It could be worse. Internet archive is running their banners at moment. Quote:
"Internet Archive is a non-profit. We don’t run ads, but still need to pay for servers and staff. If everyone reading this gave $75, we could end our fundraiser right now. For the cost of buying a book, you can make a book permanently available for the next generation. It’s is a small amount to inform millions. Help us do more. Thank you." Sorry, $75? :) They also give a shoutout to WMF for making the fundraising banner open source. Thanks for nothing WMF for making this intrusive begging the future of online fundraising. ;) Russavia On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:11 AM, phoebe ayers <[email protected]> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
