On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Yes everyone realizes that using a non free image in our fundraising
> banners is not okay. It was a mistake. These things happen and we correct
> them.

Funny how the first response from a WMF employee was that they thought
using stock images was OK.


Im not sure the Fundraising team are on board with your 'free content
only' expectations.  Lisa indicated that contractors are also allowed
to use WMF owned media that hasnt been released as free content, and
'upload to Commons' is not part of their processes before media is
used in worldwide campaigns.

Some declared fundraising principles, which everyone agrees and
adheres to, would be good.

> 2) When is it okay to run smaller commercial ads rather than larger
> fundraising banners? Never.

I think the acceptable model for 'commercial' ads worth exploring is
to run 'thank you' ads for large corporate donors, provided those
'ads' are not targeted based on content or user. e.g. targeting only
based on time segments or countries.

Would you find a donation matching 'ad' acceptable, like was done for
Virgin Unite in 2006?


> I would much rather see the WMF become smaller
> than to see ads run.

'smaller' isnt a good way to look at it.  reduced expenditure may be
achieved by being more efficient, especially by using volunteers more

Are you doing any planning around that possibility?

My understanding is the WMF management + fundraising costs are ~30% of
expenditure, which is below the American Institute of Philanthropy
(AIP) 's best practise of 80% program spend.  The current rate is
still in acceptable efficiency ranges according to the AIP.  If the
revenue decreases, as is a credible concern that has been raised by
WMF Fundraising team, fundraising costs will need to decrease to avoid
that percentage moving into the unacceptable range.

John Vandenberg

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to