Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Fundraising/2020-21 Fundraising ideas

< Fundraising
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Wittylama (talk | contribs) at 01:06, 17 August 2015 (response 6). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Hi all, please leave ideas here for fundraising improvements. Any ideas for new banner ideas (messaging, layout, etc) are more than welcome! Thank you, MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banner test ideas

  • "Wikipedia doesn't have ads - we're a charity sustained by your donations."

Country/Language specific test ideas

  • A reformulation of User:Nemo bis's suggestion from Talk:Fundraising#Apparent_latest_banners: if you insist on using the 'price of cost of a cup of coffee' slogan, then please change not only the amount you're asking (a coffee doesn't cost the same everywhere) but also the image used. The one used in your banner test screams either "takeaway from starbucks" or "plastic mug with 'sippy' lid". That might work in the USA, but elsewhere it has the feel of "America fast food chain" or "something you give to an infant so they don't spill over themselves" - neither of which is a visual identity you want to associate with the brand... Wittylama (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Process suggestions

Suggestions by Wittylama

A lot of feedback has been given over the years and it is spread over a LOT of pages (like this old one). This is my attempt to distil the items that remain relevant and practical to the current framework of fundraising (banners, emails). Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General longstanding requests

There are a lot of general comments on that page regarding the nature of the fundraiser. However, there are also a lot of specific/practical points that can be implemented. Here's a shortlist of the latter, many of which come from Talk:Fundraising principles:

Wording of the banners/emails

  • Please please please don't use language that threatens advertising if this fundraiser isn't successful. Saying "Wikipedia doesn't have ads - we're a charity sustained by your donations." is quite emotionally different from "keep us online and ad-free for another year" (which was the phrase used in 2014/15). Both are grammatically and legally the same but have a big difference in how they're perceived. It's probable that the more threatening one gets a higher donation-rate, but "threatening ads" and "threatening that we don't have enough money to keep the lights on" are the single biggest pain-points expressed by the community every year. Often, some community members even consider this to be outright lying. It would go a long way to rebuilding trust if these more 'extreme' phrases were avoided since we're the ones who have to defend them when our family/friends ask us if 'wikipedia is going to have ads next year'. Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I’m up for new messaging tests this year. Definitely. I added a section to the top of this page for test suggestions and stuck your line there. WMF is very fortunate to have supportive readers. It really is reader donations that keep us online and ad-free. Long ago, WMF decided to ask for donations, instead of running ads. It is a reason why people need to donate to Wikipedia. There are plenty of free sites on the Internet but they are supported by ads. Reader donations do more than just keep us online and ad-free. In the past year, we have added lines to the message to talk about more parts of the project (costs, programs, and the community volunteers sharing the world’s knowledge.) We aim to find more ways to educate our readers about more parts of the project, in a way that’s also powerful for raising the budget. Other suggestions to try? Will you add them to the top of the page in the test suggestions section? MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be deliberately avoiding the point of my suggestion here... I said "Please please please don't use language that threatens advertising if this fundraiser isn't successful" and elaborated on what this means in both language-terms and principle-terms and your reply focuses on being willing to test different banner messages. Of course you're going to test different banners this year - A/B testing banners is a major component of the fundraising teams' job. My point is about NOT even testing banners that threaten advertising. Wittylama (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, "keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free" is a really, really bad reason to ask readers for more money this year. Because it has in all honesty nothing to do with what you are wanting the money for. You have enough money in the bank right now to pay internet hosting at the current rate until the year 2040. Andreas JN466 10:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't use language that is culturally-specific. I'm referring to the "$2 cup of coffee" banners from last year in particular. I saw these in Europe as "2Euro cup of coffee" even though Euros and US dollars are not the same - and there is a great diversity of the cost of a cuppa across countries. Equally "a cup of coffee" isn't a universal measure of something-that-people-would-buy-daily. Making these kind of culturally-tied statements and then displaying them globally opens you up very quickly to claims of cultural insensitivity and silicon-valley mindset. Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. We work with local volunteers and translators across the world to make the message culturally relevant. One big benefit of spreading out the country campaigns across the year is that we can focus on localizing the content for one specific country/language at a time. That coffee line often comes up while working with translators. In a recent banner test we ran in Japan, we tested the concept of 'one coin price', referring to the 500 yen coin. The concept of the 'one coin price' is commonly used in Japan to refer to a small amount of money. I’m not sure where in Europe you saw the banner, but please do give us some ideas for what would do better where you are located (or for any country you know). I’ve also added an area in the test ideas section above for country/language specific ideas.
Along with messaging and translation variations, we also run localized testing for ask amounts, currency, and payment methods. We are always in need of translators / localization help. If you’re interested in helping out, please see the fundraising translation page or get in touch directly with Jessica Robell.
  • That's pretty neat about the "one coin price" story. If you're genuinely running different banners in different cultures to indicate a culturally appropriate concept for "small amount of money" then it would be super useful to document that somewhere on one page. Furthermore, it would be super-useful to differentiate the item/metaphor based not only on language, but also on country - you're already differentiating the currency based on the country, so changing the metaphor at the same time is technically feasible. Documenting this idea on one place would have two advantages: 1) it would make it easier for you to counter criticism of being culturally insensitive if you can easily demonstrate the dozen different culturally-appropriate metaphors you're working with and A/B testing. 2) It makes for an easy way (and obvious ___location) for you to ask for community assistance in providing culturally-appropriate metaphors for "small amount of money". Wittylama (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be clear about the target fundraising goal so that it's clear when it is reached and how close/far we are to reaching it. Last year there was a "stretch goal" which was not indicated in the published fundraising target (correct me if I'm wrong). This year there is also a "stretch goal" that is not included in the WMF Annual Plan in the "total" column (but rather, separated out as a side-note). If you only publish the formal "fundraising goal" in your communications to the donating public, then when you come to (hopefully) being able to reach the "stretch goal" it looks like your original target was disingenuous. Also, fewer people are going to be feeling keen on donating if they know you've already reached your target and are now donating to the surplus. So... instead of referring to it as a "annual plan target (+ stretch goal)", instead I would recommend calling those combined amounts the "fundraising target" and then mark the annual plan goal as an important milestone within that total goal. It's legally/technically the same thing, but looks more honest :-) See also this highly related comment. Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are working on a fundraising report for the fiscal year where we will include the donation totals for the year. We are absolutely dedicated to being transparent about the funds we raise each year. It is going to be a difficult fundraising year because overall traffic (desktop +mobile combined) is down. We have a plan to reach the annual plan target of $68.2 million and are working toward that goal. The stretch goals could potentially be a discussion we have in the Spring, if we are able to reach the goal early. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you're saying that $68.2M will be the target for the main fundraiser at the end of the year, and the "stretch goal" component will be a separate campaign a few months into 2016? If so, then you're going to have to be suuuuuper clear about why you're now asking for MORE money, having run the largest-ever WMF-fundraiser only 3 months earlier... Further, since it's a "stretch goal" it would be even-more-disengenuous-than-usual if you ran banners that sound desperate, threaten ads next year, imply that 'only just enough people donate' etc etc. Wittylama (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't imply that fundraising is something that has to be endured or that it negatively affects Wikipedia's content. For example, "Please help us forget fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia" (the final sentence of the email campaign last year. This not only reinforces the us/them mentality in the community about how we related to the fundraising department, but this sentence also implies that because of the fundraiser the number of people/activities relating to improving the quality/diversity of content on Wikipedia has been reduced. "let us get back to [it]" means that you're not doing something that you would otherwise be doing - but that is not the case (both because WMF doesn't create the content and because the fundraising team weren't seconded from other departments to run the fundraiser). Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)][reply]
  • Again, we’re open to trying other message suggestions. That specific line has been included and eliminated from fundraising messages over the past of couple years. The line is in no way meant to create any us/them sentiment and is not directed at the volunteer community. The idea here is to ask the reader community to support us to get the fundraiser wrapped up quickly and back to regular, banner-less Wikipedia. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's about getting back to a banner-less Wikipedia, then say that. Creating a false impression in readers' minds that people who'd normally be working on Wikipedia improvements are prevented from doing so because they're tied down with fundraising jobs isn't right. This applies in particular to the thousands of unpaid volunteers who add and check content and fight vandalism every day of the year. They're not prevented from doing that work by your fundraising effort; nor are the funds you collect being collected for their benefit. Andreas JN466 10:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much what Andreas said.... Your response here is like the one above about 'threatening ads'. Rather than addressing the point about using certain types of phrases, you say we should suggest other options. This both avoids the point and reverses the burden of responsibility. What I'm saying is that regardless of what banners you test, please don't write them in a way that implies that the actual work of improving Wikipedia has stopped because of the fundraiser or that the people who are actually doing that work will directly benefit from the money. Yes, the editors benefit in an indirect way - through the WMF's continued existence, software development, and through various kinds of grants - but once we're up to the "final $10M" of the fundraiser then that money will make no discernible difference to the community. Wittylama (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't imply desperation by using words like "just enough" or "survive". These sit somewhere between 'bare-faced lying' and 'stretching the truth for dramatic effect'. The problem that the community (and myself) has with these kinds of phrases is that we have built Wikipedia as a place where people can trust what they read to be neutral, factually accurate, and free of people trying to 'spin' the words. In fact, that sense of trustworthiness of what we say is what gives our brand such power and goodwill (and thereby, willingness to donate in the first place). So, while I understand the value of having a sense-of-urgency in the fundraising message, when we taint that core value of neutrality with hyperbole in our own fundraising messages, the community feels dirty and we're possibly harming the brand in the long run. Phrases like "we survive on..." would be appropriate if income was stagnant and we starting to cut programs, but isn't honest when the budget is growing by a sizeable % year-on-year. It's also a tautology that "just enough people donate each year" because we control the amount that we set as a target, and the length of time we run banners for. There is no way that this phrase wouldn't be true, regardless of the amount we receive.
  • Echoing Wittylama's comments, please be more clear and up-front, both in the banner and in emails to donors, about the actual work you are doing with this money: optimising Wikipedia software, funding chapters, etc. Avoid any phrases that could encourage the false impression that the Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for writing or checking Wikipedia content.
In the 2014/2015 thank you e-mail, donors were told, "Each year, just enough people donate to keep the sum of all human knowledge available for everyone [...] thank you for keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free this year."
In fact, 2014–2015 revenue (projected to be $75.4 million) marked a 43% increase over the year prior, and a fifteenfold increase over revenue in 2007–2008 (see figures here). Paid staff at the Foundation has ballooned from a dozen to several hundred over the same period, with most of the growth focused on the software engineering department, which now has paid professionals doing the sort of work volunteers did for free in the early days.
By no stretch of the imagination can the Wikimedia Foundation be truthfully said to be "surviving", and to have had "just enough people" donating "to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free". Please do not use such wordings again. Andreas JN466 13:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technical/design

  • make the banners more easily dismissible on mobile (...the impossibly-small "x" icon to dismiss). Personally, I've several times pressed the banner-to-donate when I was trying to press the "x" icon. Please increase its size.Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the close button (and all buttons) should be easy for our readers to click on all devices. All fundraising banners are dismissible (either with a close X, close text, or other icon.) We did hear feedback on the “x” icon around the December 2014 campaign and actually did increase the size and added more clickable space around the “x” icon on mobile. If you do encounter problem closing a banner, please report it so we can investigate the issue. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If fullscreen banners (e.g. on mobile) are here to stay, please make them "dismiss once for the whole campaign" and also ensure that it is clear that the content is still underneath/down. During the last campaign I clicked 'back' in my mobile browser the first time because I thought the banner was a whole new page rather than just an overlay. Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the December 2014 campaign, each reader should have seen one large full screen banner on mobile. Unless you changed devices, cleared cookies, or browsed incognito, it was not intentional to show you more than one large mobile banner. Please let us know if this is happening to you and we will follow up individually to look into into the issue.
In the past, we have adjusted the amount of time banners remain hidden from readers (1 week, 2 week, etc.). The amount of time depends on the length of the campaign and also on the feedback we receive. We have heard feedback similar to yours as well as from people who just wanted to close the banner while they were looking something up quickly, but wanted another reminder the next time they visited. We take all feedback into account. (To see a breakdown of reader feedback from the Dec. 2014 campaign, please see our report from the April 2015 metrics meeting on making data driven decisions.) To minimize the disruption from fundraising, we do not run banners for logged in users and we provide instructions on how to disable banners to anyone who does not want to see them. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming the same principle continues, that's great (re. showed once-only). However, you didn't my second point about the visual design of the "larger format" banner for it to remain evident that the content the reader was looking for is still there - just below/underneath the banner. My personal experience last year was that I didn't realise this and clicked "back" in my browser in the mistaken assumption that I'd somehow navigated to the fundraising landing-page rather than to the article I wanted. Wittylama (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make "dismiss once, lasting the whole campaign" a general principle. I think in previous years the dismiss button only counted for that particular banner. I understand that you might have a "final push" banner and want to show it to people who've already dismissed a previous one within the campaign, but if you do that then you'd need to write some kind of acknowledgement of disregarding the previous dismiss into the banner text itself (e.g. "we know you've already seen this request, but we're so close to our goal" or something like that). That way people at least know that you're aware that they dismissed it - as opposed to feeling like the dismiss button doesn't actually work. Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Dec. 2014 campaign, we actually limited the banner impressions for all readers after the first two weeks of the campaign to five impressions per reader (so who had already seen 5 banners would not see any more banners). In the last few days of the year, we increased the impressions for a final push, but we did start the banner with variations of the year/campaign-end message (“Only a few days left,” “We’re almost there,” etc.)
Limiting and disabling banner impressions is something relatively new we’ve created and expanded in just the past couple campaigns. It’s a big improvement in the way we target readers without over exposing them to banners. (Thank you to fundraising tech and thewub for making this possible!) The system has not always worked perfectly 100% of the time. There have been some bugs in the past, but we investigate reports of banners issues and fix any problems as quickly as possible. It is a massive help when people report these issues. Please tell us as soon as possible if you spot a banner not dismissing properly with as much information as you can about the time, ___location, and issue. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely sure if you have understood the 'general principle' that I was talking about, but I'm glad to hear that the infrastructure is more fine-tuned to allow for better "impression limiting". So that's good to know! However, my point remains that I was saying if someone dismisses a banner then it should stay dismissed for the duration of the campaign.Furthermore, if you deliberately chose to override that choice, then you need to make it evident in the banner text that you've chosen to do to that (rather than it being a software bug). Wittylama (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With any significant banner change, we run user tests, A/B tests, and also closely monitor feedback channels to gauge how people react to new changes. We are committed to continuing this research as we come up with new banner ideas to test. (For more on the research performed and feedback channels please see the April 2015 metrics report.)
Banners from the last two years have included variations of a small “reminder tab” either on the side, corner, or top of the page. We received a lot of reader feedback that they meant to donate, but forgot to go back to the banner once they finished reading an article. Again, with these types of banner tests, we will continue performing reader research to ensure new approaches do not harm the reading experience.MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't make them fullscreen or obscure article content. Although I acknowledge that a case has been made for these activities being a justifiable tradeoff between temporary imposition and lessening the fundraiser burden overall. All I can say in that case is for every increase in the imposition of the banners, there should be a commensurate increase in the ability to dismiss them. Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some banners have grown in size over the years, and some have decreased. The first banner impression readers saw in the December 2014 campaign was significantly larger than past years. However, the following banners that readers saw throughout the rest of the month were smaller than banners from past years.
