Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
> I forgot that you are not able to edit Meta. Because I was accused of violating the "research policy" by a staff member who admitted some months later that there was no research policy. > I will migrate the relevant > parts of the discussion here to the wiki, since a wiki is a useful place to > break down ideas and refactor solutions; but please feel free to continue > posting thoughts to the list. I appreciate that very much. At this point, I'm far more likely to be taken seriously when I use a pseudonym. Such was the case during the last Board elections, when my recommendations under my name were met with sarcasm and derision, but my questions proposed under a pseudonym were accepted and answered by nearly all the candidates in great detail. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
James, I forgot that you are not able to edit Meta. I will migrate the relevant parts of the discussion here to the wiki, since a wiki is a useful place to break down ideas and refactor solutions; but please feel free to continue posting thoughts to the list. On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 3:25 PM, James Salsman wrote: > > > our contingency allocation (6 months of reserve) has not changed this > year. > > How is that possible? Per > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_Revenue_%26_Expenses_October_2012_-_Actual_vs_Plan.png > the year to date revenue was $150,000 over plan, the year to date > expenses were $1,590,000 under their planned values, but the cash > reserves were still less than six months of expenses. > Fair point. 6 months is the target minimum for 2012-13; up from 5.2 months for 2011-12, but we dropped below that in October. There is an accounting quirk here: the month before the fundraiser starts is always the low-point for the reserves each year; and that low-point depends primarily on how much was raised in the previous fiscal year's fundraiser [given our current sporadic rather than continuous fundraising]. So really we should be setting a target in 2012-13 for the low-point of the reserve in October 2013 [which will be part of the 2013-14 plan]. I'll talk to the treasurer and AuditCom about how to address this in next year's plans. > >> after the July 2012-3 Annual Plan goal was set at $46.1 million, which > >> itself was substantially reduced after the Chief Revenue Office reported > > > > What gave you that idea? It is wrong. > > On the contrary, it is stated clearly at > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#What.27s_the_revenue_target_for_2012-13.2C_and_how_does_it_compare_to_previous_years.3F To be clear: The target was $46.1M, set in the spring, and closely sticking to the projection from 2010; not directly reduced by any recent report by the CRO. Nor was it "reduced again" later in the year - a target of $25M for the fundraiser this month is in line with the total $46.1M target for the year. > I will continue to raise these issues in specific questions Please do. I assume you will also follow related discussions on Meta even if you can't post there, and don't mind my migrating some of your comments there. SJ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
SJ, > presuming to represent others - is not very helpful at all. You can plainly see I am not the only one in this thread with these concerns. By virtue of my being an outsider, I certainly can represent those with whom I am in correspondence without fear of reprisal, and I refuse to be bullied. > our contingency allocation (6 months of reserve) has not changed this year. How is that possible? Per http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_Revenue_%26_Expenses_October_2012_-_Actual_vs_Plan.png the year to date revenue was $150,000 over plan, the year to date expenses were $1,590,000 under their planned values, but the cash reserves were still less than six months of expenses. >> after the July 2012-3 Annual Plan goal was set at $46.1 million, which >> itself was substantially reduced after the Chief Revenue Office reported > > What gave you that idea? It is wrong. On the contrary, it is stated clearly at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#What.27s_the_revenue_target_for_2012-13.2C_and_how_does_it_compare_to_previous_years.3F > I would be interested to see and participate in specific discussions about > future budgets there, on Meta - including the comparative advantages of > accounts-based budgets or line items. > > This is my last response in this thread, however. I will continue to raise these issues in specific questions about budget line items, staffing levels for successful Foundation programs causing substantial community problems, the salary ratio between executive and junior staff, contingency reserve/endowment as well as ub specific questions to Board candidates concerning the statements of staff contrary to their own prior statements and the Foundation's statistical data until these issues are resolved. Sincerely, James Salsman ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 7:07 PM, James Salsman wrote: > donors who expect the Foundation to prepare for contingency James, While your statistical comments were well-informed and helpful, your comments in this thread are less so, and your frustrated approach - while presuming to represent others - is not very helpful at all. As you know, our contingency allocation (6 months of reserve) has not changed this year. As you may not realize (perhaps because of the way fundraising was split up this year), we are still fundraising towards a revenue target of $46.1M as per the annual plan. > > Fundraising targets have been set to match our projected needs for > > the year, for the past few years. > > abandonment of the Strategic Plan You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. While this coming year (midway through) is a good