TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just about fullscreen advertising.
I, along with many here, am dismayed that the banners are now at the stage of being fullscreen. However, as others have mentioned, the actual text of the request has been adjusted following a reasonably collaborative process to identify text that is both effective and acceptable to the community. Also, the fundraising team have been placed in the difficult position of being told to raise a LOT more money without being given more methods to do so.[1] Naturally then, there is a point where the existing methods reach their maximum effectiveness, and capacity is stretched to the point where awkward mistakes happen.[2] At this point, I suspect we've reached "peak banner". Rather like "peak oil" - after drilling the same oil reserve for a long time, you have to pump exponentially harder to maintain a steady flow.[2] Furthermore, the harder you pump today, the more difficult it will be tomorrow. I think we've reached that point with the fundraising advertising and emails. We know that the donation amounts are decreasing, but the budget is increasing. There are many suggested reasons for the decreased supply (relevant parables for this include "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" and "the boy who cried wolf"). So it's now time to talk about pumping smarter, not harder. An important part of that shift is the recently-opened (but longtime mooted) discussion about an endowment. I commend Lisa's essay[3] as an excellent start to formulating a long-term plan. There are many important questions that would need to be answered as part of that strategy. People interested in this really ought to read her thoughts on creating a "growing endowment" and the advantages/challenges this would bring. Carefully and consultatively addressing the challenges in creating an endowment would also go a long way towards fixing other related concerns: - Improving the transparency of the WMF strategy and the way decisions are made (see also the discussion about the FDC recommendations[4]) - Having the global community, especially the Chapters which have local fundraising capacity, involved in the fundraising process - rather than being held at arms length. The community should be seen as the fundraiser's biggest asset, not the pageview numbers. - culturally sensitive communication (to avoid things like the email saying "let's end this" being translated into French as the *equivalent* of "I challenge you to a fight to the death") - Integrating the activities of fundraising as "part of the movement" rather than as something that is held/holds itself apart. The WMF donor database, for example, has tens of thousands of people who would be interested in learning to edit. Why have we never tried to create a [privacy-policy-compliant] way of introducing those people to their local communities/chapters to help address the other strategic challenge of "editor recruitment and retention". - Addressing some of the inequities of how money is raised/disseminated across our movement which are based on rules "grandfathered in" from chapter-fundraising rules prior to the "Haifa letter". - movement calendars (to avoid things like this year's fundraising clash with WikiLovesMonuments) Some people say that the fundraising goal is too high. Perhaps, but we also have a long list of fixes-needed and wanted-features. We can't do a lot more with a lot less, although we can certainly increase the efficiency/transparency of how the existing WMF budget is spent! However, with the increased total budget, also comes a increased expectation of results. I think that a lot of my own frustration comes from this - I could probably be supportive of a fullscreen banner IF I felt the results justified it. But, for just one example, as Andrea described today[5], Wikisource has NEVER received any dedicated support despite years of that community begging for it. I've probably written too much now... sorry! -Liam [1] Side note: If you'd like to apply for what is think is probably the hardest (and therefore very important) job in Wikimedia, WMF Fundraising is hiring a community-liaison role: https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/113040?t=26r71l [2] like saying "A year ago, you gave 0.00 € to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free." https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120214 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Yes, I realise the metaphor isn't perfect. Oil is a non-renewable resource while donations are potentially renewable. [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay [4] and thank you Lila for your response on that topic thus far https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-November/079940.html [5] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080150.html wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata On 3 December 2015 at 09:16, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Article in the Washington Post: > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/ > _______________________________________________ > 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>
