Donations are still coming in, but not at a very high rate. We can probably make the $50K goal, but we should still consider how to make our fundraising campaign more effective.
One as of yet unanswered question is how many subscriptions we will get because of this campaign, which may well play a substantial role in supporting us in the long run. However, from cursory checks, the subscription rate appeared to be fairly low.
I have studied online fundraising campaigns a bit. Here are some quick thoughts. Some of these things can be done right now, some require technical changes.
1) Real-time updates. We now do manual updates within regular intervals, which is good, but real-time updates generate TV-like excitement. Kuro5hin.org raised $35K in a few days using a realtime-updated progress- bar shown on every change. (K5 is much, much smaller than we are, but of course there's the added novelty effect when they did it.) This can be combined with..
2) Immediately visible donation comments, increasing the community feel.
3) Progress-meter and PayPal link must be visible on every page, not just a separate page, i.e. like this:
[==================== ] $50K Last 5 comments Wikipedia rocks! Donate [10 ] [^ EUR] [ via PayPal ] [Go] Keep it coming .. ...
(You are using a non-proportional email font, right?) Note that this example includes all the form elements to make a donation with one click, with a reasonable value prefilled into the entry field. This is essential - click-through forms result in hesitation and second thoughts, and then there is the essential laziness of the web surfing process. Also, people like to click on buttons.
This will take up a fair bit of screen estate, which is annoying, but I consider it necessary. We can still support turning it off via CSS, but for the duration of the campaign, we really need to grab people's attention.
For extra funkiness, one could us something like mod_pubsub: http://www.mod-pubsub.org/ to do actual *real-time* real-time updates, i.e. the bar moves and comments come in even as you stay on one page. This would probably be best reserved for a separate fundraising page, though.
4) Make the form/progressbar available to external sites - if we have real-time updates, we should try to make it reasonably easy to include a graphical bar + donation form elements in your blog, on your personal homepage etc. This way we can get the whole blogosphere involved in the fundraising process.
5) Surprises - to keep the campaign exciting, surprises could be unveiled at certain milestones: articles, images, links, anything. Or maybe a "Meet the Wikimedians" series where different Wikimedia users are introduced every $1000. I'm sure we can come up with lots of ideas.
Effectively, the fundraising camapign itself has to be so interesting that people will want to check it at least once daily, if not multiple times. This worked very well for the Dean campaign where they had an ongoing blog that tied directly into the fundraisers.
6) E-mail - the Dean campaign also used a huge list of email addresses for fundraising alerts. This of course has to be strictly opt-in, but could have an additional outreach effect.
I'm reluctant to propose other mechanisms used by the Dean campaign, such as affiliate donation boxes on user pages, because I don't think we should target the Wikimedia contributor community too much.
--- Caveat:
We are in the position where the people who *should* support us often don't know who we are. They may only have a vague idea what Wikipedia is based on reading Wikipedia articles from various mirrors and occasionally from our site - they may consider us equivalentto fact-index.com, thefreedictionary.com etc. They may be just as willing to donate to these sites as to us.
The people who are most targeted by any fundraising campaign are unfortunately our regular contributors, because they generate many pageviews. How to solve this dilemma? Ideas:
* Give signed in users a convenient [hide] link for obnoxious fundraising headers * Raise awareness of the Wikipedia brand by - more strictly enforcing the GFDL - petitioning Google (first privately, then publicly) to give us better treatment, since we are the original source - creating an official Wikimedia affiliate program for mirrors, which would include some logos etc. to make people more aware that articles are from Wikipedia -- in return, give member sites easier ways to update their database
---
Technical notes:
Real-time stuff of course makes caching harder. However, using Edge Side Includes (ESI), we should be able to mark-up only the relevant part of the page as dynamic, and cache the rest.
Existing code: This Drupal module contains some PHP code on PayPal IPN handling that may be useful: http://drupal.org/project/paypal_framework
- - - - - - - -
Now, one might make an argument that unobtrusive ads are preferable over frequent obtrusive donation campaigns. Right now I have no strong opinion either way, but based on the data available to me, I believe that a high- profile fundraising campaign could be over fairly quickly with high returns.