time to revisit the strategic plan and begin iterating on it, our strategy has not changed. And annual plans are not the same as a strategic plan; they are tactical. Trying to pursue all parts of the strategy at the same time may not be the most effective way to realize any of them. I suspect that our core strategy goals will all be furthered by improving the focus (and capacity to focus) of the Foundation. > , after the July 2012-3 Annual Plan goal was set at $46.1 million, > which itself was substantially reduced after the Chief Revenue Officer > reported What gave you that idea? It is wrong. See for instance, page 16 of the aforementioned strategic plan: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/c0/WMF_StrategicPlan2011_spreads.pdf The projected growth rate has hardly been altered in the past years. > > As to your specific concerns, I encourage fleshing them out as part of a > > discussion of next year's budget. You may find a helpful counterpoint to > > your own anxiety in the discussion there, driven by people who feel that > > our current budget is both too high and not directed at our bottlenecks. > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Budget > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#2012-13 > > I have looked through those, and they do not seem to be a traditional > accounts-based budget, or even a discussion of specific budget line > items. Which... I would be interested to see and participate in specific discussions about future budgets there, on Meta - including the comparative advantages of accounts-based budgets or line items. This is my last response in this thread, however. SJ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
Matt, I do not share your perspective, and I want you to understand why. > as a member of the fundraising technology team - that I was shocked, > utterly amazed, and astounded at how successful this years fundraiser was. You met a goal based on a growth rate which had been lowered once in July after a lengthy non-quantitative repoort from your boss about the difficulties you faced which was proven in error time and time again in testing throughout the year, and again after the leadership abandoned much of the Strategic Plan a few months ago. I am only shocked by the brazenness of this apologism for exceeding twice-lowered expectations. > One -- banner impressions were down! Yes the report card says page views > went up; but did you know that when looking at only at the number of HTML > pages served to the top five deskop browsers that they actually went down a > couple percent from the same time last year? See [1] but you'll have to do > the maths yourself Your link to http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportRequests.htmnormalized does not work, but I assume you meant to write http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportRequests.htm normalized by http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm Are you trying to imply that the 21 billion pageviews last month shown on the reportcard, up from 16 billion last December, were the result of so many more mobile requests that banner impressions were down? Frankly, that is absurd because http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportDevices.htm shows 32 billion requests from mobile devices which are clearly not included in the 21 billion on the reportcard graph. > There's a reason the test results page [2] is titled "We need a breakthrough" I note with no amusement whatsoever that http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundraising_2012/We_Need_A_Breakthrough&diff=3741759&oldid=3741756 was renamed on May 12, a day after it already showed showed the result of tests which exceeded the performance of the best banners from last year: "we can feature Jimmy, editors, staff, donors and others and make as much as with our standard money-maker, the Jimmy appeal" -- 11 May 2012 This attempt to try to lower expectations is transparent, and not in a good way. > Three -- let's take a look at the numbers ceteris paribus. I'm going to > assume that fundraising numbers taken straight from [3] can be modeled as > an exponential I am not interested in modeling the fact that fundraising was discontinued just over a week after it was seen to far exceed the Chief Revenue Officer's projections. > it's laudable the board looked at what they a considered reasonable > sustainable growth curve and then held themselves too it. What they considered, or what they were told based on a non-quantitate projection? > it seems that yes people are happy with the current campaign. I most certainly am not. I see no evidence other than to conclude that if the Board declines to hold the leadership accountable for this, then they need to be replaced by the community. Sincerely, James Salsman ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
Donors donate based on perceived value received. End of story. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
James, the Chief Revenue Officer reported that "significant" increases in > fundraising would be very difficult > I cannot speak for what Zack was thinking -- but I can tell you - as a member of the fundraising technology team - that I was shocked, utterly amazed, and astounded at how successful this years fundraiser was. There's a couple of reasons for this. One -- banner impressions were down! Yes the report card says page views went up; but did you know that when looking at only at the number of HTML pages served to the top five deskop browsers that they actually went down a couple percent from the same time last year? See [1] but you'll have to do the maths yourself. This also serves the point that next year we do need to get fundraising working on mobile devices. Two -- The tests that Zack and Megan did in the months up to the official launch showed that our old 'Sad Jimmy' banners were not pulling