Two weeks ago I emailed the fundraising team with the following note, quietly and discretely pointing out an error in their messaging. Sadly I haven't had a reply and I think that in the UK they are still using the £3 buys a coffee for a programmer line:
> Aside from the incidental nature of the appeal, £3 and $3 are very different > sums of money. When I saw $3 I thought that was an expensive way to buy > coffees and that the WMF should invest in a kettle and some mugs. But £3 for > a coffee, now that just looks wasteful, even to someone living in an > expensive part of London. I dread to think what it looks like to someone > living in other parts of England, let alone cheaper parts of the world. "£3 > gets coffee and biscuits for a potential wikipedian coming to a training > session", that I could defend. > > There's also the honesty/credibility factor. I doubt I am the only person > seeing different versions of these ads including different currencies, if the > sums are this far apart the suspicion has to be that none of the figures are > to be trusted. Not a great help to our program of improving Wikipedia quality > and getting such details right in our articles. Regards Jonathan Cardy > > 3. >> >> >> To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no government >> funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors >> simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us forget >> fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia. >> >> We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please consider >> making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia >> <http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0> >> . >> >> https://donate.wikimedia.org >> <http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0> >> >> Thank you, >> Jimmy Wales >> Wikipedia Founder >> >> PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running. >> Your contribution counts! >> *DONATE NOW »* >> <http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> "our final email"? >> This is the last email reminder you'll receive"? >> Surely that should be qualified with "... this year."?? >> If that weren't embarrassing, what about... >> >> - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at the >> same time in the heading. >> - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if "ALL past >> donors simply gave AGAIN today" [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need to do >> any more fundraising "for the rest of the year", i.e. for 2 weeks!! >> - On the one had it says "we'll never run ads" but in the sentence >> immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay "ad-free another year". >> - Does the phrase "Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep >> Wikipedia running" mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate, which is >> enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who have >> donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other 99% of >> donors didn't donate enough)? >> - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a >> "thank you for donating" email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should note >> that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and >> mission-oriented]. >> >> >> *Effectiveness != Efficiency* >> One of the official WMF Fundraising principles >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles> is "*minimal >> disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis is >> original]. >> I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to >> mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I contest that >> "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter >> fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. >> >> I am sure that these desperate fundraising emails/banners are *efficient *at >> getting the most amount of money as fast as possible (they have been honed >> with excellent A/B testing), but, they achieve this by sacrificing the core >> WMF fundraising principle of being *minimally disruptive. *In fact, they >> actually appear to be following a principle of being "as *maximally >> *disruptive >> as they can get away with, for as short a time as required". >> >> Can the WMF to say how "minimal disruption" and "effective fundraising" is >> defined in practice, and how they are measured? >> >> *Shareable vs Desperate* >> On the same day that the WMF communications team release this inspiring and >> positive "year in review" video >> <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/17/wikipedias-first-ever-annual-video-reflects-contributions-from-people-around-the-world/>, >> this fundraising email sounds negative and desperate. It is all about not >> advertising and staying online for another year. >> >> Couldn't the "year in review" video have been used in the fundraising email >> to tell a positive story about all we have achieved this year? That's the >> kind of thing Wikimedians will want to share and feel proud about, not >> something that almost bullies you to donate out of a sense of >> moral-obligation. >> >> *Fundraising "operating principles"* >> I would like to reiterate my call to see us develop some practical >> "operating principles" for fundraising that would give some real-world >> guidelines for website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees member Phoebe >> has done an excellent job of summarising the fundraising conversations on >> this list from the last few weeks here: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_principles >> I would like the Board to ask the Fundraising team (once this fundraiser is >> finished) to develop these operating principles in a collaborative process >> with interested community members. This is in the hope that in the future, >> the community can help spread the word and feel empowered to join >> the fundraising campaign for our movement, rather than simply hoping it >> will go away as quickly as possible. >> >> After all, the final official WMF fundraising principle is: >> "Maximal participation: Consistent with the principles of empowerment >> underlying Wikimedia’s success, we should empower individuals and groups >> world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging, public >> outreach, and other activities that drive the success of Wikimedia’s >> fundraising efforts" >> >> -Liam >> p.s. by the way, has anyone from the WMF talked the Russian community yet >> about why they aren't allowed to donate? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:12:41 -0500 > From: MZMcBride <[email protected]> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Liam Wyatt wrote: >> *Effectiveness != Efficiency* >> One of the official WMF Fundraising principles >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles> is "*minimal >> disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis is >> original]. >> I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team >> to mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I contest >> that "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter >> fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. > > Thanks for this e-mail. I agree with you that these donation solicitation > e-mails are terrible and unbecoming. > > In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem > to have been designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding > principles would typically be fine, but the fundraising team needs much > stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a Wikimedia Foundation Board > of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated misbehavior on > the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines > aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how > big and obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard maximums. > > The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly > unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest > solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. > The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in > an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling > Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris a > "Wikipedia programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading > suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online. > > The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous > $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_ > that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money > again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that > suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today. > > MZMcBride > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:21:31 +0000 > From: David Gerard <[email protected]> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email > Message-ID: > <caj0tu1gosobr6texio5u+gpb2kzsxqq1n8ykkmsa1alpof2...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >> On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly >> unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest >> solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. > > > +1 > > And we're not talking about semantic arguments, we're seeing blatant > falsehoods. > > > - d. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:59:50 +1000 > From: Craig Franklin <[email protected]> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email > Message-ID: > <cahf+k3-6xezdz+q5o45-kneefd7o-92aeuzd83ahun30lds...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >> On 19 December 2014 at 10:12, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly >> unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest >> solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. >> The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in >> an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling >> Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris a >> "Wikipedia programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading >> suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online. >> >> The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous >> $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_ >> that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money >> again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that >> suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today. > Please add my name to the list of people who are troubled by what's been > said and done in the latest round of fundraising. > > I think that most of us, even if we feel some distaste for begging for > money, realise the importance and necessity of engaging in fundraising. > The fact that we're asking for money is not the problem. The problem is > that in order to maximise the amount of revenue gained, the Fundraising > team has engaged in a misleading scare campaign. In the short term, that > means that a few more dollars will flow into the Foundation's coffers, but > in the long term it just damages the brand and the entire movement. > > It is very disappointing that the responses from the WMF to these entirely > reasonable concerns so far have been either: > > a) Silence > b) Completely ignoring the point ("The fundraiser has been very successful > because we've received more money, and those who are not aware that they've > been mislead are not upset!") > c) Semantic word games ("Well, in a technical sense what we've said is not > a lie, depending on how you look at it") > > The solution that I'd like to see for next time is less focus on A/B > testing that has its sole purpose of maximising the amount of revenue > raised, and more of a view to alternative ways to raise money. Imagine a > world in which we gave our readers a positive message that we already had > enough money to keep the lights on thanks very much, but needed more to > build cool new tools, improve the quality of the project content, and > implement more innovative projects to meet our movement's goals. > > Regards, > Craig Franklin > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 129, Issue 85 > ******************************************** _______________________________________________ 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>
