Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[MuZemike]

Is it me, or when I saw the word "focus group", I started to develop 
some bad feelings about this?

-MuZemike

On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of
> the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in
> the process.  Our updated meta pages 
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010
>) will give you an overview as well.  There's a lot of information
> here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to
> read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.
>
> There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong
> message.  We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the
> results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its
> performance last year and the year before.
>
> But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up
> for two months!
>
> So we're issuing a challenge:  Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.
>
> Data informed conclusions
> Here's the trick:
> We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.
> Please read the summaries below for really important details from our
> focus group and survey of past donors.
>
> Focus Group
> Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City
> area in September 2010.  It's important to note that this was a single
> focus group, and in a single city.  We'll need to do more to make sure
> that results correlate universally.  But we came out of it with a few
> important take-away points.  It's important to realize that these
> points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider
> feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging
> points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.
>
> ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of
> people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
> For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of
> people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it
> free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were
> highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves
> users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but
> they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a
> user and a donor.
>
> ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
> Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should
> be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be
> approaching them for money more often.  Accepting paid ads could
> corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.
>
> ** Independence is critically important.
> These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high
> premium on the free flow of information.  They have little patience
> for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.
> The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates
> that.
>
> ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
> This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an
> important nuance.  These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from
> simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them
> get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270
> languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many
> people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so
> successfully built. And that makes it a cause too.
>
> ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors.
> Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The
> idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia
> would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook.
> It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would
> happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy.
> Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same
> concerns.
>
> ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia,
> even when that agenda would extend the current offerings.
> An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that
> the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic
> thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would
> disrupt that.  Community support is one of the key values, and not
> everyone in the community would support new initiatives.
>
> ** There is room to fundraise more aggressively.
> Across the board, respondents were surprised that they didn’t have the
> opportunity to give to Wikimedia more often. Obviously, there is a
> balance and a PBS-style solicitation schedule wouldn’t make sense both
> for Wikimedia’s personality and for this audience, but there is much
> more space available than we are taking.
>
> ** Wikimedia donors are highl

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Deniz Gultekin]

MuZemike,

Bad feelings? We're learning more about our donors to maximize the 
fundraising potential of our messages during the two month campaign. We 
have a lofty goal - and a short time period to accomplish it in.

-Deniz

On 10/6/10 1:03 PM, MuZemike wrote:
> Is it me, or when I saw the word "focus group", I started to develop
> some bad feelings about this?
>
> -MuZemike
>
> On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of
>> the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in
>> the process.  Our updated meta pages 
>> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010
>> ) will give you an overview as well.  There's a lot of information
>> here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to
>> read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.
>>
>> There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong
>> message.  We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the
>> results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its
>> performance last year and the year before.
>>
>> But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up
>> for two months!
>>
>> So we're issuing a challenge:  Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.
>>
>> Data informed conclusions
>> Here's the trick:
>> We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.
>> Please read the summaries below for really important details from our
>> focus group and survey of past donors.
>>
>> Focus Group
>> Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City
>> area in September 2010.  It's important to note that this was a single
>> focus group, and in a single city.  We'll need to do more to make sure
>> that results correlate universally.  But we came out of it with a few
>> important take-away points.  It's important to realize that these
>> points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider
>> feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging
>> points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.
>>
>> ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of
>> people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
>> For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of
>> people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it
>> free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were
>> highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves
>> users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but
>> they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a
>> user and a donor.
>>
>> ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
>> Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should
>> be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be
>> approaching them for money more often.  Accepting paid ads could
>> corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.
>>
>> ** Independence is critically important.
>> These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high
>> premium on the free flow of information.  They have little patience
>> for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.
>> The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates
>> that.
>>
>> ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
>> This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an
>> important nuance.  These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from
>> simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them
>> get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270
>> languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many
>> people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so
>> successfully built. And that makes it a cause too.
>>
>> ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors.
>> Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The
>> idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia
>> would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook.
>> It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would
>> happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy.
>> Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same
>> concerns.
>>
>> ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia,
>> even when that agenda would extend the current offerings.
>> An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that
>> the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic
>> thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would
>> disrupt that.  Community support is one of the key values, and not
>> everyone in the community would support new initiatives.
>>
>> ** There is room to fundraise more aggressively

