On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ral315
<wiki.ral315(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm completely speculating here, but maybe
the reason we're doing so well
so
far is that, I'd imagine, a significant
portion of our readers are in the
tech sector (at least compared to most non-profits), where job cuts
haven't
yet become as widespread as they are in other
sectors like manufacturing
and
housing. I don't have much for hard
statistics to back up either of
these
claims, so obviously, take them with a grain of
salt.
I would imagine, however, that if my point is true, that future
fundraisers
might not be so lucky, as the tech sector will
probably experience a
similar
decline over the next 18 months.
Then again, everyone hurting might be another reason to donate: "er,
what if Wikipedia is hurting too? ohnoes, I don't want to lose that
too!" We seem to try to evoke that feeling in people by "Wikipedia:
Making Life Easier" and "Wikipedia is there when you need it -- now it
needs you".
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
Perhaps this is just me--if I'm hurting financially, an ad saying
Wikipedia is too might hit home with me, but it probably wouldn't
motivate me to donate. Putting bread on the table and making bill
payments on time is a bit higher priority that helping sustain
Wikipedia. Again, this is just based on the kind of person I am
and pretty much every person I know.
No statistics to support it of course (and no reasonable way to
get it), but it would be interesting to see both the average income
of donors, both as a whole and as a comparison to how much was
donated (remove USD5,000+ donations as they're rare and would
skew the scale).
-Chad