Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads - Wikimedia-l

6 Dec 2020

I agree that praying emojis look like a certain type of religious practice,
a hand gesture that implies certain religions and not others.

I assume the fundraising team would have the good sense not to describe
their campaign as a crusade or a jihad. Even if they had carefully targeted
that emoji to cultures where it was close to common currency, I think it
was inappropriate.

But I'm also concerned at the 98% look away bit. Presumably this was tested
and at least in the short term it raised more funds. The problem may be
longer term, it looked to me the sort of counterproductive message that
normalises not giving rather than normalising giving.

We need to remember the long term impact of our messaging on the people who
are less inclined to give as well as the short term impact on donations. To
me that 98% pitch looked like as much of a mistake as the £5 coffee ad that
fed the overpaid and wasteful meme.

I've seen some marketing from other organisations in the last few months
that has been more along the lines of "We know that money is tighter than
usual for a lot of the people who usually support us, and if you are one of
them we get that you can't give us money this year. But if you find
******** useful, and you are one of those people who is financially OK in
these troubled times, then please make a donation". Most people can
identify with one or other of those groups, and I suspect neither would
think the worse of us for pitching to them in those terms.

Regards

WSC

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 14:24, &lt;wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;
wrote:

...
  Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
         wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
         https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
         wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org

 You can reach the person managing the list at
         wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."

 Today's Topics:

    1. Re: Annoying ads (Chris Gates)
    2. Re: Annoying ads (Gnangarra)

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 Message: 1
 Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 08:57:48 -0500
 From: Chris Gates &lt;vermont(a)vtwp.org&gt;
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads
 Message-ID:
         <CAFOQ7-zYFXcw9f34r+499Ef2Nkf6R=
 c4HM3dvi7+dUitooFM1Q(a)mail.gmail.com&gt;
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.

 Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing the
 first):

 “Hi reader 🙂. Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
 really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of our
 readers don't give; they look the other way 😢. All we ask is $2.75 and
 then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
 scroll away 🙏🙏.“

 It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
 teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
 sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
 money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
 crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
 employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
 evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
 money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.

 Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
 regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
 seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
 Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
 Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
 the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
 that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
 some ad campaign?

 And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
 happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
 go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
 and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
 of getting more donations.

 Regards,
 Vermont

 On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

  Let's try kicking this perennial thead
again.

 This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
 how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
 with a *2 page* advert.
 * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
 title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
 fundraising notices.
 * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
 unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
 non-profit". That's a literally untrue Trumpian political sentence if
 ever I saw one.
 * The 2 pages close with "We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away"
 followed by a single option of a "MAYBE LATER" link (not a 'go away
 forever please' link, and yes, it's really in shouty all caps).

 I might have passed on thinking, gah, not again, but there is a
 further sting in this tale. After working out that there was a "No
 thanks" link back at the start in a font smaller than all the notice
 text, you are faced with a second big red fundraising notice. This one
 has a sad weeping emoji in it, because you are going to "look the
 other way". I guess the idea is to make it feel like you are
 heartlessly walking past a beggar on the street without having the
 humanity to look at them, not sure how else this is supposed to read.
 It closes with the same "humbly" sentence, but this time with two
 emojis that are begging or praying hands. Personally I find being
 prayed at slightly offensive, Wikipedia being a haven of logical
 thought, not a church, but that's probably me being too black hat.

 Isn't it about time the $100,000,000+ a year WMF made a design choice
 to stay classy and avoid multiple full page banners begging the public
 for money like it was about to go bust? It looks desperate because
 there's no other honest way to describe it.

 Stay safe, wear a mask,
 Fae

 On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 12:58, WereSpielChequers
 &lt;werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

 Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
 cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the  WMF
 > was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a  few
   months.
At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.

 In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess.  But
 > the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
 > their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have  kept
  > their jobs. or got new ones and those who
were right to be worried.
 > Hopefully some of those who come through this financially OK will be  in a
  > position to donate.
 >
 > WSC
 >
 > On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:25, &lt;wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;
 > wrote:
 > 

 ------------------------------