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[James Alexander]

  On 10/6/2010 4:03 PM, MuZemike wrote:
> Is it me, or when I saw the word "focus group", I started to develop
> some bad feelings about this?
>
> -MuZemike

How so? We aren't basing the decisions on which banners to run on the 
focus group (or survey for that matter). We're doing that on actual 
click and donation data which is why we want to run so many tests. But i 
think outside studies can be a great option to see how people are 
thinking. It is a lot easier to get an idea of what our editors are 
thinking by asking on wiki but asking what our readers or small donors 
in general think can be much harder.

James

--
James Alexander
Associate Community Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
jalexan...@wikimedia.org
+1-415-839-6885 x6716


> On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of
>> the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in
>> the process.  Our updated meta pages 
>> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010
>> ) will give you an overview as well.  There's a lot of information
>> here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to
>> read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.
>>
>> There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong
>> message.  We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the
>> results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its
>> performance last year and the year before.
>>
>> But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up
>> for two months!
>>
>> So we're issuing a challenge:  Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.
>>
>> Data informed conclusions
>> Here's the trick:
>> We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.
>> Please read the summaries below for really important details from our
>> focus group and survey of past donors.
>>
>> Focus Group
>> Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City
>> area in September 2010.  It's important to note that this was a single
>> focus group, and in a single city.  We'll need to do more to make sure
>> that results correlate universally.  But we came out of it with a few
>> important take-away points.  It's important to realize that these
>> points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider
>> feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging
>> points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.
>>
>> ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of
>> people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
>> For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of
>> people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it
>> free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were
>> highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves
>> users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but
>> they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a
>> user and a donor.
>>
>> ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
>> Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should
>> be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be
>> approaching them for money more often.  Accepting paid ads could
>> corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.
>>
>> ** Independence is critically important.
>> These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high
>> premium on the free flow of information.  They have little patience
>> for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.
>> The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates
>> that.
>>
>> ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
>> This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an
>> important nuance.  These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from
>> simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them
>> get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270
>> languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many
>> people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so
>> successfully built. And that makes it a cause too.
>>
>> ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors.
>> Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The
>> idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia
>> would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook.
>> It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would
>> happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy.
>> Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same
>> concerns.
>>
>> ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia,
>> even when that agenda would extend the current offerings.
>> An agenda implies ownership, and respondents

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Carcharoth]

Depends on the results, I suppose. Though as I've just watched the
first show of 'The Apprentice' (BBC show in the UK - and they have a
version in the USA as well), I'm probably a bit more cynical than
usual about business and jargon-speak right now. At the end of the day
it is about results. Hang on, did I just trot out a cliche myself
there? :-)

The idea of trying to beat Jimmy's fundraising power is an interesting
one. I wonder if anyone will be brave enough to do a talking head
video of themselves and try and beat Jimmy using that! Maybe a video
clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a
very short time? Do I get a prize if anyone actually goes with that
idea?

