Erik Moeller a écrit:
Many suggestions, that I hope you would put on meta as well.
6) 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" :-)