia but they
> have a good donation rate." And if there was, why in the world would
> anyone who cares about the projects make that choice? We are all on
> the same side here regarding wanting to preserve the love that people
> have for our projects.
>
> So no, I don't have data for you about the no doubt diverse set of
> reactions that exist in the world to the banners. (Beyond anecdotal
> info that we all have access to: twitter, this mailing list, etc.)
> What I do have is information about whether the banners are compelling
> enough to donate -- that's where the a/b testing etc. comes in -- and
> that is info that Megan et al shares with everyone.
>

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Lila wrote in a previous post that
they have data that shows the banners are not causing brand damage. I'm
asking if you've seen that data. I trust you if you say you've been given
the data and can say it does indeed prove there's no brand damage. Based on
your reaction I know the answer to my question. Can you please get access to
the data in question and give us your take on it?

I also asked for the foundation to share the methodology they used to obtain
and analyze this data. There's nothing private about this and no reason it
shouldn't be possible to share it now. It would be excellent to have this,
because we'd know if their methodology is appropriate.

Of course, I'm still eager to see the anonymized data, but based on Lila's
post it looks like we won't get a chance until after the fundraiser.

The data from social media isn't anecdotal. It's public and is
overwhelmingly negative towards the banners. It shows there's a negative
reaction to both the message and size of the banners. Something I don't
understand is why this isn't at least being acknowledged as being a problem.

>
> Personally speaking: I happen to like this year's banners, more than
> last year's. The boxes and disclaimers are clearer, the text is to the
> point. And yes, I think the messaging is accurate. This is the text
> I'm seeing in the U.S. at the moment:
>
> "This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence,
> we'll never run ads. We survive on donations averaging about $15. Now
> is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our
> fundraiser would be done within an hour. Yep, that’s about the price
> of buying a programmer a coffee. We’re a small non-profit with costs
> of a top website: servers, staff and programs. Wikipedia is something
> special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to
> think and learn. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to
> keep it online and ad-free another year.Thank you."
>
> And all of that is certainly true. We do have the costs of a top
> website, we are a small nonprofit (bigger than many, but smaller than
> most brand-name NGOs), and we do survive on donations averaging $15
> (something like 85% of our revenue comes from these donations, IIRC).
> Additionally, I think we're all in agreement that we never will and
> should never run ads.
>
> I am not just saying this because I am a trustee -- I've seen every
> fundraising campaign that the WMF has ever run, and participated in
> discussions about most of them, and I genuinely do like this year's.
> Yes, the banners are in your face, and I'm OK with that, given that
> it's a quick campaign and as always one click makes them go away
> (forever, I think). Obviously, opinions on the banner aesthetics can
> and will vary. But discussions on how much money we should raise
> (which, of course, is not an either/or choice) -- that's a different
> conversation.
>

Thank you.

- Ryan


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On 12/5/14, 1:07 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> For me, the problem is with the combined impact of the phrase "ask our
> readers to help us", the word "survive" and the words "keep it online and
> ad-free for another year".

Yes, I've found myself in awkward discussions caused by this as well.
One person I chatted to earlier this evening set up a recurring donation
because he believed that these popover messages were an emergency "call
to arms", so to speak. He understood the situation to be that: Wikipedia
runs on a shoestring budget, and although it's managed in the past, it
is teetering on the edge of being unable to pay for
servers/bandwidth/sysadmin resources, to the extent where it may be at
risk of having to sell ad-banner space to keep the lights on. He was not
very happy when I let him know that the situation was not within several
orders of magnitude of being quite so dire...

-Mark


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Hi,

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 17:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> svetlana, 03/12/2014 23:20:
> > It is already co-owned. It is just that people haven't bothered to try talking to the Fundraising Team.
>
> {{citation needed}}
> Go look at the number of people who tried on fundraiser@,
> m:Talk:Fundraising* and fundraising@ (well, this one you can't; it was
> shut down because it was too lively).
>
> Nemo
>
> P.s.: Besides, "talking to" is not the problem, the problem is "talking
> with".

I don't deny that the Team might be deaf. It does take some skill however to reach them and make a change rather than banter around how deaf they are.

