On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:11 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all, > > I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the > themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk > of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too. > > Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ]. > > ==communication re: fundraising season== > * develop banner approaches in the off-season [the fundraising team > already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too] > * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you > communicate it to the stakeholders > * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [though acknowledged > that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week] > * Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job > at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their > jobs" > > ==message content== > * don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get > the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.] > * don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll > go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [note, I'm > not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it > because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in > crisis terms.] > * message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is > clear/is too American [the latter is a problem esp. with English > Wikipedia messaging, I suspect] > * comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year] > * comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls > who get a/b tested > * as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not > demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating > because of above points. > > ==banner size== > * pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus] > * sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this point] > * banners that obscure content are no good [note, though we agree on > the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this > banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there] > * mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small > > ==brand image== > * current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above > content points > * harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this] > * messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def. > worth exploring] > * user sentiment analysis is important [possible action point: maybe > user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner > tests?] > * what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners? > [note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not > have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison. > Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm > unusual in that way]. > > ==data== > * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians > * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data > * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than > past??/how much is there/should we worry about it? > * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [note, we've > been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence > the shorter fundraiser] > > ------- > > Other questions for me: > Nemo asks about minutes. I suspect they'll be out in a couple of > weeks, and then there will be a week of delay or so as the board > approves them. All delays are on the trustee end, not on the > secretary's end. Note though that I already summarized probably the > most exciting discussion. > > Andreas asks about the editor survey report. I looked through my > papers the last time you asked, and I don't think I have it. I'd send > it to you if I did. > > best, > Phoebe > > Hi Phoebe, Thanks for re-reading the whole thread, that must have been "fun", and for summarizing the points. From my perspective, you caught pretty much everything. The one thing I still have to add is the subject line of the Jimmy email. That came across as incredibly spammy and misleading to me (Why the hell is Jimmy mailing me telling me he'll keep it short? Oh, it's just a fundraiser email). The subject of the email is not Jimmy keeping it short, but a request to donate. That should be clearer in the subject line. And the sender should IMO be the Wikimedia Fundraising team or the WMF, not Jimmy. To others I imagine it reads like those spam emails with "Have you seen this article?" in the subject line with spoofed email addresses. Thank you for keeping working on this, and not getting pulled into emotion. Cheers, --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>
