I almost hesitated sending this knowing it's just feeding fuel to a pointless flame. However, having been on the receiving end of debates like this - I'm empathetic to the blight of only hearing from a vocal minority. Plus I think WMF did a reasonably good job with this fundraiser and feel bad just seeing them get beat up over it. :)
My IRL work is almost entirely in nonprofit sector - and like most - I find fundraising a necessary evil we're constantly struggling with. This economic climate has proven particularly challenging and is requiring everyone to think outside the box. Sometimes that means experimenting with previous ideas about things like end-of-year deduction motives. I think it's unfair to say Sue lied - the data is complicated. While 70% of donors say they care about tax deductions, the IRS tells us less than 30% actually take them. It's very tricky trying to figure out what will motivate someone to donate - be it end-of-year appeals or blinking text. What works for one person tends to piss off five others - and what appeals to those five people sometimes pisses off that one person. When you're asking literally millions of people to consider donating - good luck finding any mix of strategies that everyone likes. By the same token - good luck finding a magic bullet solution that always produces the results you need. Being complacent with just accepting what worked last year is a recipe for disaster. In other words, what was a bad idea last year might not be a bad idea this year. I see no actual evidence that WMF is more interested in raising money than saving money. Their financials, board minutes and audit notes just don't match up with that accusation (which is thrown at just about every nonprofit at least once a year). They seem to be very interested in growth and capacity building - but those are very common goals for stage-three nonprofits (essentially the "age" the WMF is at). I'd be more worried if they were clamming up or running from potential growth areas (like mobile, India, etc.). That said, if you don't agree, don't donate. I was inspired enough by these actions to donate via a private fund for the first time - which prompted a few other friends to donate as well. At least 1/4 of my email inbox has donation related content the final week of the year and my poor delivery person fills my snail mailbox full of donation seeking letters. This year was a new pinnacle in crazy ideas - from DVDs to glitter in the envelope - my collection of crazy fundraising ideas grew disproportionately larger this year. :) Providing feedback on things like the blinking text is very important. Without feedback, development (fundraising) folks are left with just crunched numbers and glares from the accountants. However, there's a line (not that fine actually) between constructive criticism and tactless rants. Fundraisers are people too. :) The WMF staff are not sitting in marble offices somewhere with Wall Street size paychecks, Porsches in the garage and skins so thick bullets bounce off them. Every major nonprofit runs into "cabal" like accusations - but they get old and boring really quick. "Hey - the blinking text was kind of annoying to me and I was surprised to see it. Any idea how others responded or if it will be used again in the future? I'd like to suggest ABC or XYZ as alternative ideas to visually capture attention." Seems much less harsh and more constructive. Some of these emails read like the long-winded equivalent of "your ideas suck - so there!" I think others have also done a fair job of pointing out that we need to be more aware of other cultures. Saying that something universally offends people is very bold and often inconsiderate of other cultures where that may in fact be totally normal. I don't know anyone that's culturally astute enough to speak on behalf of all 7 billion people on Earth. Sorry if that just re-ignites an already too long debate - but felt like the obvious needed to be stated...after all...it's the holidays! :) -greg aka varnent PS. I feel like these listserv discussions sometimes assume we're living in a utopian world where fundraising is easy, every thinks the same way, all cultures are alike (okay - maybe not so utopian after all), outside politics are non-existent, there's world peace and every good volunteer will live forever. ------- Gregory Varnum Lead, Aequalitas Project Lead Administrator, WikiQueer Founding Principal, VarnEnt @GregVarnum fb.com/GregVarnum On Dec 31, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 31 December 2011 19:28, Zack Exley <zex...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> Geni - You're being mean. On New Years Eve! Happy New Years! > > Neither Geni's meanness or the date are relevant to the point he was > making. It certainly seems to be the case that the WMF doesn't > consider reducing expenditure, rather than more aggressive > fundraising, as a solution to not raising as much as you had hoped. > What is it that you won't be able to do if you use non-blinking > banners and therefore don't raise as much money? Is whatever it is > really worth annoying everyone so much? > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
