These objectionable items are all standard advertising practice. No-one should be
surprised. They work because they are targeted at an audience that expects this kind of
crap and responds to it like Pavlovs dogs. If the fundraising team went to marketing
school this is probably how they were programmed.
This does not mean that we have to follow suit.
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of MZMcBride
Sent: 19 December 2014 02:13 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
Liam Wyatt wrote:
*Effectiveness != Efficiency*
One of the official WMF Fundraising principles
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles> is "*minimal
disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis
is original].
I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising
team to mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I
contest that "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as
"shorter fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency.
Thanks for this e-mail. I agree with you that these donation solicitation e-mails are
terrible and unbecoming.
In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem to have been
designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding principles would typically be fine,
but the fundraising team needs much stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated
misbehavior on the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines
aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how big and
obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard maximums.
The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having
the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest solution here, though
it's shocking that this needs to be written down.
The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in an effort to
extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling Sue Gardner the
"Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris a "Wikipedia
programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading suggestions that
continued donations keep the projects online.
The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous
$3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_ that the
projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money again. Contrast with
e-mails and in-site donation advertising that suggest that the lights will go off soon if
readers don't donate today.
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8764 - Release Date: 12/19/14