On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
However, I think I may not have been clear enough about what I was suggesting. (And I should note, I understand this is an unusual kind of approach, that might not feel very "wiki-like" to many in our community; but if I'm right in my hunch that it would be an *effective* approach, it might merit further consideration.)
I used the term "expert" to refer to two different kinds of efforts, which I think made my point hard to follow. This is what I suggest:
- Hire a service provider that is *expert at learning from a certain
important audience*
- Work with that service provider to properly incentivize and efficiently
garner insights from those who are *expert about Wikimedia values* and how they might apply to the fundraiser.
Speaking for myself, I would hesitate to devote an hour or similar of my time to a feedback session run by the WMF. Partly, because I would want to be compensated for that time; and partly, because I have some skepticism about WMF's ability to run a session that would fully absorb the points I might have to make.
Also speaking for myself, I think it's better that WMF staff do this kind of work themselves wherever possible - what we gain from direct engagement between staff and volunteers is quite significant, in terms of relationships, understanding and building skills - much more important than what we might lose from poor methodology.
Or another way of putting it, I think Seddon is likely to be better at consulting community members on the fundraiser than a market research consultant would be (as well as being cheaper ;) )
Also personally I don't tend to participate in these sessions as I assume everyone knows my often-repeated views on the importance of recurring gifts, payment channels that suit the donor's expectations, and tax-deductibility. ;)
Chris