I think this discussion and the uproar is only in part because of the wordings used, the size of the banners (which are maybe terrible, and I get exhausted from seeing the banner all year round because I have bad luck to be in so many test groups somehow). A big chunk is about the usual: communication. Somehow we seem to be unable to set up a communication workflow where the community feels that they have been involved in the process. That they have been able to contribute ideas, thoughts, improvements.
Life is not all about A/B testing and success rates. Keeping Wikipedia up is not just about getting enough money as quickly as possible. It is much more about growing the community, and involving it - using its strengths and diversity on as many places as possible. And somehow, in the field of fundraiser and everything surrounding that there seems to be a lot to be improved. I don't agree things can't get better. After the Wikipedia Forever drama, things did get better. Communication was improved a lot, and both chapters and individuals were actively involved. Unfortunately, it seems that it has gotten worse since. I would appreciate efforts to improve this again.And that has to be more than just asking suggestions for more A/B testing. It may cost more work in the short run, but I sincerely believe that in the long run, it is worth it: better results, more creativity and less frustration. Best, Lodewijk On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:20 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising > team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and > running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being > concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and > financial health and future. > > Some perspective from my role as a trustee: > One section of our recent board meeting was spent discussing the > fundraising trends that Lila refers to, and thinking about the > longer-term future of fundraising on our projects. These trends > include: on-site page views are dramatically down over the past two > years in the US & Europe, where the majority of our revenue is raised. > At the same time, there are challenges with fundraising in many of the > places where readership is growing. Additionally, of course we want > and need a strong financial basis for the projects over the long-term > -- not only to keep the lights on but also to build better > infrastructure (ranging from current contributor-supporting projects > -- see the recent product survey -- to making the software easier on > new editors). > > And, of course, fundraising is only one small supporting piece of the > overall picture -- so we discussed how shifting patterns in Wikimedia > project consumption, ranging from mobile to Google knowledge graph > type products, might affect our mission long-term. > > Given all this context, in our meeting the board discussed whether we > should try to raise more money now to build our long-term reserves > (which I personally think is wise, given current trends). We also > discussed and deeply appreciate the delicate balance that fundraising > has: yes, we can raise more by running more banners, but at what cost? > I should note that the board didn't set new targets in this meeting. > But we did express our support and thanks for the fundraising team's > efforts, which have been remarkable at making sure that our projects > are funded by a world-wide group of independent readers. > > One side note about the evolution of fundraising in Wikimedia that I > think is worth noting is that the overall length of the fundraiser has > shrunk dramatically in the last 7-8 years -- from a month at 100% in > 2006 to a targeted 2 weeks (or less) today. Individual readers see > many fewer banner impressions now than they used to. > > Personally, I think readers should worry about Wikipedia. We are a > nonprofit that exists because of the labor of volunteers. Our readers > who rely on our work and don't think much about how it gets on their > screens should recognize that what we do isn't guaranteed in > perpetuity -- it all depends on help, support and work from our global > community. If that knowledge motivates people to contribute, > fantastic. If contributing means donating 3$, great. And if it means > becoming an editor: even better. Let's all work towards that. > > -- Phoebe > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Lila - thank you for this thoughtful update. Fundraising trends and data > > are always welcome, particularly where communities can help improve and > > test local messages. > > > > I am also deeply thankful for the smooth work of the fundraising team, > who > > have made great progress over the last few years – in storytelling & > > translation, mobile giving, testing & data analysis. I look forward to > > seeing what we learn this year. > > > > Sam > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > >> All -- we will not have a pop-up banner. > >> > >> I know you want more insight into the trends: we will provide some of > those > >> in our upcoming reports and metrics and we will plan to shift to a > >> quarterly cadence of a more specific metrics report that will include > >> fundraising. > >> > >> Just to cover some basic trends: the last two years have significantly > >> changed our traffic composition. Regionally, we are seeing growth in > >> emerging languages and regions. This is great: people who need the > >> knowledge most, but cannot afford it and often live in countries where > free > >> speech is criminalized are learning about Wikipedia. We need to keep > >> supporting that. In Europe, North America, Australia, etc. we see > Wikipedia > >> becoming a part of the fabric of the internet itself: embedded in web > >> searches, operating systems, and other online resources. This is great > too: > >> people get knowledge wherever they are. Both of those trends however can > >> make it more difficult to raise funds (and sometimes contribute), so we > >> have to make sure we adapt. > >> > >> We are doing a lot of work around thinking through a diversified > >> fundraising strategy. That said, our main tool today are the site > banners. > >> Just to be clear: the pop-up banner had advantages. It tested high with > >> readers, was only shown once to each user and cut the total number of > >> impressions needed by a factor of 7! We did hear your concerns however. > The > >> Fundraising team listened and quickly integrated your feedback. While > our > >> launch banner will be different from last year’s, it will not be a > pop-up, > >> overlay content, or be sticky. As always this starting design will > iterate > >> daily and have parallel tests, so you may see variations at any given > time. > >> > >> Megan Hernandez will send another email with more details about the > process > >> to-date, and how best to communicate with Fundraising during the coming > >> month. > >> > >> And in the spirit of the holidays I'd like to thank the fundraising team > >> for all of their hard work and to all of the volunteers who have helped > >> with the campaigns. > >> > >> ~~~~ Lila > >> > > -- > * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers > <at> gmail.com * > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
