[Foundation-l] some worries about fundraiser and editor appeals boycotting it

[Arlen Beiler]

After all, a person probably isn't going to donate ten times just because
ten different people appealed for funds.

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Peter Coombe <thewub.wiki at googlemail.com>wrote:

> I believe that the plan is to bring in the "thermometer" showing how
> close we are to our target in the later stages of the fundraiser. As
> you say, hopefully that will boost donations again.
>
> At the moment we seem to be doing fine. The personal appeal has proved
> itself extremely powerful, I think the only reason the Jimbo appeal
> came so late last year was that no one realised just how effective it
> could be. It's only natural that response will decrease over time, so
> that's why there are a variety of messages being trialled to keep up
> interest.
>
> Pete / the wub
>
>
> On 7 December 2010 15:00, Olaf Simons <olaf.simons at pierre-marteau.com>
> wrote:
> > One of the problems is probably the rhythm of the fundraiser. Jimbo
> stepped in
> > as he would normally do several weeks later. One would till then see the
> bar
> > running up to the number WMF was trying to reach - and may be decide to
> actually
> > make WMF reach its target.
> >
> > The present campaign is extremely personalised and it has cancelled the
> "what we
> > need / and what we have" question. The reactions on the present campaign
> are as
> > personal reaching from satire to the odd individual (as now seen) trying
> to
> > bring his own person into the game.
> >
> > Olaf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>