[Wikimedia-l] fundraising status?

[Zack Exley]

James -

I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier. Your questions are kind of like a legal
deposition at this point. It's too complex and you seem to be trying to
prove some series of points, but I can't figure out what they are.

In the end, it's just too confusing for me to approach. Sorry,

Zack

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:18 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Zack Exley <zexley at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > James -
> >
> > I don't fully understand all your concerns....
>
> > I think you might have tried to contact me via IM. Sorry but I'm too
> distractible, so
> > I limit my IM contacts. Just email me and I will try to respond
> promptly. Probably
> > better to ask me on list though
>
> Zack, is it inaccurate to say that you measured banners on May 11,
> 2012 which outperformed all of the banners used in last year's
> campaign?
>
> And then a day later you renamed the page with those measurements to
> "We Need A Breakthrough" and wrote in some detail about how you
> believed you would not be able to "significantly" outperform last
> year's fundraising?
>
> When the 2012-2013 Annual Plan was drafted, was growth projected at
> not just a slower rate, but less in absolute dollar terms than was
> projected and occurred during the previous year?
>
> Relative to that slowed budget growth, were even more programs from
> the Annual Plan and Strategic Plan cut in the "narrowing focus"
> changes a few months ago, with no wide announcement for community
> consultation and less than two dozen community members providing
> feedback, the vast majority of whom were opposed or strongly opposed
> to the cuts?
>
> Since May 11, have the baseline fundraising messages you were testing
> performed as well or better than the tests of May 11, which
> outperformed all of last year's banners?
>
> And over the past year have pageviews continued to grow at their
> longstanding exponential rate from 16 billion per month to 21 billion
> per month?
>
> Over the past year, have pageviews on non-mobile browsers also
> strictly increased, with mobile page views under 2.7 billion per month
> over the past twelve months?
>
> During the past year has the ratio of the Foundation's top executive
> pay to the pay of junior staff and contractors increased by more than
> 50%?
>
> And during the past year has Foundation employee turnover risen to a
> record high for at least the past five years on a percentage basis?
>
> > Our tradition has always been to raise our budget and then stop asking as
> > close to when we reach that goal as possible.
>
> Has the Foundation ever forgone the most valuable last few days of the
> year, even when the fundraising goal was already met? (As I believe
> has happened at least twice in the past five years when non-web
> donations are considered.)
>
> > "Maximizing" for us means raising our budget
> > with as little negative impact on the projects as possible
>
> Where do you find that meaning or any suggestion of it in the
> unanimous resolution of the board of 9 October 2010?
>
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_fundraising_principles
>
> Has the Board deliberated or voted on any resolution which is
> compatible with the meaning you suggest?
>
> >  (and as much positive impact as possible!).
>
> Given the answers to the questions above, how would you characterize
> your impact this year?
>
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman
>
>
> > On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> James,
> >>
> >> Merry Christmas.
> >>
> >> I feel most of your points have already been addressed.
> >> Two quick comments, that others also asked about:
> >>
> >> * As Zack noted earlier this month, banners are down until the
> end-of-year
> >> push.  This has not changed.  "From December 26 to Dec 31 we'll begin
> >> showing banners again to everyone for a final push to the year end
> goal."
> >>
> >> * I was also confused by the slide on reserves in the November monthly
> >> report, and looked into it.  Let me correct a statement I made
> yesterday:
> >> reserves were projected to be at 6 months of expenses in October, and
> have
> >> stayed above 6.3 months.
> >>
> >> For the first time this year there are two different ways to measure
> >> expenses, thanks to the FDC budget, which allowed the confusion.  For
> >> details, see:
> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#Reserves
> >>
> >> SJ
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:29 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > SJ,
> >> >
> >> > I have been looking for the commitment you mentioned in Board and
> >> > related records, but I can not find it:
> >> >
> >> > > We have committed to ending the active banner-driven fundraising
> once
> >> > > we
> >> > meet our targets.
> >> >
> >> > Does that commitment take precedence over the unanimous resolution of
> >> > the board of 9 October 2010 that Nemo pointed out at
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_fundraising_principles
> >> > which directs the Executive Director to "implement ... 1) Maximizing
> >> > public support: Fundraising activities in the Wikimedia movement
> >> > should generally be directed at achieving the highest possible overall
> >> > financial support for the Wikimedia movement, in terms of both
> >> > financial totals and the number of individuals making
> >> > contributions...."? If so, could you please share the background and
> >> > Board deliberation records pertaining to it? I am concerned that the
> >> > Foundation is bowing to the wishes of op-ed critiques in the press to
> >> > the exclusion of the Board's unanimous resolutions.
> >> >
> >> > Again, I would not be so concerned if it were not for the evidence of
> >> > the deception regarding measured fundraising message effectiveness,
> >> > the nearly two million dollars in missing reserve funds, the sharply
> >> > widening ratio between executive and junior staff pay, the high staff
> >> > turnover, late vital projects, insufficient staff for the Education
> >> > Program, employee dissatisfaction and below par compensation reported
> >> > on Glassdoor.com, lack of a meaningfully wide call for community
> >> > consultation or reasonable numbers of community members commenting on
> >> > the recent "narrowing focus" changes, and lack of telepresence options
> >> > for Wikimania attendees. Many of these issues dwarf the ignominious
> >> > events of the Foundation's past, so I hope you, the other trustees,
> >> > and the Foundation leadership will address all of them swiftly.
> >> >
> >> > Sincerely,
> >> > James Salsman
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529
> 4266
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Zack Exley
> > Chief Revenue Officer
> > Wikimedia Foundation
>



-- 
Zack Exley
Chief Revenue Officer
Wikimedia Foundation