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