As the budget increases, and our pageviews decrease in critical fundraising countries, the fundraising team must adjust the banners to raise the funds needed. We face a great challenge again in this new year. In the past few years, we’ve seen a decline in desktop readership and a rise in mobile readership. However, the rise of mobile does not completely offset the decline of desktop. The analytics team forecasts that by December 2015, the annual pageview growth rate in the US will be down 27% on desktop, up 25% for mobile, and down 5% for overall pageviews. This poses a great challenge for fundraising as we rely on the support from a wide reader audience to raise the budget. If less people see our banners, we need to make them more effective to raise a higher budget. Last year, we saw that making the banners larger and using urgent messaging significantly improved donation rates. The decline in pageviews is real and we will need to make changes again this year. We want to be open with everyone about the challenges we face. We will always aim to make the banners as educational and financially effective as possible, while striving to minimize disruption of the experience of reading Wikipedia. You can help us do that by making suggestions at the top of this page.
We will continue to include easy ways for readers to close banners. To limit the disruption from the fundraising campaign, we do not run banners to logged in users, all banners include a close button, and we also provide instructions for anyone who requests to not see banners anymore by clicking on this link or creating a user account. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banners frequently load later than the main content, meaning that I've several times unintentionally clicked/tapped on the banner when I was trying to click on a link in the opening few lines of prose. Frustrating, and also breaks some of your tracking stats. (specific technical point, but still.) Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There has been significant work on this issue in the past (thank you to the engineering team for the improvements so far). We realize there’s still room for improvement here and have a phabricator task for this issue. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always wondered whether banners based on related content in the article would have a high effectiveness... By this I mean, using the categories of Wikipedia articles to display a banner that was tested to appeal to people who are interested in articles related to that subject. Just as an example, could we do some kind of 'celebrity endorsement' thing where e.g. an astronaut would appear in banners showing on articles in category:Aerospace or an olympian from <your country> would be shown when you visit articles in category:sport. [This second example has the further criteria of showing to people in a specific IP range as well as looking at articles related to a specific category]. This kind of campaign might also be a good way to ask the community/chapters if they have good contacts with 'famous people who would like to endorse us'. I do note that some serious work would need to be done to address issues of CoI (e.g. you wouldn't want the CEO of a company appearing on the article about their company) or having negative effects (e.g. the aforementioned olympian appearing on articles about doping etc.). I realise that these would have a much higher degree of difficulty to create than a catch-all banner (notably the time commitment to convince these people to participate!), but perhaps it would be worth it if such targeting has a higher clickthrough/donation rate. We have a unique position of having very long-tail content that is very well categorised... So, my guess is that if someone is reading about a niche topic they'd be more likely to respond to a donation-request tailored to that interest. For example, a donation-banner featuring Cory Doctorow, shown to people in Canada, reading articles in category:science fiction; or a banner featuring Guy Kawasaki, shown in the USA, on articles in category:computer industry. Just an idea I'd always wanted to throw out there! Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A simpler-to-achieve version of this idea would do away with the 'celebrity' part, and just tailor the wording of the banner itself to the nature of the article based on the category. So, if someone's reading an article in category:medicine, the banner could reference the fact that access to quality medical information is difficult for many people and WMF/Wikipedia is helping to address that etc. etc. Wittylama (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fundraising team has talked about this quite a lot over the years as well. I actually assumed some sort of article-specific fundraising asks were being made when I first started. It’s really interesting and also really practically challenging for the reasons you mention. Celebrities are challenging for COI, the massive time investment in reaching an agreement, and also in finding a celebrity that appeals to an audience as wide and varied as our reader audience. If you do happen to know someone who could appeal to a wide audience & would be up for a quick test, let’s talk ;)
The category idea is simpler for a quick test, but could also pose great challenges in scalability to optimize for messages for each category. We’ve also thought about using the article name in the banner. For example, “Was the information you found on “article name” useful?” “If you value the information you received from the “article name” article, please consider making a donation.” Even those kinds of messages could be really strange depending on the article (the murder article, for example. There are plenty others.) We could probably find something that works for a quick test, but there are challenges to keep in mind.
Up until now, we’ve stayed focused on finding the message that works best across all readers. It makes sense (especially with the size of our team) to start with 10% gains on the overall reader population before trying for lots of 10% gains across many categories. But I’m also up for a quick test. I can look into how difficult it would be to target a banner to a particular category. (Since we don’t currently do this, I’m not sure how difficult it would be with our system.) Do you have a specific message you think could work on medical articles? If so, please add it to the top of this page.
Related to this idea, we are currently working on setting up more customized tests for banner sequence to figure out the best order of banners we should display to readers.MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Communication to community

A lot of the feedback at the above "fundraising principles" page relates to communication (or perceived lack thereof) with the community. Ideas in that category, and also some new ones, include:

  • Use Phabricator to track specific bugs/reports of problems. This is now the standard tool for all WMF software reporting and, apart from being very useful software for tracking, would also help encourage the perception that WMF-fundraising is "part of" the movement rather than separate. If this IS already being used as the technical-issue tracking system then please indicate on the main fundraising landing page the correct tags etc. that should be used when reporting new bugs. Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a dedicated community liaison role within Fundraising. I thought that this already existed, but I heard at Wikimania that this position is not planned for 2015/16. The role has been crucial to the wider adoption and improved flow of feedback with the Visual Editor etc. so it's suggest that any major program needs to have this included. It's a kind-of "meta request" because it's not a specific communication but more about facilitating the fact of communication. (ping User:Rdicerb (WMF)). Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have a Community Liaison dedicated to fundraising. We are talking with the Community Engagement team about how we could improve here by working with them and within the fundraising team. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some kind of lightweight "known issues" tracking page. One of my common-complaints is the idea of "if something breaks/is removed, tell the community who will be affected". I understand that Fundraising infrastructure relies on a lot of third-party systems and can be both very fragile and also have several of breakages/fixes in a single day. So, while it might not be possible to automate the reporting of these, nor convenient to proactively inform different communities, perhaps a sub-page for tracking these items could be created? I mean something really lightweight like: a page on meta with a chronological bullet point list, with a new page section each day. If something breaks/is removed then simply add a new bullet point to the list at the bottom (with a link to the Phabricator ticket when appropriate), and then strikethrough the bullet point when the item is no longer broken. At least this way community members who might be receiving complaints from local readers in xyz language, know where they can go to get up-to-date reports. This would also hopefully save WMF staff time from responding to emails like "did you know that xyz payment method is broken" if people can find it on that page already. Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We talked about this at Wikimania, and I'm definitely thinking about how to best communicate to the local communities. For the majority of our donors (who are not on Meta/Phabricator/Talk pages) we are able to answer their questions quickly through our donor services team at donate@wikimedia.org. As far as somewhere people could easily reference, I like your wiki page idea or maybe a view in phabricator (linked from the fundraising meta page). If we do it in phabricator, we wouldn't need to maintain the list in 2 places, which would keep it more accurate. More on this soon! AGomez (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "reality check" mailing list. One of the common-expressed frustrations of the fundraising team is that the turnaround time of changes to the banners etc is so tight that it's not feasible to get community feedback etc. during the campaign. Furthermore, that when feedback is sought, it's difficult to filter between "practical" ideas for improvement and mere expressions of frustration. Perhaps a way to help alleviate that would be to create some kind of temporary project group of experienced community members who would volunteer to be 'on call' for a reality-check about new things during the campaign. These people could be hand-picked by the Fundraising team and given a private email list if that's a way that the team would feel more comfortable - to get quick, practical, useful feedback when something unexpected happens. [There is already the "fundraiser" list by the way] This idea is not a catch-all solution but might be a lightweight way to guard against potential 'groupthink' within the fundraising bubble. This wouldn't be a formal committee, nor have any power to override etc., but just a bunch of people with experience who could volunteer to be available to respond at short notice. Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of interactions can be really helpful. In the past, we have relied on community members in different countries to provide local, on the ground feedback before and during campaigns. They’ve sometimes taken the form of 1:1 communication and sometimes in a larger group communication. I’m not sure the best way to set this up, but will talk with the team about what we’ve tried so far and what we could experiment with next to expand this.MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "local contacts" list. A step up in complexity from the above would be some kind of published list of "official contact" list on a per-country and/or per-language basis. This could be used by both the Fundraising team to help disseminate messages to the right community, and equally, to allow those communities an easy way to contact the Fundraising team. This would be reasonably difficult to build but would be something very easily tied to the Community liaison role (mentioned above). Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Related to the previous question, we already do rely on local contacts for support but are talking within our team and with other teams at WMF about how we can expand this. Chapters and individual volunteers have been incredibly helpful in the past. We also currently contact local communities by notifying the chapters and posting a note on the local village pump to keep community members up to date and ask for feedback. Thank you to everyone who has participated so far! If you’re interested in helping out, please see the fundraising translation page or get in touch directly with Jessica Robell. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Community-written banners were requested and created years ago (can't remember where they are right now, or whether they were tested). I suspect that they weren't used much and that many of them might be 'fun' for people in the 'in-crowd' but not effective when show to the proverbial drive-by reader. Perhaps though a call can be made to create a community-centric campaign... Not for designing banners to be shown to logged-out users, but rather to create a fundraising-messaging pack of things that are easily sharable by wikimedians to their friends and family. [You'd possibly also be able to track inbound clicks/donations from people who donated via this 'recommended by a wikimedian' message rather than via the general banner campaign]. That would give a way for the community to get directly involved and to (hopefully) feel proud to share a message via word of mouth. While the banners that are A/B tested for the general public have the best efficiency for the general public, I would bet that they have virtually no impact on the editing community in terms of our willingness to 'spread the word'. Even if it's only a small part of the campaign in total, doing something like this would go a long way to addressing the question of 'community involvement in the campaign' and a direct 'nod' towards the fact the editing community should be seen as ambassadors for our movement. Wittylama (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, go for it! It seems like drafting ideas for the editing community to share would be good to come from fellow community members. How can we help? MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundraising/2020-21_Fundraising_ideas&oldid=13162668"