[Foundation-l] Re: Quick thoughts on fundraising

[Anthere]

Erik Moeller a écrit:

Many suggestions, that I hope you would put on meta as well.


> 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.

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" :-)