One big problem this year is of course that it's a hotly contested US election, so many Americans have given hundreds of dollars already and don't have much money to spare for things like Wikimedia. We should consider this a good thing, because we need to put our donation model to the test properly, and this is a good opportunity to do so.
Oh, and we of course need to still go for the big money in the form of institutional grants and corporate donations. The collaborative volunteer model may not be good enough here - it's fairly meticulous work where it's often a good idea to have one person on the job. Paying someone a couple grand to do this properly may provide huge returns that make our $50K campaign pale in comparison.
Apologies if I've missed previous discussions on these matters - as ever so often, I'm just throwing ideas out there in the hope of contributing to finding better solutions.
A final suggestion that Anthere should like: I believe that after the fundraising campaign, we should do an international poll among Wikimedians to figure out - why they donated, if they did - why they didn't donate, if they didn't - whether they told anyone else about the campaign etc.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
[many good things]
With the exception of the idea of paying a grant admin (which is a role I would like to see us try to have done via volunteer time - at least for now - temporary consultant work is OK though), I really can't recall a single thing you suggested that I don't agree with. In fact I would very much so like to see most of it happen.
The real big issue now is that somebody is going to have to code a bot to fetch and parse the PayPal data. A mechanism would also need to be added to the bot whereby Moneybookers and mail donation could be periodically added to the totals via human input (I'm not aware of a read only account access option for Moneybookers and I would never trust full access to any of our accounts to a bot).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
PS - could you add your ideas to [[m:fundraising ideas]]? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_ideas
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Erik Moeller wrote:
Now, one might make an argument that unobtrusive ads are preferable over frequent obtrusive donation campaigns. Right now I have no strong opinion either way, but based on the data available to me, I believe that a high- profile fundraising campaign could be over fairly quickly with high returns.
I can't make any claims to be a representative user, but I personally find these sorts of things *really* annoying. When I'm trying to read an encyclopedia article, I don't want a "give us money!" link at the top, especially one with exclamation marks in it! If it were some sort of big bar thing, that'd be so much the worse, especially since it doesn't go away when I actually *do* give money. Letting me hide them would be nice.
I also think if these things become a regular occurance, you're going to see the donations rate get lower each time. People are wiling to donate rapidly for exceptional circumstances (like the k5 fundraiser, or the first Wikimedia fundraiser), but using them as a normal revenue stream doesn't sound that promising, imo, since it makes it sound like we're perpetually doing "emergency" fundraising, which starts to sound like "crying wolf" after a while.
-Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I can't make any claims to be a representative user, but I personally find these sorts of things *really* annoying. When I'm trying to read an encyclopedia article, I don't want a "give us money!" link at the top, especially one with exclamation marks in it! If it were some sort of big bar thing, that'd be so much the worse, especially since it doesn't go away when I actually *do* give money. Letting me hide them would be nice.
Slashdot allows subscribers to turn off advertisements. Perhaps we could do the same thing except for donation notices? A skyscrapper donation button might work best since it allows the article content to be higher. I still am not gun-ho for such a thing, but I would not oppose it.
I also think if these things become a regular occurance, you're going to see the donations rate get lower each time. People are wiling to donate rapidly for exceptional circumstances (like the k5 fundraiser, or the first Wikimedia fundraiser), but using them as a normal revenue stream doesn't sound that promising, imo, since it makes it sound like we're perpetually doing "emergency" fundraising, which starts to sound like "crying wolf" after a while.
Non-profits very regularly have fund drives and very regularly bring in millions of dollars. The National Public Radio Station in my area brings in over a million dollars from listeners each year and their listenership is much less than our readership. So I don't see any logic in your statement.
This is also *not* emergency funding. We are starting to move away from that and move toward a more regular fund drive cycle (I would like one each quarter in order to more cleanly meet budgetary goals - which will also be tracked by quarter).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I can't make any claims to be a representative user, but I personally find these sorts of things *really* annoying. When I'm trying to read an encyclopedia article, I don't want a "give us money!" link at the top, especially one with exclamation marks in it! If it were some sort of big bar thing, that'd be so much the worse, especially since it doesn't go away when I actually *do* give money. Letting me hide them would be nice.
