On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoeks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our banners > > are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get bigger > > and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is not an > exception. > > However, this year the banners didn't just get bigger, the copy seems to > be > > more fear inducing as well. > > > > Today I had a coworker private message me, worried that Wikipedia was in > > financial trouble. He asked me if the worst happened, would the content > > still be available so that it could be resurrected? I assured him that > > Wikimedia is healthy, has reserves, and successfully reaches the budget > > every year. Basically I said there wasn't much to worry about, because > there > > isn't. > > > > The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the first > > person that's asked me about this. When they find out there's not a real > > problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel > > manipulated. > > > > My coworker told me that he donates generously every year, which is rare > for > > him because he doesn't often donate to charities. He said this year's ads > > are putting him off. He doesn't feel like he should donate. > > > > I understand that efficient banner ads are good, because they reduce the > > number of times people need to see the ad, but it's not great when people > > stop posting funny banner memes and start asking Wikimedia to switch to > an > > advertising model (seriously, do a quick twitter search). > > > > - Ryan Lane > > > > Excuse the cynicism, but maybe automating the message to go out every year > on the first week of December will save you frustration and effort. I know > how this will end. It'll end like last year, and the year before, etc. etc. > Where we conclude, yes, what we did now really cross the line, we have to > tone it down a bit, with thank yous to those concerned, and apologies for > taking it too far. I have no doubt it's exactly the same next year. So > please see the email below I'll automate for the first week of December for > now on. > > Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser as > quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep the > yearly donation drive as short as possible. > > Yet the banners I'm seeing this year leave me troubled about the appearance > and the message presented. For the appearance, it is the size and > obnoxiousness that bothers me. They seem to be designed to annoy the reader > as much as possible. I know they only work when people notice them but do > we really *have* to (select one from list: play audio/ obscure our content > forcing a click through / use animated content / take up the majority of > the screen above the fold). It annoys our users, the people we do it all > for, to no end. Take a look at Twitter, it's not just one or two people. > > Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise to > the fundraising team, because I can't imagine this content hasn't been > written to evoke the maximum amount of alarm. > But it crosses the line towards dishonesty. Yes the WMF can use the > donations, and yes they generally spend it well. But the lights won't go > off next week if You don't donate Now. The servers won't go offline. We're > not on immediate danger. Yet that's what this year's campaign seems to want > the message to be. But don't take my word for it, take a look at the > messages accompanying the donations. People are genuinely worried. They > will be angry if they find out they're being manipulated, and they would be > right. Generally I'm proud of what we do as movement and proud of much of > the way we do it. These banners make me ashamed of the movement I'm part > of. And frustrated that I seem to be unable to change it in the long run, I > think I may have send out a similar email to this one last year. > > For now, two requests. > # could you please stop misleading the reader in our appeal? > # could you please make the banners a little less invasive? So that the > don't obscure content unless dismissed, and so that they take up more than > 50% of the space above the fold. > > I know you work hard for the fundraiser to be successful, and as brief as > possible, but please take in consideration the dangers of damaging our > reputation for openness and honesty, and the impact on our volunteers. > > Kind regards, > > --Martijn > > I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around > 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly > coincidence with this one, that would help. For reference, there was an article in The Register on this a couple of days ago: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/penniless_and_desperate_wikipedia_sits_on_60m_cash/ Slashdot: http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/12/02/1528227/a-mismatch-between-wikimedias-pledge-drive-and-its-cash-on-hand Discussion of the Register article on Jimmy Wales' talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Article_in_the_Register Best, Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
