One feedback I got today is to not display the banner any more if the
person donated.
On Dec 3, 2015 16:37, "Liam Wyatt" <> wrote:

> TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising
> model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs
> to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning
> transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just
> about fullscreen advertising.
> I, along with many here, am dismayed that the banners are now at the
> stage of being fullscreen. However, as others have mentioned, the
> actual text of the request has been adjusted following a reasonably
> collaborative process to identify text that is both effective and
> acceptable to the community. Also, the fundraising team have been
> placed in the difficult position of being told to raise a LOT more
> money without being given more methods to do so.[1] Naturally then,
> there is a point where the existing methods reach their maximum
> effectiveness, and capacity is stretched to the point where awkward
> mistakes happen.[2]
> At this point, I suspect we've reached "peak banner".
> Rather like "peak oil" - after drilling the same oil reserve for a
> long time, you have to pump exponentially harder to maintain a steady
> flow.[2] Furthermore, the harder you pump today, the more difficult it
> will be tomorrow. I think we've reached that point with the
> fundraising advertising and emails. We know that the donation amounts
> are decreasing, but the budget is increasing. There are many suggested
> reasons for the decreased supply (relevant parables for this include
> "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" and "the boy who cried
> wolf"). So it's now time to talk about pumping smarter, not harder.
> An important part of that shift is the recently-opened (but longtime
> mooted) discussion about an endowment. I commend Lisa's essay[3] as an
> excellent start to formulating a long-term plan. There are many
> important questions that would need to be answered as part of that
> strategy. People interested in this really ought to read her thoughts
> on creating a "growing endowment" and the advantages/challenges this
> would bring. Carefully and consultatively addressing the challenges in
> creating an endowment would also go a long way towards fixing other
> related concerns:
> - Improving the transparency of the WMF strategy and the way decisions
> are made (see also the discussion about the FDC recommendations[4])
> - Having the global community, especially the Chapters which have
> local fundraising capacity, involved in the fundraising process -
> rather than being held at arms length. The community should be seen as
> the fundraiser's biggest asset, not the pageview numbers.
> - culturally sensitive communication (to avoid things like the email
> saying "let's end this" being translated into French as the
> *equivalent* of "I challenge you to a fight to the death")
> - Integrating the activities of fundraising as "part of the movement"
> rather than as something that is held/holds itself apart. The WMF
> donor database, for example, has tens of thousands of people who would
> be interested in learning to edit. Why have we never tried to create a
> [privacy-policy-compliant] way of introducing those people to their
> local communities/chapters to help address the other strategic
> challenge of "editor recruitment and retention".
> - Addressing some of the inequities of how money is
> raised/disseminated across our movement which are based on rules
> "grandfathered in" from chapter-fundraising rules prior to the "Haifa
> letter".
> - movement calendars (to avoid things like this year's fundraising
> clash with WikiLovesMonuments)
> Some people say that the fundraising goal is too high. Perhaps, but we
> also have a long list of fixes-needed and wanted-features. We can't do
> a lot more with a lot less, although we can certainly increase the
> efficiency/transparency of how the existing WMF budget is spent!
> However, with the increased total budget, also comes a increased
> expectation of results. I think that a lot of my own frustration comes
> from this - I could probably be supportive of a fullscreen banner IF I
> felt the results justified it. But, for just one example, as Andrea
> described today[5], Wikisource has NEVER received any dedicated
> support despite years of that community begging for it.
> I've probably written too much now... sorry!
> -Liam
> [1] Side note: If you'd like to apply for what is think is probably
> the hardest (and therefore very important) job in Wikimedia, WMF
> Fundraising is hiring a community-liaison role:
> [2] like saying "A year ago, you gave 0.00 € to keep Wikipedia online
> and ad-free."
> [2] Yes, I realise the metaphor
> isn't perfect. Oil is a non-renewable resource while donations are
> potentially renewable.
> [3]
> [4] and thank you Lila for your response on that topic thus far
> [5]
> Peace, love & metadata
> On 3 December 2015 at 09:16, Andreas Kolbe <> wrote:
> > Article in the Washington Post:
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
> > Unsubscribe:,
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to