To go back to Kevin's point - it's my guess that personal appeals evoke emotion, which is pretty powerful (and probably why they do the best). Add to that a personal appeal by someone whose name you recognize, and there's the ad's effectiveness.
On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Fred Benenson wrote: > There is clearly a celebrity factor involved, and this is something that many > Wikipedians find unappealing. > > The issue is that the majority on donations are probably coming from people > who don't think about it on this level. They see a compelling ask from > someone they tangentially recognize as being the progenitor (however > meaningful that term can be in the context of a wiki) of Wikipedia which > makes the connection that the site needs their help. > > This is actually something I tend to encourage on Kickstarter: creators > should make videos explaining who they are and why they need support for tier > project. They should sit themselves in front of the camera and give a human > face to the project while explaining how they're going to spend the money > they raise. > > The projects that fail to introduce their creator, but instead opt for a high > level explanation of their idea, tend to do worse. This is anecdotally > explained by the possibility that backers need to feel like their money is > being directed to someone who is accountable and recognizable for spending it > in a responsible fashion. > > Showing banner ads featuring Wikipedians who edit but are not publicly held > accountable for it doesn't achieve this goal: they are volunteers and while > they may generate and curate the content, they aren't the ones that will be > held accountable in the sphere of public opinion for it's use. > > While it may be misguided for donors to believe that Jimmy is the one > responsible for the proper use of their donation, it's pretty clear that it > seems to be working in terms of raising money for the org. > > The question is really whether Wikipedia the community is willing tolerate > what needs to be done by Wikipedia the organization in order to keep the > lights on and the servers running. > > There are limits to this logic: obviously the Wikimedia Foundation should not > hold puppies hostage in exchange for donations, etc. But they also shouldn't > short change themselves by not running an ad that has proven itself to be > effective. > > Whether ads like these eventually degrade the quality and brand of Wikipedia > has yet to be seen. > > As much as they annoy me (and FYI you can turn them off), I believe they > represent a reasonable tradeoff between the value of the site and it's lack > of business model. > > Further reading: > http://www.quora.com/Wikipedia/Is-having-Jimmy-Wales-picture-shown-across-the-top-of-every-page-helping-or-hindering-Wikipedia-raise-money > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing > > F > > > On Nov 17, 2010, at 8:19 PM, Sage Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Elizabeth Stark <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Right, I think the personal appeal aspect of it makes sense, because people >>> are much more likely to be motivated by a humanized plea than by a faceless >>> organization. That said, a better way to do it would be to have personal >>> appeals from Wikipedians from around the world, and rotate them, in >>> different languages, etc. >>> >> >> That's actually in the works. We tested the first personal appeal >> from an editor yesterday; unfortunately, it didn't beat Jimmy, >> although it was better than the less personal non-Jimmy messages we >> tested early on before the fundraiser began in earnest. But hopefully >> we can find some other messages that do better than Jimmy; a number of >> other people's personal appeals are planned for testing soon. >> >> This will give some idea of why the Jimmy banner works well: >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Focus_group >> >> It's not because it's him in particular, as far as we can tell. >> >> If you have specific ideas that you think would do better, you can >> propose them: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010 >> >> This is being executed as "the fundraiser that anyone can edit"; >> unfortunately, we just haven't come very close to beating the Jimmy >> banner yet. >> >> -Sage >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
