I have no doubt that the banners work. But in the opinion of a number of commentators here, the banners currently feature a very alarming wording – making it sound as though there is not enough money to keep Wikipedia online for another year without introducing advertising – and yet we know that the Foundation has just reported having its healthiest bank balance ever[1]. The person you quote had no way of knowing that, because the banner doesn't tell people.
It doesn't seem fair. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e3/FINAL_13_14From_KPMG.pdf#page=4 On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in > mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is > otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources, > many demands... and I'd like to keep us as lean as we are :) > > Below is a soundbite I got from many notes I get from our donors, this is > not unusual about this banner: > > *"...banner on wikipedia today motivated me to donate for the first time. > I think the increased size properly conveyed the importance of the > donations to running the site. Previous banners were a bit too polite or > subtle to get me thinking."* > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Ryan Lane <rlan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Lila Tretikov <lila@...> writes: > > > > > > > > This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are > > > thinking about other options. But, as with anything, "every action has > > > equal and opposite reaction". Anything we do, we have to consider the > > > consequences and we will find flaws. > > > > > > Now for the specifics: > > > > > > Yes -- the fundraising team works incredibly hard to optimize and > adjust > > to > > > changes in our environment and to minimize obtrusiveness (there are > > > multiple ways to measure this: total impressions, % conversions, size, > > > parallelizing campaigns, etc.). It is a complex multi-variable > equation. > > > Fundraising uses A/B tests to do much of the optimization, but they > also > > > use surveys, user tests, and sentiment analysis. Some of what you see > is > > > counter-intuitive (even to me, and I have experience with this), but > they > > > work. All of this year's tests showed minimal brand impact even from > the > > > overlay screen. That said, going forward we are considering an unbiased > > 3rd > > > party to do some of this analysis. > > > > > > > I was unaware of these other metrics that fundraising collects. Can you > > share them with us? It would be really great to get information about the > > methodology used, the raw or anonymized data, and the curated > > data/visualizations that's being used to show there's no brand damage. > > > > Anecdotal evidence and social media suggests the opposite of what you're > > saying, so I'm eager to see the evidence that shows nothing's wrong. > > > > - Ryan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
