It's now "If everyone reading this right now gives £3, our fundraiser will be done within an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of coffee is all we need."
So I suppose the take-home message is that WMF fundraising has high estimates of what a coffee costs, rather than their programmers having expensive tastes ;-) (In all seriousness: I generally agree with Liam's concerns, but I'd also like to note that the banners running on mobile are much more discreet, though are just as eye-catching. Well done to whoever thought of those.) Andrew. On 19 December 2014 at 08:44, WereSpielChequers <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> -- - Andrew Gray [email protected] _______________________________________________ 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>