Carcharoth

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:03 PM, MuZemike  wrote:
> Is it me, or when I saw the word "focus group", I started to develop
> some bad feelings about this?
>
> -MuZemike
>
> On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of
>> the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in
>> the process.  Our updated meta pages 
>> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010
>>    ) will give you an overview as well.  There's a lot of information
>> here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to
>> read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.
>>
>> There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong
>> message.  We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the
>> results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its
>> performance last year and the year before.
>>
>> But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up
>> for two months!
>>
>> So we're issuing a challenge:  Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.
>>
>> Data informed conclusions
>> Here's the trick:
>> We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.
>> Please read the summaries below for really important details from our
>> focus group and survey of past donors.
>>
>> Focus Group
>> Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City
>> area in September 2010.  It's important to note that this was a single
>> focus group, and in a single city.  We'll need to do more to make sure
>> that results correlate universally.  But we came out of it with a few
>> important take-away points.  It's important to realize that these
>> points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider
>> feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging
>> points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.
>>
>> ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of
>> people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
>> For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of
>> people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it
>> free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were
>> highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves
>> users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but
>> they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a
>> user and a donor.
>>
>> ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
>> Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should
>> be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be
>> approaching them for money more often.  Accepting paid ads could
>> corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.
>>
>> ** Independence is critically important.
>> These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high
>> premium on the free flow of information.  They have little patience
>> for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.
>> The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates
>> that.
>>
>> ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
>> This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an
>> important nuance.  These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from
>> simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them
>> get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270
>> languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many
>> people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so
>> successfully built. And that makes it a cause too.
>>
>> ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors.
>> Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The
>> idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia
>> would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook.
>> It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would
>> happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy.
>> Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same
>> concerns.
>>
>> ** Supporters strongly reject any agen

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Casey Brown]

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Carcharoth  wrote:
> Maybe a video
> clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a
> very short time?

Haha, like 

? ;-)

-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Casey Brown  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Carcharoth  
> wrote:
>> Maybe a video
>> clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a
>> very short time?
>
> Haha, like 
> 
> ? ;-)

Something like that yes, but even better, and with Jedi special effects! :-)

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Deniz Gultekin]

Wikipedians and Jedi-themed special effects?! *gets popcorn*

But yes, I agree, it'd be fantastic to have even more high quality 
videos of editors *and* readers, with or without lightsabers.

On 10/6/10 6:05 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Casey Brown  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Carcharoth  
>> wrote:
>>  
>>> Maybe a video
>>> clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a
>>> very short time?
>>>
>> Haha, 
>> like
>> ? ;-)
>>  
> Something like that yes, but even better, and with Jedi special effects! :-)
>
> Carcharoth
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


-- 
Deniz Gültekin
Community Associate
Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge
http://donate.wikimedia.org/


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[MuZemike]

I'm just saying that I know instances in which focus groups sometimes 
don't accomplish what they're set to do. Apparently, Apple has gone 
against this concept of doing focus groups to make decisions so they can 
keep moving forward with various products (citation needed). Coca-Cola 
did the same thing when they rolled out "New Coke" in 1985 to disastrous 
results. Time Warner/JVC professed their usage of focus groups in their 
trailer of the video game "Rise of the Robots" as shown here: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zafl_68PfOo . That game is one of the 
worst fighting games of all time, failing on many levels.

That is why I am very wary and cautious about focus groups, as they tend 
to blindly serve their clientele instead of giving actual feedback on 
whatever their assessing.

-MuZemike

On 10/6/2010 3:24 PM, James Alexander wrote:
>On 10/6/2010 4:03 PM, MuZemike wrote:
>> Is it me, or when I saw the word "focus group", I started to develop
>> some bad feelings about this?
>>
>> -MuZemike
>
> How so? We aren't basing the decisions on which banners to run on the
> focus group (or survey for that matter). We're doing that on actual
> click and donation data which is why we want to run so many tests. But i
> think outside studies can be a great option to see how people are
> thinking. It is a lot easier to get an idea of what our editors are
> thinking by asking on wiki but asking what our readers or small donors
> in general think can be much harder.
>
> James
>
> --
> James Alexander
> Associate Community Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> jalexan...@wikimedia.org
> +1-415-839-6885 x6716
>
>
>> On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of
>>> the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in
>>> the process.  Our updated meta pages 
>>> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010
>>>  ) will give you an overview as well.  There's a lot of information
>>> here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to
>>> read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.
>>>
>>> There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong
>>> message.  We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the
>>> results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its
>>> performance last year and the year before.
>>>
>>> But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up
>>> for two months!
>>>
>>> So we're issuing a challenge:  Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.
>>>
>>> Data informed conclusions
>>> Here's the trick:
>>> We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.
>>> Please read the summaries below for really important details from our
>>> focus group and survey of past donors.
>>>
>>> Focus Group
>>> Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City
>>> area in September 2010.  It's important to note that this was a single
>>> focus group, and in a single city.  We'll need to do more to make sure
>>> that results correlate universally.  But we came out of it with a few
>>> important take-away points.  It's important to realize that these
>>> points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider
>>> feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging
>>> points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.
>>>
>>> ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of
>>> people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
>>> For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of
>>> people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it
>>> free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were
>>> highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves
>>> users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but
>>> they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a
>>> user and a donor.
>>>
>>> ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
>>> Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should
>>> be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be
>>> approaching them for money more often.  Accepting paid ads could
>>> corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.
>>>
>>> ** Independence is critically important.
>>> These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high
>>> premium on the free flow of information.  They have little patience
>>> for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.
>>> The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates
>>> that.
>>>
>>> ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
>>> This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an
>>> important nuance.  These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from
>>> simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them
>>> get wha

