Nicely put Martijn. Many a true word is spoken in jest. Dear WMF Fundraising team, please do not take this thread (or this email) as an attack on yourselves or the professionalism that you apply to your work. You should continue to take great personal pride in the crucial role you play to make our [puzzle-]globe keep spinning each year! I also appreciate that you're in a sticky position of needing to try new things but also receiving flak when you do.
Perhaps as a practical suggestion, so we can avoid this discussion happening *again *next year, it would be worth all of us collaborating here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles Perhaps it is worthwhile adding a section to this page which lists the more practical expectations about the fundraising banners which we have developed by consensus over the years. Things like "no animations/sounds", "no obscuring of the content", "no popups" and "no threats/warnings without genuine cause". I'd personally like to add two more things: - "easily dismissible on mobile" (because I've unintentionally clicked the banner with my finger many times when trying to press the impossibly-small "x" icon to dismiss the banner on my phone) and - "Tell the OTRS team and appropriate Chapter (when applicable) when any major change (such as adding/removing a new payment method) happens in that language/country. These Fundraising principles, according to that Meta page, are from "...an October, 2010 letter <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_fundraising_principles> and a January, 2012 WMF resolution <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Developing_Scenarios_for_future_of_fundraising#Guidelines_for_Funds_Distribution_Scenarios>". The page itself was primarily edited by WMF Board of Trustees Stu and SJ. I would argue that it is possible that several of these principles are not being followed, at least according to the recent discussions on this list. Including: - "*Transparency*: All Wikimedia fundraising activities must be truthful with prospective donor". Instead, the public seems to be questioning if the messages are truthful about our financial stability. - "*Maximal Participation*: ...we should empower individuals and groups world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging." Instead, rather than being ambassadors for our mission, wikimedians are feeling increasingly embarrassed when their friends/public ask about the fundraising campaign. -"*Minimal disruption*: ...causing minimal disruption and annoyance for users of the projects" Instead, a desire to finish fundraising quickly is given higher priority. Even though that is *not *one of the stated principles. -"*Internationalism*: ...our fundraising practices must support the easiest possible transfer of money internationally." Instead, we've had the recent discussions about how donating is difficult from the Netherlands and impossible from Russia [did they get a response yet, by the way?] I'd also add that "I'll keep it short" as a subject-line for the fundraising email feels to me like "an Americanism" that would be far too casual to be taken seriously in many other cultures. -Liam On 3 December 2014 at 10:13, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoeks...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 3, 2014 3:46 AM, "Ryan Lane" <rlan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Megan Hernandez <mhernandez@...> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > As Lila’s email said, we launched our end of year English fundraising > > > campaign on Tuesday. I wanted to share a little more background on the > > > mechanics of the English Wikipedia campaign, and where we are on our > goals > > > this year to-date. > > > > > > Starting today, banners are being shown to 100% of anonymous readers on > > > English Wikipedia in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Our > end > > > of year campaign goal is $20 million. As Lila mentioned, our goal is to > > > serve more powerful reminders to be able to limit the total number of > > > banners each reader sees. We are constantly experimenting with new > methods > > > to reach our readers and optimize the donation experience. > > > > > > > I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our banners > > are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get bigger > > and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is not an > exception. > > However, this year the banners didn't just get bigger, the copy seems to > be > > more fear inducing as well. > > > > Today I had a coworker private message me, worried that Wikipedia was in > > financial trouble. He asked me if the worst happened, would the content > > still be available so that it could be resurrected? I assured him that > > Wikimedia is healthy, has reserves, and successfully reaches the budget > > every year. Basically I said there wasn't much to worry about, because > there > > isn't. > > > > The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the first > > person that's asked me about this. When they find out there's not a real > > problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel > > manipulated. > > > > My coworker told me that he donates generously every year, which is rare > for > > him because he doesn't often donate to charities. He said this year's ads > > are putting him off. He doesn't feel like he should donate. > > > > I understand that efficient banner ads are good, because they reduce the > > number of times people need to see the ad, but it's not great when people > > stop posting funny banner memes and start asking Wikimedia to switch to > an > > advertising model (seriously, do a quick twitter search). > > > > - Ryan Lane > > > > Excuse the cynicism, but maybe automating the message to go out every year > on the first week of December will save you frustration and effort. I know > how this will end. It'll end like last year, and the year before, etc. etc. > Where we conclude, yes, what we did now really cross the line, we have to > tone it down a bit, with thank yous to those concerned, and apologies for > taking it too far. I have no doubt it's exactly the same next year. So > please see the email below I'll automate for the first week of December for > now on. > > Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser as > quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep the > yearly donation drive as short as possible. > > Yet the banners I'm seeing this year leave me troubled about the appearance > and the message presented. For the appearance, it is the size and > obnoxiousness that bothers me. They seem to be designed to annoy the reader > as much as possible. I know they only work when people notice them but do > we really *have* to (select one from list: play audio/ obscure our content > forcing a click through / use animated content / take up the majority of > the screen above the fold). It annoys our users, the people we do it all > for, to no end. Take a look at Twitter, it's not just one or two people. > > Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise to > the fundraising team, because I can't imagine this content hasn't been > written to evoke the maximum amount of alarm. > But it crosses the line towards dishonesty. Yes the WMF can use the > donations, and yes they generally spend it well. But the lights won't go > off next week if You don't donate Now. The servers won't go offline. We're > not on immediate danger. Yet that's what this year's campaign seems to want > the message to be. But don't take my word for it, take a look at the > messages accompanying the donations. People are genuinely worried. They > will be angry if they find out they're being manipulated, and they would be > right. Generally I'm proud of what we do as movement and proud of much of > the way we do it. These banners make me ashamed of the movement I'm part > of. And frustrated that I seem to be unable to change it in the long run, I > think I may have send out a similar email to this one last year. > > For now, two requests. > # could you please stop misleading the reader in our appeal? > # could you please make the banners a little less invasive? So that the > don't obscure content unless dismissed, and so that they take up more than > 50% of the space above the fold. > > I know you work hard for the fundraiser to be successful, and as brief as > possible, but please take in consideration the dangers of damaging our > reputation for openness and honesty, and the impact on our volunteers. > > Kind regards, > > --Martijn > > I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around > 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly > coincidence with this one, that would help. > > --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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
