I have no doubt that the banners work. But in the opinion of a number of commentators here, the banners currently feature a very alarming wording – making it sound as though there is not enough money to keep Wikipedia online for another year without introducing advertising – and yet we know that the Foundation has just reported having its healthiest bank balance ever[1]. The person you quote had no way of knowing that, because the banner doesn't tell people.
It doesn't seem fair.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e3/FINAL_13_14From_KPMG....
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources, many demands... and I'd like to keep us as lean as we are :)
Below is a soundbite I got from many notes I get from our donors, this is not unusual about this banner:
*"...banner on wikipedia today motivated me to donate for the first time. I think the increased size properly conveyed the importance of the donations to running the site. Previous banners were a bit too polite or subtle to get me thinking."*
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Ryan Lane rlane32@gmail.com wrote:
Lila Tretikov <lila@...> writes:
This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are thinking about other options. But, as with anything, "every action has equal and opposite reaction". Anything we do, we have to consider the consequences and we will find flaws.
Now for the specifics:
Yes -- the fundraising team works incredibly hard to optimize and
adjust
to
changes in our environment and to minimize obtrusiveness (there are multiple ways to measure this: total impressions, % conversions, size, parallelizing campaigns, etc.). It is a complex multi-variable
equation.
Fundraising uses A/B tests to do much of the optimization, but they
also
use surveys, user tests, and sentiment analysis. Some of what you see
is
counter-intuitive (even to me, and I have experience with this), but
they
work. All of this year's tests showed minimal brand impact even from
the
overlay screen. That said, going forward we are considering an unbiased
3rd
party to do some of this analysis.
I was unaware of these other metrics that fundraising collects. Can you share them with us? It would be really great to get information about the methodology used, the raw or anonymized data, and the curated data/visualizations that's being used to show there's no brand damage.
Anecdotal evidence and social media suggests the opposite of what you're saying, so I'm eager to see the evidence that shows nothing's wrong.
- Ryan
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
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