Erik Moeller a écrit:
Many suggestions, that I hope you would put on meta as well.
- E-mail - the Dean campaign also used a huge list of email addresses for
fundraising alerts. This of course has to be strictly opt-in, but could have an additional outreach effect.
Warning, sollicitations could have an adverse effect.
Caveat:
We are in the position where the people who *should* support us often don't know who we are. They may only have a vague idea what Wikipedia is based on reading Wikipedia articles from various mirrors and occasionally from our site - they may consider us equivalentto fact-index.com, thefreedictionary.com etc. They may be just as willing to donate to these sites as to us.
Partially, the newsletter was also meant to adress a bit this issue. It cant do it all of course, but it could help with the regular donnors.
The people who are most targeted by any fundraising campaign are unfortunately our regular contributors, because they generate many pageviews. How to solve this dilemma? Ideas:
- Give signed in users a convenient [hide] link for obnoxious fundraising
headers
Some french did this in another way. They changed their css not to see the sitenotice any more ...
One big problem this year is of course that it's a hotly contested US election, so many Americans have given hundreds of dollars already and don't have much money to spare for things like Wikimedia. We should consider this a good thing, because we need to put our donation model to the test properly, and this is a good opportunity to do so.
Hmmmmm. We tried to adress this issue by translating many of the donation pages. I am not sure it is a good idea to consider this a *big* issue, because I am not sure it is a good idea to make it clear that most donations are US ones.
Perhaps Mav could clarify this ?
Oh, and we of course need to still go for the big money in the form of institutional grants and corporate donations. The collaborative volunteer model may not be good enough here - it's fairly meticulous work where it's often a good idea to have one person on the job. Paying someone a couple grand to do this properly may provide huge returns that make our $50K campaign pale in comparison.
Apologies if I've missed previous discussions on these matters - as ever so often, I'm just throwing ideas out there in the hope of contributing to finding better solutions.
A final suggestion that Anthere should like: I believe that after the fundraising campaign, we should do an international poll among Wikimedians to figure out
- why they donated, if they did
- why they didn't donate, if they didn't
- whether they told anyone else about the campaign
etc.
Regards,
Erik
Hmmmmm. I mentionned on fr that Aurevilly has been the first donator of this campaign. Comments I got mentionned that having such an information public was forcing a hierarchy among editors, by insisting on those giving money compared to those not giving.
With such a reaction, I believe such a poll should only be "anonymous" :-)