[Wikimedia-l] Fundraising updates?
meta.sj at gmail.com
Mon Dec 17 17:28:48 UTC 2012
> You could also model banner fatigue properly, which could be very useful.
Yes, a detailed model of banner fatigue would be fascinating.
It's certainly something studied by many groups in different contexts;
ideally we'd learn from published analysis, and then see deviations from
the norm in our own context. It's quite likely that the context changes
between donation appeals and other messages; understanding this better
would also help us rotate global sitenotices more effectively.
Zack - thank you for sharing so much detail about the process.
James - thank you for your nuanced statistical comments; something we could
use more of.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:
> Have you considered doing some longer tests? Lasting a week, say. It would
> enable you to do proper multivariate testing, including dependencies
> between variables (which I don't think you have done any real tests of
> yet). It would also let you test time dependence. Eg., does a particular
> message work better in the morning than in the afternoon? (Different types
> of people browse at different times, so it wouldn't surprise me) You could
> also model banner fatigue properly, which could be very useful.
> On Dec 17, 2012 4:28 PM, "Zack Exley" <zexley at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM, James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Zack,
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for your updates:
> > >
> > > > What saved us was taking text from the personal appeals and putting
> > > into
> > > > the banner itself. These banners did very well. These new
> > message-driven
> > > > banners are what made us split the campaign in two -- because we knew
> > we
> > > > were going to develop a lot of new messages and not have time to
> > > translate
> > > > them well....
> > >
> > > As you know I've been saying for years that the variance among the
> > > volunteer-supplied messages, originally submitted in 2009 and hundreds
> > > of which have not yet been tested (as far as I know), was large enough
> > > to suggest that some messages would certainly outperform the
> > > traditional banners and appeals. While it's refreshing to be
> > > validated, as you might imagine I feel like Cassandra much of the time
> > > for reasons that have nothing to do with the underlying mathematical
> > > reasoning involved.
> > >
> > > The last time I heard from you, you said that you intended to test the
> > > untried messaging from 2009 with multivariate analysis. However,
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2012/We_Need_A_Breakthrough
> > > shows only three very small-N multivariate tests, the last of which
> > > was in October, and no recent testing.
> > >
> > > Do you still intend to test the untried volunteer-submitted messages
> > > with multivariate analysis? If so, when? Thank you.
> > >
> > >
> > James -
> > We can only do big multivariate tests for banner click rates. But banner
> > click rates have very little to do with donations in our present context.
> > For example, the new banners have about 30% the click rate of the old
> > but they make about 3 or 4 times as much money.
> > To determine how well a banner message does for donations, we usually
> > a sample size between 500 and 5,000 donations per banner, depending on
> > difference in performance between the banners. That takes from 30 minutes
> > to several hours to collect -- if we're only testing two banners at a
> > Regarding the banners suggested in past years: I've explained this
> > and will repeat: We tested tons of those banners. I think that we tested
> > virtually every different (serious) theme that was suggested. They all
> > BOTH far lower click rates and even lower donation rates -- usually by
> > orders of magnitude. This was also true for the new short slogans that we
> > came up with ourselves on the fundraising team.
> > Now we're pretty clear on why: A short slogan isn't enough to get people
> > over all their questions about why they should support Wikipedia. More
> > was needed. In our marketing-slogan-obsessed culture, the idea that we'd
> > have to present people with a long paragraph was very counterintuitive.
> > didn't think of it on the fundraising team and none of the volunteers who
> > submitted suggestions thought of it either. Several marketing
> > who contacted us with advice even told us to get rid of the appeal on
> > landing page altogether because "people don't read!"
> > As it turns out, Wikipedia users DO like to read -- and want all the
> > before they donate.
> > Where we're at today, just to emphasize my previous point, is that with
> > new banners, changes in messages effect donations totally independently
> > click rate. And we typically need an hour or two -- or five -- to detect
> > even a 10%-%15 percent difference in message performance. That's why
> > not running big multivariate tests with tons of difference banners.
> > You'll be happy to know, though, that we are running multivariate tests
> > when we're able. For example, if we have a tweak to the landing pages
> > we think is fairly independent of the banner effect, then we sometimes
> > a multivariate test. Or if we have a design tweak (like color) that we're
> > confident will always effect click rate in the same direction as
> > then we can combine that with message testing.
> > > Sincerely,
> > > James Salsman
> > >
> > --
> > Zack Exley
> > Chief Revenue Officer
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 415 506 9225
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
More information about the Wikimedia-l