[Wikipl-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Przykuta]

Z listy fundacji

przykuta

> Hi everyone,
> 
> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of  
> the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in  
> the process.  Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010 
>   ) will give you an overview as well.  There's a lot of information  
> here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to  
> read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.
> 
> There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong  
> message.  We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the  
> results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its  
> performance last year and the year before.
> 
> But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up  
> for two months!
> 
> So we're issuing a challenge:  Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.
> 
> Data informed conclusions
> Here's the trick:
> We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.   
> Please read the summaries below for really important details from our  
> focus group and survey of past donors.
> 
> Focus Group
> Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City  
> area in September 2010.  It's important to note that this was a single  
> focus group, and in a single city.  We'll need to do more to make sure  
> that results correlate universally.  But we came out of it with a few  
> important take-away points.  It's important to realize that these  
> points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider  
> feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging  
> points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.
> 
> ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of  
> people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
> For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of  
> people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it  
> free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were  
> highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves  
> users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but  
> they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a  
> user and a donor.
> 
> ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
> Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should  
> be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be  
> approaching them for money more often.  Accepting paid ads could  
> corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.
> 
> ** Independence is critically important.
> These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high  
> premium on the free flow of information.  They have little patience  
> for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.  
> The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates  
> that.
> 
> ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
> This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an  
> important nuance.  These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from  
> simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them  
> get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270  
> languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many  
> people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so  
> successfully built. And that makes it a cause too.
> 
> ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors.
> Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The  
> idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia  
> would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook.  
> It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would  
> happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy.  
> Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same  
> concerns.
> 
> ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia,  
> even when that agenda would extend the current offerings.
> An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that  
> the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic  
> thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would  
> disrupt that.  Community support is one of the key values, and not  
> everyone in the community would support new initiatives.
> 
> ** There is room to fundraise more aggressively.
> Across the board, respondents were surprised that they didn’t have the  
> opportunity to give to Wikimedia more often. Obviously, there is a  
> balance and a PBS-style solicitation schedule wouldn’t make sense both  
> for Wikimedia’s personality and for this audience, but there is much  
> more space available than we are taking.
> 
> ** Wikimedia donors are highly suspicious of marketing gimmicks.
> Simple, direct messages are likely to work best. Jimmy’s message  
> worked not so much because he was the founder, but because it was a  
> simple plea for support delivered authentically.
> 
> As we know, that’s something that also needs quantitative testing to  
> prove. Sometimes donor response in a focus group and donor activity  
> don’t line up exactly.  But, some things already line up with early  
> tests. The more gimmicky the banner, the less likely it is to drive  
> donations even if it increases clicks.
> 
> Reaction to banners like “572 have donated in New York today” also  
> raised concerns about privacy – not a good reaction in an already  
> suspicious audience.  Appeals to “keep us growing” or that highlight a  
> contributor’s work raise earlier concerns about an agenda.
> 
> Donor Survey Highlights
> Wikimedia produced a random sample of 20,000 individuals from the much  
> larger number of individuals, from many countries, contributing less  
> than $1000 between November 1 2009 and June 30 2010. These individuals  
> were invited to participate in a 29 item (but around 70 question)  
> survey. 3760 agreed to participate, and the survey was conducted in  
> August 2010. The participants probably differ from those who declined  
> in ways that are associated with survey answers. Hence the respondents  
> do not represent an entirely representative sample of the < $1000  
> donors.
> 
> The survey participants are committed to Wiki[p/m]edia, visiting it  
> frequently. They say that they are very likely to donate again, and  
> they support all the survey-mentioned reasons for donation. They were  
> not aware of Wikipedia chapters. A majority of respondents did not  
> appear greatly concerned about possible threats to Wikipedia’s identity.
> About 1/3 of these individuals have edited, though not frequently.  
> Those who express more support for Wikimedia as a cause appear more  
> prone to edit. Those who have not contributed in this way say mostly  
> that they haven’t thought about it--suggesting that they haven’t  
> really considered the possibility—or that they don’t have time.  
> Europeans and the highly educated especially stress lack of time.
> 
> Some subgroup differences were found within the sample. The likelihood  
> of writing or editing does vary a bit by subgroup, for example.  
> Overall, however, responses did not vary greatly by subgroup, whether  
> “demographic” (nationality, education, sex) or behavioral (e.g.,  
> degree of on-line activity).
> 
> * The full details of the survey can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf
> * A short overview can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donor_survey_report_excerpts.pdf 
>   .
> 
> Chapters
> Chapters will receive the specifics of how we will work with them  
> through their fundraising contacts which were designated on the  
> fundraising survey, in order to keep the information communicated here  
> to the essentials.
> 
> Testing
> We have been testing for ten weeks now, and are really pleased with  
> the progress that the tech team has made with new tools to support the  
> fundraiser.  Geotargetting appears to work now, and we are currently  
> testing a 1 step versus 2 step donation process.  We will have solid  
> test results this week, we believe.  In all, we believe that we are -  
> technically and message-wise - in a really good position.  We're  
> working out kinks, definitely, but we're working them out before the  
> fundraiser starts, so that we can maximize the dollar-earning  
> potential of every day that we have banners up.
> 
> We need you
>  From the very beginning, Zack charged me with presenting the most  
> collaborative fundraiser yet.  I'm thrilled at the level of  
> involvement from the community, in everything from banner creation to  
> testing structure, to design, to actually sitting on our test  
> fundraisers with us in virtual conferences and being a full  
> participating member of the team.  We're reporting out frequently, and  
> trying very hard to engage with members of the community.  We have  
> dedicated staff who are outreaching to our various language wikis in  
> an attempt to get ever more broad participation.  I strongly encourage  
> you to join in the discussions at the meta pages about the  
> fundraiser:  /http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FR2010.  Your involvement  
> is not just appreciated - it's crucial.
> 
> Thanks for sticking through this email - join us in discussion and  
> help us beat the Jimmy appeal!
> 
> Thanks,
> Philippe
> 
> 
> [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing#Test_six_ 
> :_September_23rd.2C_2010
> ____________________
> Philippe Beaudette	
> Head of Reader Relations
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 
> philippe w wikimedia.org
> 
> Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
> 
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l w lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>