[Foundation-l] Fundraising idea

[Anthony]

On 11/9/06, lars <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> James Forrester wrote:
>
> > One particularly powerful way in which we can increase funds is
> > to see if we can get "matching donation" - that is for every x
> > units, so-and-so promises to donate y, up to a limit.
>
> > [...] I think that a line (in the site notice), saying something
> > like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our
> > [[current fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text
> > ("Your [[continued donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would
>
> First Jimbo's $100 million and now this.  I must warn against
> spending too much time thinking about money.  If you like money,
> do business.  Money is not what brought me here.  Money is an idea
> that infests your brain, and after a while you start to think that
> you cannot do anything if you don't have money.  That is a trap.
> Wikipedia is and should be a monument to how much good can in fact
> be done with almost no money.
>
This a good point, and one the board should think long and hard about.
 I was somewhat disturbed by the fact that "money" received the
largest value under "opportunities" during the SWOT exercise.

That said, I think there is a lot that could be done by the
foundation, if only the foundation had more money.  There are a lot of
improvements that need to be made to the software, for instance, and
they're not getting done under the current programmer budget.  I think
it's important to remember that these goals are what are important,
and money is merely a means to reach them (or reach them faster).

I also think these goals should be spelled out *before* the money is
accepted, and that an organization shouldn't take in a lot more in
donations than is necessary to reach those goals.  I used to think
that a non-profit should run itself like any other business in that
they should try to collect as much money as possible, but upon further
reflection and reading a number of excellent articles on the subject I
think you're right that the two need to be run very differently.
Non-profits should try to minimise their revenue, not maximise it.

> I do not agree that matching donations increase funds.  If someone
> has $200 thousand to spend, let them donate it without waiting for
> a match.  Their donation is added to everybody else's.  That's
> simple addition, not a multiplication.
>
If properly handled people might be motivated to donate more if they
know their donation is going to be matched.  Putting a time deadline
on things can be a real motivator.  Of course, with maximum matches
that are easily reached in the time alloted, it can just as easily be
a de-motivator ("why donate now, they already reached the goal/maximum
match").

> So, why would anybody want to do a matching donation rather than
> just silently submit what they have?  To get their name and
> logotype displayed?  If they want this kind of display, tell them
> to buy advertising from companies that sell advertising space.

But...then Wikimedia doesn't get to spend that money...

> If they want to help Wikipedia, the way to do so is to donate.
> There are lots of people who silently donate.  Why should WMF give
> special treatment to people who want to make this process more
> complicated?  If silent donors don't get this special treatment,
> why should they continue to be silent?

Why should Wikimedia be concerned over whether or not someone is
silent?  I don't have a problem acknowledging *every* contribution.
If every donor wants acknowledgement, then we should give it to them.

Anthony