in anywhere as near as much money as they used to. There's a reason the test results page [2] is titled "We need a breakthrough". We were persistent and lucky and got one. I strongly feel that it was extremely prudent to not gamble on an unknown. Three -- let's take a look at the numbers ceteris paribus. I'm going to assume that fundraising numbers taken straight from [3] can be modeled as an exponential because it'll make a bigger number, I've not normalized my data for the length of the fundraisers (which was 50 days last year), nor accounted for the state of the economy, nor taken out big donations, nor for the loss in number of desktop browsers all of which will reduce the number in actuality. Doing so I get ~50M raised from fundraising this year. As an engineer I was trained to over-engineer to about 20% -- that turns that number into ~40M. As you state, expected revenue from the plan would be 46.1M -- that falls in the middle of my two numbers. If Zack did reduce the expected revenue number it would be because he took a similar back of the hand model and said "look how unrealistic that is -- that's just silly". Which is what I would expect from someone using reasonable judgement. > Why should donors who believed they were giving to fund the Strategic > Plan in line with the growth of the actual utilization of Foundation > services not feel betrayed by this? I could be wrong because I wasn't a member of the foundation last year and didn't read all the banners - but I did donate my 20$ and thought I was helping support the site's programmers and servers. I was not, I recall with some clarity, donating because I'd read the strategic plan and agreed with it. I don't feel betrayed at all. Why should donors who expect the Foundation to prepare for contingency > not feel betrayed by the abandonment of fundraising in the last week > of December, which has over the past several years produced two to > four times as much funding per day than a typical fundraising day? > My opinion would be that - it's laudable the board looked at what they a considered reasonable sustainable growth curve and then held themselves too it. Anything else would be corporate greed. > On one hand, we have anecdotal reports of a handful of opinion pieces > complaining about fundraising. > That's a fair point and I thank you for holding me accountable to my statement. I will inject here, however, that my point was not about current sentiment but about a potential growth of the "vocal minority" causing the majority to think again about donating in the future. In any case I routinely perform the following experiment as a small part of what I consider my job. I search google for 'wikimedia fundraising' and limit the time period to a month. I did so again this evening. In the first 20 twenty results I had 4 positive, 2 negative, and 4 neutral sites. (The other ten were Foundation pages or by foundation employees.) In them, I had a small majority of positive comments, but with some very loud naysayers in the background, the rest were fairly neutral. Your results may vary. Mine do over time -- it seems that yes people are happy with the current campaign. Possibly because we bugged them less? But in the lead up to it my fuzzy memory recalls seeing a lot more negativity. Once again, I simply state we need to be careful with public sentiment -- it's not a resource to squander lightly. ~Matt Walker [1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportRequests.htmnormalized by http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2012/We_Need_A_Breakthrough [3] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics see also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2012/FundStatScraper.py to get the raw numbers ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
SJ, Thank you for your reply: > Fundraising targets have been set to match our projected needs for the > year, for the past few years. Does the very recent abandonment of several aspects of the Strategic Plan, after the July 2012-3 Annual Plan goal was set at $46.1 million, which itself was substantially reduced after the Chief Revenue Officer reported that "significant" increases in fundraising would be very difficult, and without any messaging to donors that those aspects were being abandoned, represent a breach donors' trust? Why should donors who believed they were giving to fund the Strategic Plan in line with the growth of the actual utilization of Foundation services not feel betrayed by this? Why should donors who expect the Foundation to prepare for contingency not feel betrayed by the abandonment of fundraising in the last week of December, which has over the past several years produced two to four times as much funding per day than a typical fundraising day? > As Matt notes, there are many countervailing reasons for us to be moderate > in our requests of readers and donors On one hand, we have anecdotal reports of a handful of opinion pieces complaining about fundraising, but nowhere near the ridicule and outrage across the web from last year's campaign. On the other hand we have actual small donor fundraising amounting to roughly double per day over last year. Which do you think is more representative of actual donor sentiment? > As to your specific concerns, I encourage fleshing them out as part of a > discussion of next year's budget. You may find a helpful counterpoint to > your own anxiety in the discussion there, driven by people who feel that > our current budget is both too high and not directed at our bottlenecks. > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Budget > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#2012-13 I have looked through those, and they do not seem to be a traditional accounts-based budget, or even a discussion of specific budget line items. Which specific items on those pages represents the salary ratio between executive and junior staff? Which represents the Education Program staffing level? Where is the discussion of an endowment that you mentioned? Where is the recent abandonment of much of the Strategic Plan discussed on those pages? Thomas Dalton wrote: > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics > > There is no data on page views on that page... My first message today included a link to http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/pageviews which can also be found by searching various indices for "wikimedia pageviews". ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
