On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Casey Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ral315 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm completely speculating here, but maybe the reason we're doing so well > so > > far is that, I'd imagine, a significant portion of our readers are in the > > tech sector (at least compared to most non-profits), where job cuts > haven't > > yet become as widespread as they are in other sectors like manufacturing > and > > housing. I don't have much for hard statistics to back up either of > these > > claims, so obviously, take them with a grain of salt. > > > > I would imagine, however, that if my point is true, that future > fundraisers > > might not be so lucky, as the tech sector will probably experience a > similar > > decline over the next 18 months. > > Then again, everyone hurting might be another reason to donate: "er, > what if Wikipedia is hurting too? ohnoes, I don't want to lose that > too!" We seem to try to evoke that feeling in people by "Wikipedia: > Making Life Easier" and "Wikipedia is there when you need it -- now it > needs you". > > -- > Casey Brown > Cbrown1023 > Perhaps this is just me--if I'm hurting financially, an ad saying Wikipedia is too might hit home with me, but it probably wouldn't motivate me to donate. Putting bread on the table and making bill payments on time is a bit higher priority that helping sustain Wikipedia. Again, this is just based on the kind of person I am and pretty much every person I know. No statistics to support it of course (and no reasonable way to get it), but it would be interesting to see both the average income of donors, both as a whole and as a comparison to how much was donated (remove USD5,000+ donations as they're rare and would skew the scale). -Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