--
svetlana

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Ryan Lane <rlane32@gmail.com> wrote:
> phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> writes:
>
>>
>>
>> You're asking me to prove a negative. My inability to do so has
>> nothing to do with NDAs or the lack of them. There's no secret data
>> that shows that "well, the banners make people hate Wikipedia but they
>> have a good donation rate." And if there was, why in the world would
>> anyone who cares about the projects make that choice? We are all on
>> the same side here regarding wanting to preserve the love that people
>> have for our projects.
>>
>> So no, I don't have data for you about the no doubt diverse set of
>> reactions that exist in the world to the banners. (Beyond anecdotal
>> info that we all have access to: twitter, this mailing list, etc.)
>> What I do have is information about whether the banners are compelling
>> enough to donate -- that's where the a/b testing etc. comes in -- and
>> that is info that Megan et al shares with everyone.
>>
>
> I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Lila wrote in a previous post that
> they have data that shows the banners are not causing brand damage. I'm
> asking if you've seen that data.

Hello! Sorry, I didn't realize that's what you were referring to. I
haven't looked at all the raw fundraising data, no, and I haven't
looked at that set that Lila refers to. (The reports we get are
summaries, which is much preferable when you've got a lot of
information to get through about all sorts of topics).

I *do* however trust our fundraising team's analysis, and I don't
think they need my mediocre user testing skills and even more mediocre
statistical skills to help them sort it out. I agree with you however
that it would be great if the anonymized data/test methods can be made
public; I think we would all learn a lot, and the group might be able
help refine the tests.


> The data from social media isn't anecdotal. It's public and is
> overwhelmingly negative towards the banners. It shows there's a negative
> reaction to both the message and size of the banners. Something I don't
> understand is why this isn't at least being acknowledged as being a problem.


It's anecdotal in the sense that without some statistical analysis
it's sort of a case of whatever catches your eye standing out. Your
statement surprised me, so I just read through around 1,500 #wikipedia
tweets from the last six hours; the vast majority are the canned
fundraiser tweet, with a handful of others (stuff about articles) and
three, that I saw, that are negative about the fundraising banners. Is
that a significant number? Is it a pattern? Is it more meaningful than
all those other people donating? Is the absence of positive feedback
significant? (though I doubt we've ever gotten "I <3 the Wikipedia
banners" as a tweet). I have some instincts around these questions,
but I honestly don't know the answers, and I would love to see some
proper analysis. I am, as always, a big fan of research :)

best,
Phoebe


--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
phoebe ayers, 04/12/2014 23:20:
> Given all this context, in our meeting the board discussed whether we
> should try to raise more money now to build our long-term reserves

There is so much to say about this "let's milk the cow before it's too
old" approach that it's definitely out of scope for this thread. When
are minutes going to be published, so that an informed discussion can
happen?

> Individual readers see
> many fewer banner impressions now than they used to.

Do you have data? If yes please share, because fundraising team doesn't
seem to have it:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2012/Report

phoebe ayers, 05/12/2014 00:49:
> Yes, the banners are in your face, and I'm OK with that, given that
> it's a quick campaign and as always one click makes them go away
> (forever, I think).

One week, actually.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/177278/

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
A slight tangent: I did a quick Google search to try and refresh my memory
about the Wikipedia Forever thing, and these were the results:
http://imgur.com/7AU8kTp.

I think it's more than worrying that many of the results have the
fundraising message as a summary.

Cheers,

Michel

On 4 December 2014 at 23:40, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:

> I think this discussion and the uproar is only in part because of the
> wordings used, the size of the banners (which are maybe terrible, and I get
> exhausted from seeing the banner all year round because I have bad luck to
> be in so many test groups somehow). A big chunk is about the usual:
> communication. Somehow we seem to be unable to set up a communication
> workflow where the community feels that they have been involved in the
> process. That they have been able to contribute ideas, thoughts,
> improvements.
>
> Life is not all about A/B testing and success rates. Keeping Wikipedia up
> is not just about getting enough money as quickly as possible. It is much
> more about growing the community, and involving it - using its strengths
> and diversity on as many places as possible. And somehow, in the field of
> fundraiser and everything surrounding that there seems to be a lot to be
> improved.
>
> I don't agree things can't get better. After the Wikipedia Forever drama,
> things did get better. Communication was improved a lot, and both chapters
> and individuals were actively involved. Unfortunately, it seems that it has
> gotten worse since. I would appreciate efforts to improve this again.And
> that has to be more than just asking suggestions for more A/B testing. It
> may cost more work in the short run, but I sincerely believe that in the
> long run, it is worth it: better results, more creativity and less
> frustration.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:20 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising
> > team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
> > running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being
> > concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and
> > financial health and future.
> >
> > Some perspective from my role as a trustee:
> > One section of our recent board meeting was spent discussing the
> > fundraising trends that Lila refers to, and thinking about the
> > longer-term future of fundraising on our projects. These trends
> > include: on-site page views are dramatically down over the past two
> > years in the US & Europe, where the majority of our revenue is raised.
> > At the same time, there are challenges with fundraising in many of the
> > places where readership is growing. Additionally, of course we want
> > and need a strong financial basis for the projects over the long-term
> > -- not only to keep the lights on but also to build better
> > infrastructure (ranging from current contributor-supporting projects
> > -- see the recent product survey -- to making the software easier on
> > new editors).
> >
> > And, of course, fundraising is only one small supporting piece of the
> > overall picture -- so we discussed how shifting patterns in Wikimedia
> > project consumption, ranging from mobile to Google knowledge graph
> > type products, might affect our mission long-term.
> >
> > Given all this context, in our meeting the board discussed whether we
> > should try to raise more money now to build our long-term reserves
> > (which I personally think is wise, given current trends). We also
> > discussed and deeply appreciate the delicate balance that fundraising
> > has: yes, we can raise more by running more banners, but at what cost?
> > I should note that the board didn't set new targets in this meeting.
> > But we did express our support and thanks for the fundraising team's
> > efforts, which have been remarkable at making sure that our projects
> > are funded by a world-wide group of independent readers.
> >
> > One side note about the evolution of fundraising in Wikimedia that I
> > think is worth noting is that the overall length of the fundraiser has
> > shrunk dramatically in the last 7-8 years -- from a month at 100% in
> > 2006 to a targeted 2 weeks (or less) today. Individual readers see
> > many fewer banner impressions now than they used to.
> >
> > Personally, I think readers should worry about Wikipedia. We are a
> > nonprofit that exists because of the labor of volunteers. Our readers
> > who rely on our work and don't think much about how it gets on their
> > screens should recognize that what we do isn't guaranteed in
> > perpetuity -- it all depends on help, support and work from our global
> > community. If that knowledge motivates people to contribute,
> > fantastic. If contributing means donating 3$, great. And if it means
> > becoming an editor: even better. Let's all work towards that.
> >
> > -- Phoebe
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Lila - thank you for this thoughtful update. Fundraising trends and
> data
> > > are always welcome, particularly where communities can help improve and
> > > test local messages.
> > >
> > > I am also deeply thankful for the smooth work of the fundraising team,
> > who
> > > have made great progress over the last few years – in storytelling &
> > > translation, mobile giving, testing & data analysis. I look forward to
> > > seeing what we learn this year.
> > >
> > > Sam
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.
> > >>
> > >> I know you want more insight into the trends: we will provide some of
> > those
> > >> in our upcoming reports and metrics and we will plan to shift to a
> > >> quarterly cadence of a more specific metrics report that will include
> > >> fundraising.
> > >>
> > >> Just to cover some basic trends: the last two years have significantly
> > >> changed our traffic composition. Regionally, we are seeing growth in
> > >> emerging languages and regions. This is great: people who need the
> > >> knowledge most, but cannot afford it and often live in countries where
> > free
> > >> speech is criminalized are learning about Wikipedia. We need to keep
> > >> supporting that. In Europe, North America, Australia, etc. we see
> > Wikipedia
> > >> becoming a part of the fabric of the internet itself: embedded in web
> > >> searches, operating systems, and other online resources. This is great
> > too:
> > >> people get knowledge wherever they are. Both of those trends however
> can
> > >> make it more difficult to raise funds (and sometimes contribute), so
> we
> > >> have to make sure we adapt.
> > >>
> > >> We are doing a lot of work around thinking through a diversified
> > >> fundraising strategy. That said, our main tool today are the site
> > banners.
> > >> Just to be clear: the pop-up banner had advantages. It tested high
> with
> > >> readers, was only shown once to each user and cut the total number of
> > >> impressions needed by a factor of 7! We did hear your concerns
> however.
> > The
> > >> Fundraising team listened and quickly integrated your feedback. While
> > our
> > >> launch banner will be different from last year’s, it will not be a
> > pop-up,
> > >> overlay content, or be sticky. As always this starting design will
> > iterate
> > >> daily and have parallel tests, so you may see variations at any given
> > time.
> > >>
> > >> Megan Hernandez will send another email with more details about the
> > process
> > >> to-date, and how best to communicate with Fundraising during the
> coming
> > >> month.
> > >>
> > >> And in the spirit of the holidays I'd like to thank the fundraising
> team
> > >> for all of their hard work and to all of the volunteers who have
> helped
> > >> with the campaigns.
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~ Lila
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
> > <at> gmail.com *
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2 3 4  View All