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[James Alexander]

  On 10/7/2010 1:20 AM, MuZemike wrote:
> I'm just saying that I know instances in which focus groups sometimes
> don't accomplish what they're set to do. Apparently, Apple has gone
> against this concept of doing focus groups to make decisions so they can
> keep moving forward with various products (citation needed). Coca-Cola
> did the same thing when they rolled out "New Coke" in 1985 to disastrous
> results. Time Warner/JVC professed their usage of focus groups in their
> trailer of the video game "Rise of the Robots" as shown here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zafl_68PfOo . That game is one of the
> worst fighting games of all time, failing on many levels.
>
> That is why I am very wary and cautious about focus groups, as they tend
> to blindly serve their clientele instead of giving actual feedback on
> whatever their assessing.
>
> -MuZemike
This is totally understandable, especially on the basis of 1 focus 
group. The one thing that is nice is that a lot of the data that we got 
from the focus group matched up with the data from the donor survey 
which helps validate it some. But again the real important data is 
actual concrete testing data that we've both gotten and will be getting 
a lot more of over the next month. It is THAT data that will really 
inform us on what messages, landing pages, design etc work the best.

James

--
James Alexander
Associate Community Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
jalexan...@wikimedia.org
+1-415-839-6885 x6716


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Brian J Mingus]

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Deniz Gultekin wrote:

> Wikipedians and Jedi-themed special effects?! *gets popcorn*
>
> But yes, I agree, it'd be fantastic to have even more high quality
> videos of editors *and* readers, with or without lightsabers.
>
> On 10/6/10 6:05 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Casey Brown
>  wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Carcharoth
>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Maybe a video
> >>> clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a
> >>> very short time?
> >>>
> >> Haha, like<
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/24/four-videos-of-wikipedias-volunteers/
> >
> >> ? ;-)
> >>
> > Something like that yes, but even better, and with Jedi special effects!
> :-)
> >
> > Carcharoth
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Deniz Gültekin
> Community Associate
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge
> http://donate.wikimedia.org/
>
>
I would like to add to this that I think the key factor is the personal
appeal. You should definitely pick a random Wikimedian and give them a high
falutin message akin to the one in Jimmy's appeal and see how it stacks up.
Chances are it's going to work very well. After all, people don't know who
Jimmy Wales is, and yet his appeal causes them to donate. That boils it down
to the personal nature of the appeal and the content of the message.

If this turns out to be correct you should, pronto, start making LOTS of
these.

- Brian
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Anthony]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:20 AM, MuZemike  wrote:
> Apparently, Apple has gone
> against this concept of doing focus groups to make decisions so they can
> keep moving forward with various products (citation needed).

"On November 8, the Wikimedia Foundation will re-introduce banner ads.
 And you'll see why 2010 won't be like ''2010''."  (Cue shot of Erik
Möller staring at a monolith, which suddenly displays the
language-specific version of
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Support_Wikipedia on it.)

