I don't know, in Australia you can get a cup of International Roast for $3, but I don't know that that would motivate a programmer, other than perhaps as a threat.
Cheers, Craig
On 20 December 2014 at 05:00, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
It's now "If everyone reading this right now gives £3, our fundraiser will be done within an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of coffee is all we need."
So I suppose the take-home message is that WMF fundraising has high estimates of what a coffee costs, rather than their programmers having expensive tastes ;-)
(In all seriousness: I generally agree with Liam's concerns, but I'd also like to note that the banners running on mobile are much more discreet, though are just as eye-catching. Well done to whoever thought of those.)
Andrew.
On 19 December 2014 at 08:44, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Two weeks ago I emailed the fundraising team with the following note,
quietly and discretely pointing out an error in their messaging. Sadly I haven't had a reply and I think that in the UK they are still using the £3 buys a coffee for a programmer line:
Aside from the incidental nature of the appeal, £3 and $3 are very
different sums of money. When I saw $3 I thought that was an expensive way to buy coffees and that the WMF should invest in a kettle and some mugs. But £3 for a coffee, now that just looks wasteful, even to someone living in an expensive part of London. I dread to think what it looks like to someone living in other parts of England, let alone cheaper parts of the world. "£3 gets coffee and biscuits for a potential wikipedian coming to a training session", that I could defend.
There's also the honesty/credibility factor. I doubt I am the only
person seeing different versions of these ads including different currencies, if the sums are this far apart the suspicion has to be that none of the figures are to be trusted. Not a great help to our program of improving Wikipedia quality and getting such details right in our articles.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no
government
funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us
forget
fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia.
We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please
consider
making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia <
http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=...
.
http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=...
Thank you, Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Founder
PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia
running.
Your contribution counts! *DONATE NOW »* <
http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=...
"our final email"? This is the last email reminder you'll receive"? Surely that should be qualified with "... this year."?? If that weren't embarrassing, what about...
- Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at
the
same time in the heading.
- Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if "ALL past
donors simply gave AGAIN today" [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need
to do
any more fundraising "for the rest of the year", i.e. for 2 weeks!!
- On the one had it says "we'll never run ads" but in the sentence
immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay "ad-free another year".
- Does the phrase "Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep
Wikipedia running" mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate,
which is
enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who
have
donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other
99% of
donors didn't donate enough)?
- Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a
"thank you for donating" email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should
note
that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and mission-oriented].
*Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles is "*minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis
is
original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising
team to
mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I contest
that
"less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency.
I am sure that these desperate fundraising emails/banners are
*efficient *at
getting the most amount of money as fast as possible (they have been
honed
with excellent A/B testing), but, they achieve this by sacrificing the
core
WMF fundraising principle of being *minimally disruptive. *In fact,
they
actually appear to be following a principle of being "as *maximally
*disruptive
as they can get away with, for as short a time as required".
Can the WMF to say how "minimal disruption" and "effective
fundraising" is
defined in practice, and how they are measured?
*Shareable vs Desperate* On the same day that the WMF communications team release this
inspiring and
positive "year in review" video <
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/17/wikipedias-first-ever-annual-video-ref...
,
this fundraising email sounds negative and desperate. It is all about
not
advertising and staying online for another year.
Couldn't the "year in review" video have been used in the fundraising
to tell a positive story about all we have achieved this year? That's
the
kind of thing Wikimedians will want to share and feel proud about, not something that almost bullies you to donate out of a sense of moral-obligation.
*Fundraising "operating principles"* I would like to reiterate my call to see us develop some practical "operating principles" for fundraising that would give some real-world guidelines for website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees member
Phoebe
has done an excellent job of summarising the fundraising conversations
on
this list from the last few weeks here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_principles I would like the Board to ask the Fundraising team (once this
fundraiser is
finished) to develop these operating principles in a collaborative
process
with interested community members. This is in the hope that in the
future,
the community can help spread the word and feel empowered to join the fundraising campaign for our movement, rather than simply hoping it will go away as quickly as possible.
After all, the final official WMF fundraising principle is: "Maximal participation: Consistent with the principles of empowerment underlying Wikimedia’s success, we should empower individuals and
groups
world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging, public outreach, and other activities that drive the success of Wikimedia’s fundraising efforts"
-Liam p.s. by the way, has anyone from the WMF talked the Russian community
yet
about why they aren't allowed to donate? _______________________________________________ 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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Message: 4 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:12:41 -0500 From: MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Message-ID: D0B8D003.463EC%z@mzmcbride.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Liam Wyatt wrote:
*Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles is "*minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis
is
original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising
team
to mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I
contest
that "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency.
Thanks for this e-mail. I agree with you that these donation
solicitation
e-mails are terrible and unbecoming.
In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem to have been designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding principles would typically be fine, but the fundraising team needs much stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a Wikimedia Foundation
Board
of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated misbehavior
on
the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how big and obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard
maximums.
The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include
calling
Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris a "Wikipedia programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and
misleading
suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online.
The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a
generous
$3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_ that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for
money
again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today.
MZMcBride
Message: 5 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:21:31 +0000 From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Message-ID: CAJ0tu1GosObr6texiO5U+GpB2kZsxqQ1N8ykkmsA1aLPOF2mww@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down.
+1
And we're not talking about semantic arguments, we're seeing blatant
falsehoods.
- d.
Message: 6 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:59:50 +1000 From: Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Message-ID: CAHF+k3-6xezDZ+Q5O45-KNeEfd7O-92aeUzd83AHun30LdS4Kw@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 19 December 2014 at 10:12, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers
in
an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include
calling
Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris
a
"Wikipedia programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and
misleading
suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online.
The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a
generous
$3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six
_years_
that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for
money
again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today.
Please add my name to the list of people who are troubled by what's been said and done in the latest round of fundraising.
I think that most of us, even if we feel some distaste for begging for money, realise the importance and necessity of engaging in fundraising. The fact that we're asking for money is not the problem. The problem is that in order to maximise the amount of revenue gained, the Fundraising team has engaged in a misleading scare campaign. In the short term,
that
means that a few more dollars will flow into the Foundation's coffers,
but
in the long term it just damages the brand and the entire movement.
It is very disappointing that the responses from the WMF to these
entirely
reasonable concerns so far have been either:
a) Silence b) Completely ignoring the point ("The fundraiser has been very
successful
because we've received more money, and those who are not aware that
they've
been mislead are not upset!") c) Semantic word games ("Well, in a technical sense what we've said is
not
a lie, depending on how you look at it")
The solution that I'd like to see for next time is less focus on A/B testing that has its sole purpose of maximising the amount of revenue raised, and more of a view to alternative ways to raise money. Imagine
a
world in which we gave our readers a positive message that we already
had
enough money to keep the lights on thanks very much, but needed more to build cool new tools, improve the quality of the project content, and implement more innovative projects to meet our movement's goals.
Regards, Craig Franklin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 129, Issue 85
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe