Fundraising 2010/Messages
| Fundraising 2010 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Message, Testing & Strategy | ||
| Get Involved | ||
| Communications & Announcements | ||
| ||
Proposed messages for the 2010 fundraising. You can write your proposal in English or in your language (they will be translated into English).
- Donor comments
- Fundraising 2009/Alternative banners
- Fundraising 2010/Messages/Testimonials from donation log (edited)
Principles:
- First, the banners we use will represent who we are as a community and what our core values and principles are.
- Second, we will test early and test often. The banners that are used will be the most optimized ones that we can use.
- Third, collaboration is at the center of this campaign: banners will be discussed publicly, ideas will be taken from anyone who has a great one, they'll be tested, localized by communities, and all of the data that we use will be publicly available for local communities to analyze.
Template usage:
{{Banner-test-2010
| content =
| proposed by =
| on scope =
| tested =
| income =
| discarded =
| translation =
}}
Persuasive
Notes:
- wordy.... and is the threat response really the way we want to go? Philippe (WMF) 20:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- The if...then is not very conclusional, and the tone... Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
note: These are actually really funny, although perhaps unintentionally. The idea of wikipedia 'falling over' is hilarious to me, a cute personification of a very large project. It would need to fit on 2 lines, though, and could possibly use some editing for tightness. Ocaasi 05:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
note: Asking people to read a lot here. Agree, needs tightening. Rhandler (WMF)
- sorry, I think this more confusing than anything else.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Cute and funny idea of falling over (tripping over) but also could be construed as something getting really old, slow and dying. Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Notes: I like this one. It feels like a gentle reminder, but still has a call to action. Philippe (WMF) 20:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Notes: Is "We" vs "You" a message that we like? Philippe (WMF) 20:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe instead it could say: Wikipedia is there for you every day. Be there for Wikipedia today. Ocaasi 05:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I presume you mean that it would substitute the local site name? As in, "Wikibooks is there for you every day..."? Philippe (WMF) 17:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I figure the majority of funds will come from Wikipedia. But substitutions can be made on any ad. I think they mock-up better without 'Meta' as a placeholder. User:Ocaasi 01:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I presume you mean that it would substitute the local site name? As in, "Wikibooks is there for you every day..."? Philippe (WMF) 17:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
note: You vs. Us not so appealing. Rebecca (WMF)
- The reader's reaction might be: Oh yeah, do I? Forget it. Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Note: Love the first two sentences. "Please consider" is a little too polite and passive. Donate Today seems more to the point. Rhandler (WMF)
- This was used last year.--OsamaK 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Please consider" sounds pretty to me. Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how I feel about this. It kind of makes me feel like only experts are editing, which is intimidating. Maybe discouraging for potential new editors? Megan Hernandez (WMF)
- Well, a lot of us who are certainly not experts expend huge amounts of time fighting vandalism/clerking/finding sources as I do. What I meant to make clear was that there are three ways to give: time, knowledge, money- and any of the three is most appreciated. sonia 01:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I really like the three-way-approach - even though the call for action is a little bit cautious. It would be interesting if that light approach would work (maybe with a synonym for expertise?). Till Mletzko (WMDE) 11:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No need to mention ten years, its the largest encyclopedia EVER. undisputed heavy-weight champion of encyclopedias as far as I'm concerned. Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
note: Love the idea of this one, the "how much is Wikipedia worth to you?" concept. Rebecca (WMF)
- I love it.--OsamaK 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Real world"? :-) But a hint on the size is not such a strange idea.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, it gives a feeling that Wikimedia is at a financial crisis, which is not!--OsamaK 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nice word play, but it has this idea "you pay, you get". Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good one, but translations should use different amounts of money. In the Middle East, I'm sure no coffee costs $5 (~$2-$3 usually).--OsamaK 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- We should consider possible effects of suggesting a specific donation amount. This could potentially result in people donating $5 who might otherwise give more. Megan Hernandez (WMF)
- The problem is a general one, we do not want to tell people how much to give. If we say "give 5$", we may only get so much from a person who would have given also more. If we say "give 100$" this sounds exclusive to many others. Some may not want to give (even if they themselves would give 100$) but find this offensiveley high for poorer people.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
note: This made me smile. Rebecca (WMF)
- Seconded. :-) Mike Peel 21:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe funny for those who know the historical background, but for others... :-) Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like this but it might be a bit US centric. Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
could be misconstrued, funnier when it was "the internet will be closed this Tuesday for maintenance". Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I dont think its funny to even joke about ads, the idea has been thrown around so much I dont think a lot of community member will see the humor in it. Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Made me smile. In a different wording? Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Prob. not, need to check my mail first. Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds creepy. Most males would chose a different site, I am afraid. :-) Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like this one. sonia 03:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like the first sentence, the second one less. Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Confusing: where do I get to if I click? Some people may be curious to look after that "grow", most will be confused and annoyed. Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- So otherwise it would not be...? :-) See above.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
'On landing page: today, xxxxxx people will use Wikipedia and 1 out of every YYYYYY will donate to support our community. You can be one of them.'
Note: This is great, we should play with it a bit, something along the lines of "only 1 in XXXX donate" or "your $__ donation supports bandwidth for XXXX people" --Dgultekin 22:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I really like the "your $____ donation provides bandwidth/access to XXXX people" Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
'On landing page: For all it helps you do, won't you consider making a $5 donation to support Wikipedia?'
- The proper term is "article", not "entry". An entry can be anything, even an edit or an item on a list. Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I love this one, but perhaps we shouldn't set the bar so low at $5 --Dgultekin 20:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure if asking for donations is a question def. not "one important question" and wont you consider donating doesnt seem to have the same importance and urgency conveyed by the "one important question" on the banner. Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Courageous
Notes:
- I'm very fond of this. Philippe (WMF) 20:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like this one aswell. But there has to be some further information in what way we (can) change the world. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Quite emphatic, and provoking the question what actually changes. Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, when I look at donator's comments on German language Wikipedia, there are many of such statements. Maybe not a bad direction.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Ingenious
- It is a little bit contradictious if you ask for money saying simultanously that money is not important.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Such a hint on what the money is needed for - good thing.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like this one, to the point, and a good call to action. Maybe change the wording of the second sentence? --Dgultekin 16:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Notes
- please bear in mind that you do not get any donor information through SMS donation. I personally think it it a good instrument that works pretty good on Facebook but I don´t think of it as an option for a wikipedia.org banner. In Germany, SMS donations work pretty good but we also want to cultivate our donors, therefore we need some donor information which we do not get through SMS donations. Hence, we use that instrument very targeted Till Mletzko (WMDE) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- We might have a dramatically higher rate of donation if every banner had an text-to donate option. I don't know why, technically, donors couldn't give more than $10 through a text, or be directed to the cc/paypal page specifically for donations over a certain amount. 69.142.154.10 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should publicize this option, as it would be much easier and quicker for many people. Even if no information is gathered from SMS donations, money is still earned. I think that this option is viable for a large number of people, and cannot be ignored. If the amount of SMS donations goes up a lot, then we'll know that it is working. fetchcomms☛ 18:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you. It is a wonderful option. In Germany we receive quite a lot donations through sms. You always have to communicate this option: it´s fast, uncomplicated and especially you can promote it offline aswell pretty easy. But as I said, on a popular place like wikipedia.org I would mostly prefer online donations because of information gathering. By the way, the amount of donations are higher in the end if we successfully cultivate the donors.Till Mletzko (WMDE) 07:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Till, I agree that it's incredibly valuable to be capturing donor contact information, which we don't get from SMS donations. Also, if we try to make this a major contribution method, we are potentially lowering donation amounts from people who would donate more than $10. At the moment, that's the only amount we can accept so it seems best to direct people to online donations primarily. Megan Hernandez (WMF)
- I totally agree with you. It is a wonderful option. In Germany we receive quite a lot donations through sms. You always have to communicate this option: it´s fast, uncomplicated and especially you can promote it offline aswell pretty easy. But as I said, on a popular place like wikipedia.org I would mostly prefer online donations because of information gathering. By the way, the amount of donations are higher in the end if we successfully cultivate the donors.Till Mletzko (WMDE) 07:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should publicize this option, as it would be much easier and quicker for many people. Even if no information is gathered from SMS donations, money is still earned. I think that this option is viable for a large number of people, and cannot be ignored. If the amount of SMS donations goes up a lot, then we'll know that it is working. fetchcomms☛ 18:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- We might have a dramatically higher rate of donation if every banner had an text-to donate option. I don't know why, technically, donors couldn't give more than $10 through a text, or be directed to the cc/paypal page specifically for donations over a certain amount. 69.142.154.10 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating
Notes:
- Makes me wonder who "me" is...? Philippe (WMF) 20:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is the thought process readers are supposed to have, and "me" refers to whoever's reading it? --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Inspiring
- I like this one very much. --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Again, our problem with the word "free". Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Notes:
- I like this. Maybe "how much is {{project}} worth to you? Philippe (WMF) 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. This would be one for the testing. the wording "knowledge" vs. "wikipedia". Till Mletzko (WMDE) 14:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
note: I find the activist messaging very compelling here and would be interested in trying something like this. Rebecca (WMF)
- I think it is a little bit too ambitious. I like the activist messaging aswell but I don´t see a revolution coming (now you can throw the stones ;-)) Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not everyone has positive connotations with the word "revolution". Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I am not such a big fan of this peticular Wales phrase. "Knowledge" can mean a lot, but WP (and WM projects) deal only with a little segment of human knowledge.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Basically, a good idea. I fell over the words "rely" and "stranded". And again, this sounds like "you must pay, or otherwise a terrible thing will happen". Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Or possibly "brings that goal closer" or something like that. --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't quote me on the statistics :) --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This sounds as if WP is the place to do so, or that without WM all would be gone. Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Such a hint is not bad. We could emphasize more that our site is the only non commercial site among the top 10.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Beautiful
- Poetic and bold. Maybe remove "That's", and it would be even broader. User:Ocaasi 09:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Possibly a rather tired message, though? Perhaps with some tweaking - "That's one small donation for man, one giant gift to mankind"? Mike Peel 21:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
note: Could be perceived as insensitive to causes that are actually feeding children. Seems like a stretch. Rebecca (WMF)
- That was kind of the idea. It'd be more insensitive if it wasn't true. You really can, and there's something to be said for giving knowledge which is profound. I changed 'feed' to 'give' below to avoid the direct connotation. Probably reads better if you just saw that one first. User:Ocaasi01:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- +1 to Rebecca.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
note: again, wouldn't throw a child in here unnecessarily. But the idea is nice. Providing education to people who might not acquire one otherwise. Rebecca (WMF)
- Oh my. This one is beautiful. sonia 08:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- "... not to have it." Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Funny
- Really cute. User:Ocaasi10:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I could imagine that teachers and librarians will not be fond of this. :-) Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like "your death will make our day", or did I misunderstand something? :-) Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't... --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
note: c.f. Sonia's entry above
- Recommend against this one, on the basis that some Wikimedia partnerships are with libraries. Libraries are more than just a collection of books. ;-) Mike Peel 21:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I love Wikipedia, but I still reserve a special space in my heart for libraries. Megan Hernandez (WMF)
- There are several problems with this, but the reference to WP as an encyclopedia about pop culture and tech stuff - big smile.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Community jokes
For logged-in editors.
- This is by far my favourite banner of those listed here at the time of writing. I realise it's somewhat of an in-joke but actually I think most people that have used Wikipedia enough to wish to donate will have seen the 'citation needed' template and get this joke. On that basis I would support seeing this banner for even non-logged-in users. I also think we could use the meme with additional content. So, for example, if we use quotes from testimonials, we could put [ donation needed ] in superscript after the quote. I do think that may be risky. Obviously when the [ citation needed ] template is used it tends to cast doubt on the information preceding it; would adding [ donation needed ] mean people associate the testimonials with falsehood? What do people think?
- Fantastic idea. :-) This is actually less of an in-joke than you might think. A lot of people now know about [ citation needed ] - it's entered popular culture. It would be fantastic to see how well this one performs. Mike Peel 21:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, this one is fantastic! - but likely limited to those who have edited before. dgultekin 17:09:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some WP do not have that template, by the way.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Does this mean being bold, and undoing your donation? :-/ Mike Peel 21:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This is fantastic. I really like it. sonia 02:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Prone to misinterpretation by those with a dirty mind. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing... ;-) Mike Peel 21:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Somewhat irrelevant, but this is also quite inspirational and encouraging. Not sure what it will do for donations though. sonia 02:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Informative
Notes:
- I love this. It gives some semblance of scope, and a call to action. Philippe (WMF) 20:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like it too. Great feeling. I might shorten it to "1 Entry became 13 million. Donate today." Rebecca (WMF)
- I also like this. Perhaps a variant could be created, with the "protect" line looking forward toward apparently endless potential instead of looking toward how much has been done so far. --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- On my computer the three lines don't fit. Is that an issue for the banners? User:Ocaasi 09:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Noted from the test: it's difficult to explain that the number of entries is cross-project. Philippe (WMF) 21:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps "One entry in one language became 33 millions [entries] in 280 [languages]"? --Nemo 08:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Rather than "Help protect what we’ve created", how about "Help us go even further"? Mike Peel 21:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe the second line should be: You do. (and that would be the link to donate). User:Ocaasi 09:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- 'Online' is probably not the best adjective, it's not clear. What about something moe direct 'Who funds Wikipedia?' 'You do'.--OsamaK 15:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Notes:
- I like this one, as well. Scope again. Philippe (WMF) 20:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think some poeple have issues with 'content'. It's probably the best to aviod it.--OsamaK 14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Notes:
- I rather like this. Throwing the words "non-profit" in front of people is not a bad thing, I think. Philippe (WMF) 21:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. But do people understand what "serves" means here?Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Celebrity/Testimonials
Notes: This one is fantastic --Dgultekin 22:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
'On landing page: How valuable Wikipedia is.'