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Erik Moeller]

2010/10/7 Anthony :
> "On November 8, the Wikimedia Foundation will re-introduce banner ads.
>  And you'll see why 2010 won't be like ''2010''."  (Cue shot of Erik
> Möller staring at a monolith, which suddenly displays the
> language-specific version of
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Support_Wikipedia on it.)

All these worlds are yours except Simple English. Attempt no landings there...

-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Deniz Gultekin  wrote:
> MuZemike,
>
> Bad feelings? We're learning more about our donors to maximize the
> fundraising potential of our messages during the two month campaign. We
> have a lofty goal - and a short time period to accomplish it in.

At an intellectual level, I agree with the premise that if an
organisation like WMF wants to raise money through banner ads, and
wants to raise *a lot* of money, it makes sense to engineer that
process: experimenting, collecting data, refining the message,
implementing improvements.

But at a gut reaction level, I find this process distasteful. I don't
know why, exactly. There's this feeling of treating the people who
support WMF as lab rats, working out which experimental conditions are
ideal for extracting maximum dollar per eyeball. And the inherent
irony in an idea like "donors respond well to authenticity, so we
carefully concocted a message full of maximum authenticity..."

It's something like intellectually being ok with eating meat, but not
wanting to observe the process of butchery.

Just posting to back anyone else up who feels a bit uncomfortable with
seeing this kind of report, and the thinking implied behind it.

Steve

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Liam Wyatt]

On 18/11/2010, at 7:14, Steve Bennett  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Deniz Gultekin  
> wrote:
>> MuZemike,
>> 
>> Bad feelings? We're learning more about our donors to maximize the
>> fundraising potential of our messages during the two month campaign. We
>> have a lofty goal - and a short time period to accomplish it in.
> 
> At an intellectual level, I agree with the premise that if an
> organisation like WMF wants to raise money through banner ads, and
> wants to raise *a lot* of money, it makes sense to engineer that
> process: experimenting, collecting data, refining the message,
> implementing improvements.
> 
> But at a gut reaction level, I find this process distasteful. I don't
> know why, exactly. There's this feeling of treating the people who
> support WMF as lab rats, working out which experimental conditions are
> ideal for extracting maximum dollar per eyeball. And the inherent
> irony in an idea like "donors respond well to authenticity, so we
> carefully concocted a message full of maximum authenticity..."
> 
> It's something like intellectually being ok with eating meat, but not
> wanting to observe the process of butchery.
> 
> Just posting to back anyone else up who feels a bit uncomfortable with
> seeing this kind of report, and the thinking implied behind it.
> 
> Steve
> 
I see what you mean/where you're coming from but I would like to raise 
something to contest your saying that it is about "extracting maximum dollars 
per eyeball".
Have a looks at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics
And specifically the tabs for "number of donors" and "average donation" (the 
current year are they dark red lines). You will see that this year is vastly 
more successful in terms of number of people participating in the fundraiser - 
and in this sense it could be seen as either successful or exploitative 
depending on one's point of view. However, you can also see the that average 
amount being donated per person is either stable or has actually decreased 
relative to previous years. This is not by chance and is a fundraising campaign 
design decision to try to maximize participation in the fundraiser and not 
merely get as much money as possible. I think this is a very interesting 
statistic as it validates the decision of the WMF to move away from looking to 
attract major donors - it ultimately means the wikimedia movement is more 
accountable to individual donors who give at the level of $20 than the rich 
few. This is "carefully concocted", as you rightly say, but done so in a way 
that is true to ourselves IMO.


-Liam
Wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata 
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Steve Bennett]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> Have a looks at 
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics
> And specifically the tabs for "number of donors" and "average donation" (the 
> current year are they dark red lines). You will see that this year is vastly 
> more successful in terms of number of people participating in the fundraiser

Very interesting, thanks for posting that.

Maybe what I'm also feeling here is an uneasiness I get whenever
someone (particularly corporations) take credit for "raising money" or
being "good fundraisers". Credit should always go to the people who
pay the money. According to those graphs, each day more than 10,000
people have made a donation, averaging close to $30. That's amazing.

Steve

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l