Hello all, I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too.
Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ]. ==communication re: fundraising season== * develop banner approaches in the off-season [the fundraising team already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too] * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you communicate it to the stakeholders * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [though acknowledged that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week] * Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their jobs" ==message content== * don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.] * don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [note, I'm not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in crisis terms.] * message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is clear/is too American [the latter is a problem esp. with English Wikipedia messaging, I suspect] * comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year] * comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls who get a/b tested * as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating because of above points. ==banner size== * pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus] * sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this point] * banners that obscure content are no good [note, though we agree on the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there] * mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small ==brand image== * current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above content points * harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this] * messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def. worth exploring] * user sentiment analysis is important [possible action point: maybe user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner tests?] * what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners? [note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison. Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm unusual in that way]. ==data== * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than past??/how much is there/should we worry about it? * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [note, we've been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence the shorter fundraiser] ------- Other questions for me: Nemo asks about minutes. I suspect they'll be out in a couple of weeks, and then there will be a week of delay or so as the board approves them. All delays are on the trustee end, not on the secretary's end. Note though that I already summarized probably the most exciting discussion. Andreas asks about the editor survey report. I looked through my papers the last time you asked, and I don't think I have it. I'd send it to you if I did. best, Phoebe _______________________________________________ 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>
