Policy talk:Fundraising principles

Wittylama had a few comments about fundraising principles, particularly as applied to the annual coordinated banner campaign. Reposted here:

"easily dismissible on mobile" (...the impossibly-small "x" icon to dismiss...)

I also find it hard to use the "X" icons we have for dismissing interfaces and overlays: both these banners and elsewhere.

"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.

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. –SJ talk

"Maximal Participation: ...we should empower individuals and groups world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging."

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. –SJ talk

"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. –SJ talk

"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. –SJ talk 04:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Chuq (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

summary of wikimedia-l thread "Fundraising banners (again)" / Nov 26, 2014 --

Summary of ~80 messages; editorializing by phoebe | talk 18:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC) in brackets.[reply]

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]