On 11/8/06, James Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
One particularly powerful way in which we can increase funds is to see if we can get "matching donation" - that is for every x units, so-and-so promises to donate y, up to a limit. [snip]
I am aware that this may get derided as advertising, but I really don't think it's true - this is merely an extended press release, as it were. I think that a line (in the site notice), saying something like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our [[current fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text ("Your [[continued donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would be appropriate and understated (believe me, I'm British, "understated" is what we /do/).
Sounds like a great idea, if you can get someone to donate the $200,000. It could also be arranged as a "challenge" ("if X people donate $Y in $Z minutes, whoever has pledged to match it"). I find it significant though that you didn't hyperlink "Foo".
Is it advertising? I'd say not at all. In fact, under IRS regulations it would probably be considered a "qualified sponsorship payment", and not an advertisement. But other than the tax implications, and as long as there was an easy way to turn it off, I wouldn't care even it *were* advertising.
Anthony
----------------- Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Nothing in this email is intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -----------------