Hello James, On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM, James Salsman wrote: > > Are you suggesting the Board has a duty to raise as > > much money as possible? > > No. When actual fundraising far exceeded expectations, it was scaled > back to meet expectations based on the nonquantative predictions of > the Chief Revenue Officer. This assumption is incorrect. Fundraising targets have been set to match our projected needs for the year, for the past few years. We have committed to ending the active banner-driven fundraising once we meet our targets. I'm a strong proponent of an endowment; but to fundraise for one you message for one: you define what long-term support the endowment will guarantee for the coming century, and you solicit contributions directly towards that. As Matt notes, there are many countervailing reasons for us to be moderate in our requests of readers and donors, to ask only for what we need, and to describe precisely each year what we plan to do with donor's help. There are similar reasons related to our own communities to be moderate in how fast we grow staff compared to how fast we grow our global active community. As to your specific concerns, I encourage fleshing them out as part of a discussion of next year's budget. You may find a helpful counterpoint to your own anxiety in the discussion there, driven by people who feel that our current budget is both too high and not directed at our bottlenecks. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Budget http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#2012-13 SJ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
> > It's clear that this year, the fundraiser could easily raise much more > than the revenue goals, thanks to dramatic increases in banner > effectiveness. It probably wouldn't even "cost" that much in terms of annoying readers -- not like ~2 months of 100% banners from previous > years. While true; I've been trawling around the web reading articles about our fundraiser and though the articles have mostly been positive I have read several that are substantially negative. What's even more worrying is the number of comments on all the articles I've read which are starting to have a tone that we're misrepresenting what we're doing, that we're misspending the money, and even more concerning to me, that we already have more than enough money and that we're turning into a glutton. It's hard to find effective and responsible > ways to spend that much donor money, but I guess now is the time to > start thinking more ambitiously about future budgets. I think it might also be time to begin to rethink about how to responsibly fundraise -- we've moved far beyond needing money just for servers which is the message we've left a lot of donors with in previous years. Zack and Megan have made a good start with moving this perception but there's still shaping left to be done. Until we do move it though, because of the sentiment I've been seeing I feel like we should be extra careful -- especially in the arena of raising extra money that we do not already have allocated and approved. ~Matt Walker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
On Dec 21, 2012 5:48 PM, "James Salsman" wrote: > > > Costs don't scale linearly with pageviews. Nor do donations, > > especially when you consider that much of that growth in pageviews now > > comes from the 'Global South' (where people generally have less > > disposable income to donate) and from mobile devices (which we don't > > really fundraise on, although I believe this is something WMF wants to > > work on next year). > > This very reasonable sounding theory is contradicted by measuring the > actual data at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics There is no data on page views on that page... ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
> Costs don't scale linearly with pageviews. Nor do donations, > especially when you consider that much of that growth in pageviews now > comes from the 'Global South' (where people generally have less > disposable income to donate) and from mobile devices (which we don't > really fundraise on, although I believe this is something WMF wants to > work on next year). This very reasonable sounding theory is contradicted by measuring the actual data at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics I have heard so many reasonable sounding theories from Foundation staff who refuse to measure the corresponding data over the past year that I am beginning to wonder whether I should compile them for publication. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
On 21 December 2012 17:00, James Salsman wrote: >> How do you see the fiduciary responsibilities of the board playing into >> fundraising targets? > > The employees of the board share their fiduciary responsibilities. > >> Are you suggesting the Board has a duty to raise as >> much money as possible? > > No. When actual fundraising far exceeded expectations, it was scaled > back to meet expectations based on the nonquantative predictions of > the Chief Revenue Officer. That is questionable behavior to say the > least, and suggests that the current leadership does not want to > continue to grow the organization to reach the full potential of the > current programs. In addition to the pageview growth continuing at > exponential rates, much of the Strategic Plan has been abandoned in a > recent reorganization, while employees other than executives are paid > far less than typical technology workers in San Francisco, and some of > the best performing Foundation efforts, such as the Education Program, > are so woefully understaffed that they continually cause serious > problems for the community. Have you seen how few Education Program > article talk page templates contain the correct date? Meanwhile, the > senior staff's most vaunted projects are behind schedule and lack > meaningful community volunteer participation. The leadership has not > been able or willing to address these issues. > >> I'm also curious why you highlight "deliberately >> slowing fundraising" despite the 32% increase in revenue goals for the >> 12-13 fiscal year. That is an aggressive increase, even if less aggressive >> proportionally than we've seen in prior years. > > If pageviews weren't increasing at double that rate, projects were on > time, and junior staff didn't have to live in high crime area Oakland > hovels, I would be less concerned. > Costs don't scale linearly with pageviews. Nor do donations, especially when you consider that much of that growth in pageviews now comes from the 'Global South' (where people generally have less disposable income to donate) and from mobile devices (which we don't really fundraise on, although I believe this is something WMF wants to work on next year). Peter / the wub (a personal view) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
> How do you see the fiduciary responsibilities of the board playing into > fundraising targets? The employees of the board share their fiduciary responsibilities. > Are you suggesting the Board has a duty to raise as > much money as possible? No. When actual fundraising far exceeded expectations, it was scaled back to meet expectations based on the nonquantative predictions of the Chief Revenue Officer. That is questionable behavior to say the least, and suggests that the current leadership does not want to continue to grow the organization to reach the full potential of the current programs. In addition to the pageview growth continuing at exponential rates, much of the Strategic Plan has been abandoned in a recent reorganization, while employees other than executives are paid far less than typical technology workers in San Francisco, and some of the best performing Foundation efforts, such as the Education Program, are so woefully understaffed that they continually cause serious problems for the community. Have you seen how few Education Program article talk page templates contain the correct date? Meanwhile, the senior staff's most vaunted projects are behind schedule and lack meaningful community volunteer participation. The leadership has not been able or willing to address these issues. > I'm also curious why you highlight "deliberately > slowing fundraising" despite the 32% increase in revenue goals for the > 12-13 fiscal year. That is an aggressive increase, even if less aggressive > proportionally than we've seen in prior years. If pageviews weren't increasing at double that rate, projects were on time, and junior staff didn't have to live in high crime area Oakland hovels, I would be less concerned. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
I think raising a lot more money because its possible to raise a lot more money is a for-profit mentality; the WMF has been actually narrowing its scope, in the understanding that it can't solve all problems or be all things, and it makes a lot of sense to me to raise only what it already knows can be spent on core, planned activity. To David's point, I do believe that it's financially responsible to have a cushion (i.e. a reserve or endowment) - and if the WMF decided to establish a true endowment, and fund-raise for that, you wouldn't hear an objection from me. But otherwise, it would be wrong to raise money purely based on the amount you thought you could raise and without regard to what you plan to responsibly spend. Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Nathan wrote: > Hi James, > > How do you see the fiduciary responsibilities of the board playing into > fundraising targets? Are you suggesting the Board has a duty to raise as > much money as possible? I'm also curious why you highlight "deliberately > slowing fundraising" despite the 32% increase in revenue goals for the > 12-13 fiscal year. That is an aggressive increase, even if less aggressive > proportionally than we've seen in prior years. > It's clear that this year, the fundraiser could easily raise much more than the revenue goals, thanks to dramatic increases in banner effectiveness. It probably wouldn't even "cost" that much in terms of annoying readers -- not like ~2 months of 100% banners from previous years. Given the huge challenges our projects are facing -- at the rate we're growing, we're never going to come close to the vision of "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge -- I do feel a little uncomfortable cutting the fundraiser so short. It's hard to find effective and responsible ways to spend that much donor money, but I guess now is the time to start thinking more ambitiously about future budgets. -Sage ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
Money for reasonable reserves is money you need... On Dec 21, 2012 4:22 PM, "David Gerard" wrote: > On 21 December 2012 16:18, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > > Raising money you don't need would be a gross breach of a charity > trustee's > > fiduciary duties... > > > Citation needed. > > When WMF didn't have a financial buffer, people bitched about it. Now > it's getting one, people are bitching about that. Often the same > people. > > > - d. > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
On 21 December 2012 16:18, Thomas Dalton wrote: > Raising money you don't need would be a gross breach of a charity trustee's > fiduciary duties... Citation needed. When WMF didn't have a financial buffer, people bitched about it. Now it's getting one, people are bitching about that. Often the same people. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
Hi James, How do you see the fiduciary responsibilities of the board playing into fundraising targets? Are you suggesting the Board has a duty to raise as much money as possible? I'm also curious why you highlight "deliberately slowing fundraising" despite the 32% increase in revenue goals for the 12-13 fiscal year. That is an aggressive increase, even if less aggressive proportionally than we've seen in prior years. Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
Raising money you don't need would be a gross breach of a charity trustee's fiduciary duties... On Dec 21, 2012 3:55 PM, "James Salsman" wrote: > Sj, > > I appreciate your kind words because I am somewhat frustrated. > > > thank you for your nuanced statistical comments; something we could use > more of. > > Well, I have two additional questions for you and your colleagues > concerning fiduciary duties relative to the observed growth rates. I'm > not going to go into my issues with the volunteer contributed > messaging not being tested, or whether multivariate testing can or can > not measure donations. My previous message should make my sentiment on > those issues clear. > > This year, after the Chief Revenue Officer claimed that it would be > unlikely to "significantly" exceed last year's fundraising,[1] the > Annual Plan was adjusted to reflect a much slower growth rate in > fundraising.[2] However, page views grew from 16.4 billion last > December to 20.8 billion last month in line with their longstanding > exponential trend,[3] and it became immediately apparent from the > first days of presenting banners to all readers on November 27th that > fundraising was occurring at about double last year's rate.[4] In > spite of that, fundraising was deactivated just over a week later.[4] > Then, on December 14, the fundraiser goal was announced for the first > time as $25 million.[5] And now, apparently, fundraising has been > discontinued for the year.[6] > > Would you and the other members of the Board of Trustees please state > whether, and why or why not, deliberately slowing fundraising while > page views continue to grow at the same exponential rate they have > been over the past several years, is compatible with the fiduciary > duty of the Board and employees? Would you please request comment > concerning whether the community has confidence in this deliberate > slow-down? Thank you. > > Best regards, > James Salsman > > [1] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2012/How_Wikimedia_revenue_grows#So_how_much_more_can_we_raise_in_2012.3F > > [2] > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#What.27s_the_revenue_target_for_2012-13.2C_and_how_does_it_compare_to_previous_years.3F > > [3] http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/pageviews > > [4] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics > > [5] > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-December/123043.html > > [6] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraising_2012&diff=4885494&oldid=4884949 > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] deliberately lowered fundraising growth rate (was: Fundraising updates?)
Sj, I appreciate your kind words because I am somewhat frustrated. > thank you for your nuanced statistical comments; something we could use more > of. Well, I have two additional questions for you and your colleagues concerning fiduciary duties relative to the observed growth rates. I'm not going to go into my issues with the volunteer contributed messaging not being tested, or whether multivariate testing can or can not measure donations. My previous message should make my sentiment on those issues clear. This year, after the Chief Revenue Officer claimed that it would be unlikely to "significantly" exceed last year's fundraising,[1] the Annual Plan was adjusted to reflect a much slower growth rate in fundraising.[2] However, page views grew from 16.4 billion last December to 20.8 billion last month in line with their longstanding exponential trend,[3] and it became immediately apparent from the first days of presenting banners to all readers on November 27th that fundraising was occurring at about double last year's rate.[4] In spite of that, fundraising was deactivated just over a week later.[4] Then, on December 14, the fundraiser goal was announced for the first time as $25 million.[5] And now, apparently, fundraising has been discontinued for the year.[6] Would you and the other members of the Board of Trustees please state whether, and why or why not, deliberately slowing fundraising while page views continue to grow at the same exponential rate they have been over the past several years, is compatible with the fiduciary duty of the Board and employees? Would you please request comment concerning whether the community has confidence in this deliberate slow-down? Thank you. Best regards, James Salsman [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2012/How_Wikimedia_revenue_grows#So_how_much_more_can_we_raise_in_2012.3F [2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#What.27s_the_revenue_target_for_2012-13.2C_and_how_does_it_compare_to_previous_years.3F [3] http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/pageviews [4] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics [5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-December/123043.html [6] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraising_2012&diff=4885494&oldid=4884949 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
