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]
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Lila Tretikov <lila(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>