Serious
Traditional Fundraising Techniques/Merchandise
- Appealing and simple.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Merchandise banners scare me. Maybe they would be really effective and therefore worth all the extra logistical work. To me, it seems like we can still reach mountains of new donors without resorting to giveaways. Megan Hernandez (WMF)
- People give because they like something. A sticker or a similar gift can be nice, but is not the reason with people give. Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Animated
- Love this message. It's like a language vocab. lesson + cultural appreciation all rolled up in a banner. Megan Hernandez (WMF)
Questions/Quizzes
- The reader who is curious what this means might be disappointed and feel lured to somewhere.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
'On landing page: Please chip in $5 for all the times we were able to win you your bets.'
'On landing page: you probably know that Fenway Park is just up from Kenmore Square. But, if you didn't, you could always look it up on Wikipedia.'
- Really like this one. I think it will spark people's curiosity, leading to clicks, leading to donations. Maybe leading to a little learning on the way :) Megan Hernandez (WMF)
Speaking to emotions
- I informally tested this one with a couple friends, and was met with blank stares. They don't think of Wikimedia that way. While this is a fantastic finding for how we educate people, I think it wouldn't work as a banner. Philippe (WMF) 17:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Targeted/Variable Content
- Hm, and that depends on the donated money? Maybe I didn't get it.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- In general, very true for some languages. But these language versions will not benefit (directly) from the donation, although that is suggested.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes... so what? :-) Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
By project
Messages which apply to a project but not other.
Wikimedia Commons
Wiktionary
Wikibooks
Wikinews
Wikiquote
- Barack Obama, naturally; no idea how to attribute him in the banner, though. sonia 20:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikisource
Wikiversity
Wikispecies
Notes:
- I'm slightly concerned that this will turn off some people who don't believe in evolution. Unfortunately, it loses the ingenuity if we take out that bit. Not sure what anyone else thinks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but I'm not sure how far the Foundation would go as this is a hotly debated topic. fetchcomms☛ 23:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Won't these sub-projects be shown the banner selectively? In other words, aren't all of the people who are part of Wikispecies already down with evolution? Ocaasi 03:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- yes, we could target this only to wikispecies... Philippe (WMF) 17:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the Foundation's OK with it, I'm fine, too. Just wondering, as there are some highly regarded scientists who do not believe in evolution, or in all parts of it, etc. fetchcomms☛ 03:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is very USA-centric: in the rest of the developed world (even in Italy, despite the Vatican) nobody cares about "intelligent design" fundamentalists. --Nemo 08:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the Foundation's OK with it, I'm fine, too. Just wondering, as there are some highly regarded scientists who do not believe in evolution, or in all parts of it, etc. fetchcomms☛ 03:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- yes, we could target this only to wikispecies... Philippe (WMF) 17:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Won't these sub-projects be shown the banner selectively? In other words, aren't all of the people who are part of Wikispecies already down with evolution? Ocaasi 03:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
By language
- Please don't translate here messages already present above.
If you feel better writing in your language, please, add your messages here. It will be probably translated into English. You can propose language-specific messages, as well (messages you think would work for the projects in a specific language).
Español
Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
5 sitios más visitados - Megan Hernandez (WMF)
Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
Polish
help us share our.
Proposed by: User:Sp5uhe. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
By ___location
Here you can propose ___location-specific messages that you think would work particularly well in that geography. They can also be non revenue-oriented, so that they will implemented to attract non-financial contributions in case the local financial revenue of the fundraising is not good enough.