Policy talk:Fundraising principles: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
GVarnum-WMF (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
|||
(41 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:LincolnBot/archiveconfig |
|||
[[user:Wittylama|Wittylama]] had a few comments about fundraising principles, particularly as applied to the annual coordinated banner campaign. Reposted here: |
|||
|archive = Policy talk:Fundraising principles/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
* "easily dismissible on mobile" (...the impossibly-small "x" icon to dismiss...) |
|||
|algo = old(180d) |
|||
:: I also find it hard to use the "X" icons we have for dismissing interfaces and overlays: both these banners and elsewhere. |
|||
|counter = 1 |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
* "Tell the OTRS team and appropriate Chapter (when applicable) when any major change (such as adding/removing a new payment method) happens in that language/country. |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talk archive}} |
|||
:: A "pull" solution might be simpler here: a page that lists all such updates, so that people can go and find the information when they need it. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 3 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|||
* "''Maximal Participation: ...we should empower individuals and groups world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging.''" |
|||
}}{{talk header}} |
|||
: rather than being ambassadors for our mission, wikimedians are feeling increasingly embarrassed |
|||
:: I can't speak to how different people feel, but I think having a network of tens of thousands of ambassadors is a great strength, and something we should be working through for every messaging campaign, fundraising or otherwise. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> |
|||
* "''Minimal disruption: ...causing minimal disruption and annoyance for users of the projects''" |
|||
: Instead, a desire to finish fundraising quickly is given higher priority. |
|||
:: As you say, "less disruption" != "shorter". I wonder what the fundraising team's internal measures of disruption/annoyance are: I know they are aiming for low disruption, not just short duration. For example, we now have a larger proportion of fundraising done continuously throughout the year in part because that is less disruptive. |
|||
:: I would be glad to see a longer campaign with better side effects. For instance, a campaign that leaves everyone who sees it feeling more inspired and enthusiastic, motivated to recruit others to get involved, rather than annoyed or guilty or concerned. I don't know how possible this is, but it's worth trying and striving for. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> |
|||
* "Internationalism: ...our fundraising practices must support the easiest possible transfer of money internationally." |
|||
: we've had the recent discussions about how donating is difficult from the Netherlands and impossible from Russia |
|||
:: I don't know the answers to these specific cases, nor how long it takes to implement changes. These issues do get regular consideration; I was glad to see a number of new ways to donate implemented in the past year, regionally and globally. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> 04:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Transparency... == |
|||
''"All Wikimedia fundraising activities must be truthful with prospective donors."'' I'm a bit concerned at the fact that this is listed as a principle signed off by the board, yet people have reported (on wikimedia-l) at having to "set things straight" with their friends who had been shocked and surprised at the wording which was being used. -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] ([[User talk:Chuq|talk]]) 07:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== summary of wikimedia-l thread "Fundraising banners (again)" / Nov 26, 2014 -- == |
|||
Summary of ~80 messages; editorializing by [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 18:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC) 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] |
Latest revision as of 04:31, 16 March 2024
This page is for discussions related to the Policy:Fundraising principles page. Please remember to:
Archives: 1 |