Slashdot allows subscribers to turn off advertisements. Perhaps we could do the same thing except for donation notices?
I'd rather it let me turn them off regardless of subscription status---if I subscribe it will be a voluntary donation to help Wikimedia because I feel it deserves my money. Trying to annoy me into giving money is irritating, because I'm *already* donating my time to help create this encyclopedia. If I want to donate money as well, or don't want to, that's my business, but it's certainly not money Wikimedia "deserves", given that they're not paying me for my content.
-Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I'd rather it let me turn them off regardless of subscription status---if I subscribe it will be a voluntary donation to help Wikimedia because I feel it deserves my money. Trying to annoy me into giving money is irritating, because I'm *already* donating my time to help create this encyclopedia. If I want to donate money as well, or don't want to, that's my business, but it's certainly not money Wikimedia "deserves", given that they're not paying me for my content.
We recognize voluntary active members as valid and full members of the Wikimedia Foundation. So letting them turn off the notice as well is fine, IMO. It it the *readers* who should pay the great majority of the bills since, as you rightly state, editors already contribute.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Erik Moeller a écrit:
Many suggestions, that I hope you would put on meta as well.
- E-mail - the Dean campaign also used a huge list of email addresses for
fundraising alerts. This of course has to be strictly opt-in, but could have an additional outreach effect.
Warning, sollicitations could have an adverse effect.
Caveat:
We are in the position where the people who *should* support us often don't know who we are. They may only have a vague idea what Wikipedia is based on reading Wikipedia articles from various mirrors and occasionally from our site - they may consider us equivalentto fact-index.com, thefreedictionary.com etc. They may be just as willing to donate to these sites as to us.
Partially, the newsletter was also meant to adress a bit this issue. It cant do it all of course, but it could help with the regular donnors.
The people who are most targeted by any fundraising campaign are unfortunately our regular contributors, because they generate many pageviews. How to solve this dilemma? Ideas:
- Give signed in users a convenient [hide] link for obnoxious fundraising
headers
Some french did this in another way. They changed their css not to see the sitenotice any more ...
One big problem this year is of course that it's a hotly contested US election, so many Americans have given hundreds of dollars already and don't have much money to spare for things like Wikimedia. We should consider this a good thing, because we need to put our donation model to the test properly, and this is a good opportunity to do so.
Hmmmmm. We tried to adress this issue by translating many of the donation pages. I am not sure it is a good idea to consider this a *big* issue, because I am not sure it is a good idea to make it clear that most donations are US ones.
Perhaps Mav could clarify this ?
Oh, and we of course need to still go for the big money in the form of institutional grants and corporate donations. The collaborative volunteer model may not be good enough here - it's fairly meticulous work where it's often a good idea to have one person on the job. Paying someone a couple grand to do this properly may provide huge returns that make our $50K campaign pale in comparison.
Apologies if I've missed previous discussions on these matters - as ever so often, I'm just throwing ideas out there in the hope of contributing to finding better solutions.
A final suggestion that Anthere should like: I believe that after the fundraising campaign, we should do an international poll among Wikimedians to figure out
- why they donated, if they did
- why they didn't donate, if they didn't
- whether they told anyone else about the campaign
etc.
Regards,
Erik
Hmmmmm. I mentionned on fr that Aurevilly has been the first donator of this campaign. Comments I got mentionned that having such an information public was forcing a hierarchy among editors, by insisting on those giving money compared to those not giving.
With such a reaction, I believe such a poll should only be "anonymous" :-)
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hmmmmm. We tried to adress this issue by translating many of the donation pages. I am not sure it is a good idea to consider this a *big* issue, because I am not sure it is a good idea to make it clear that most donations are US ones.
Perhaps Mav could clarify this ?
USD still makes up about 60% of all donations. After the fund drive is over I'll take a look to see what percentage of USD donors actually live in the U.S.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising/breakdown_by_currency
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org