It's 0415 IST on the West Coast of India, and am just writing to say that I always read the hands-folded symbol as a "namaste": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste It's a kind of a respectful, non-contact greeting, and here we wouldn't take it as religious, more cultural if anything. For other non-contact forms of greetings during Covid times, depending on one's traditions, one could also choose *salaam* or *aadaab *too. In a multi-cultural, multi-religious region (like South Asia), the more the merrier. There are more too: https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/not-just-namaste-here-are-some-other-greeti...
But I don't think computer programmers worldwide are so clued in to subtle nuances on culture and society. In any case, as George Bernard Shaw says: The will to believe creates its own evidence. --Fredericknoronha
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 04:11, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey WSC!
We have used variations on this line for at the last 7 years and the counter-intuitive approach approach has been debated by marketing professionals for much of the last decade.
What you describe is known as social proof and despite it being considered a core tenet in marketing it doesn't work for our fundraising. We have tested and tested and tested every year.
Chris Keating has written his thoughts [1] about why he thinks it doesn't work; was recently explored as part of academic study done in partnership with WMDE; [2] and I have some of noted some of my thoughts on twitter which I'll include here:
The altruistic motives of any donor would often be based on a person's personal experience with a cause or services of a non-profit. The relationship between benefactor and beneficiary is intertwined.
For Wikipedia, those two groups are one and the same. Every donor is a direct benefactor. Degree of separation between benefactor and beneficiary is zero. Their personal experience is that of being a beneficiary, receiving direct and instant benefit.
Personal benefit outweighs the social guilt felt for not supporting something that is conceptually more distant from them. Social guilt is no longer the driver. It's not that social proof doesn't work, its just that for Wikipedia personal context works better.
[1] https://medium.com/@chriskfundraising/why-doesnt-social-proof-work-for-wikip... [2] https://hertieschool-f4e6.kxcdn.com/fileadmin/5_WhoWeAre/1_People_directory/...
On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 10:21 PM WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that praying emojis look like a certain type of religious practice, a hand gesture that implies certain religions and not others.
I assume the fundraising team would have the good sense not to describe their campaign as a crusade or a jihad. Even if they had carefully targeted that emoji to cultures where it was close to common currency, I think it was inappropriate.
But I'm also concerned at the 98% look away bit. Presumably this was tested and at least in the short term it raised more funds. The problem may be longer term, it looked to me the sort of counterproductive message that normalises not giving rather than normalising giving.
We need to remember the long term impact of our messaging on the people who are less inclined to give as well as the short term impact on donations. To me that 98% pitch looked like as much of a mistake as the £5 coffee ad that fed the overpaid and wasteful meme.
I've seen some marketing from other organisations in the last few months that has been more along the lines of "We know that money is tighter than usual for a lot of the people who usually support us, and if you are one of them we get that you can't give us money this year. But if you find ******** useful, and you are one of those people who is financially OK in these troubled times, then please make a donation". Most people can identify with one or other of those groups, and I suspect neither would think the worse of us for pitching to them in those terms.
Regards
WSC
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 14:24, wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: Annoying ads (Chris Gates)
- Re: Annoying ads (Gnangarra)
Message: 1 Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 08:57:48 -0500 From: Chris Gates vermont@vtwp.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads Message-ID: <CAFOQ7-zYFXcw9f34r+499Ef2Nkf6R= c4HM3dvi7+dUitooFM1Q@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing the first):
“Hi reader 🙂. Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of our readers don't give; they look the other way 😢. All we ask is $2.75 and then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't scroll away 🙏🙏.“
It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners, regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have, seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through some ad campaign?
And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes, and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal of getting more donations.
Regards, Vermont
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.
This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced with a *2 page* advert.
- The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue fundraising notices.
- There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a non-profit". That's a literally untrue Trumpian political sentence if ever I saw one.
- The 2 pages close with "We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away"
followed by a single option of a "MAYBE LATER" link (not a 'go away forever please' link, and yes, it's really in shouty all caps).
I might have passed on thinking, gah, not again, but there is a further sting in this tale. After working out that there was a "No thanks" link back at the start in a font smaller than all the notice text, you are faced with a second big red fundraising notice. This one has a sad weeping emoji in it, because you are going to "look the other way". I guess the idea is to make it feel like you are heartlessly walking past a beggar on the street without having the humanity to look at them, not sure how else this is supposed to read. It closes with the same "humbly" sentence, but this time with two emojis that are begging or praying hands. Personally I find being prayed at slightly offensive, Wikipedia being a haven of logical thought, not a church, but that's probably me being too black hat.
Isn't it about time the $100,000,000+ a year WMF made a design choice to stay classy and avoid multiple full page banners begging the public for money like it was about to go bust? It looks desperate because there's no other honest way to describe it.
Stay safe, wear a mask, Fae
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 12:58, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that
the
WMF
was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for
a few
months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.
In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial
mess.
But
the large number of people who are currently going to be worried
about
their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have
kept
their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried. Hopefully some of those who come through this financially OK will be
in a
position to donate.
WSC
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:25, <
wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Seddon
*Senior Community Relations Specialist* *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe