OK, thanks for the info. I'll be interested to
read a summary of the
campaign when WMF is in a position to create one, which I'm guessing might
be in January or February.
I could ask more questions, but I think that I'd better retreat back into
my digital cave. I have a UI project calling my name!
Thanks for the rapid responses to questions and comments.
Pine
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Joseph Seddon <jseddon(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
More than it represents a feasible concept that
can be significantly
improved upon. Reducing it's footprint, improving the look and feel so
that
it reduces its impact on the page.
With regards to user appeals with photos:
1) They are notoriously difficult to be successful. We spent a whole year
trying to beat Jimmy's face and Brandon was the only one who ever came
close.
2) our banners follow closely trends on the wider web. Donor preferences
at
the moment seem to follow an image-lite experience. We tried last year
reintroducing info graphics or pictures only to remove them again. Its an
area we regularly reassess to see if our readers tastes have changed.
Seddon
On 2 Dec 2016 06:17, "Pine W" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Seddon,
By "And in this instance although the test was successful, we had
decided
that
although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more
important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the
success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye." are you
saying that
you've decided to discontinue the inline fundraising but will use
lessons
learned
from it to design banners?
By the way, I thought that some of the WMF folks on Facebook had a good
idea when they suggested the "I <3 Wikipedia" frames on peoples'
profile
pictures. That brings to mind that in a previous round of fundraising
that
WMF
had banners with Wikimedians' photos and some fundraising messages that
I
believe were written by them. Perhaps you could consider bringing back
a version of that campaign.
I believe that there is some tradeoff in the length of the campaign and
the
boldness of the fundraising, so to a certain
extent I'm reluctantly
willing
to accept bold fundraising if that means that the
campaign ends sooner.
I feel strongly that the campaign should stick to 100% of its stated
target,
not intentionally overshoot the target for purposes of padding the
reserves. When WMF says that its goal is $X, then it should end the
campaign when it has high certainty that it has reached $X. If that
means
that a campaign ends a week early, so much the better.
Thanks,
Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: