7 ms·

Jimmy Wales' "Appeal" results in 15x more donation dollars

33 points by aspir 16y ago

jergason 16y ago
Also of note: if you follow the link to the source of the data, it shows that the click through rate for the "staring eyes" banner was sometimes 10x greater than some of their other tries. See https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=t79ue7YKT1c4AmHRs6sswzw&hl=en#gid=12 https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=t79ue7YKT1c4AmHRs6ss...
- rmc 16y ago
  How much of clickthrough were because of the desire to donate, and how many were people misssing the tiny X close button?
darwinGod 16y ago
While its really cool that they have raised 15-X donation, for the "staring eyes" banner on every single wiki, for a site that has 400 million monthly users, 47 K still seems less. I would have expected atleast double the amount.
- gojomo 16y ago
  That's the number from some small test. You can view daily numbers for this campaign (and prior ones) here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatis... They're currently pulling in over $400K per day. If they keep it up, and/or the pattern from prior years holds, they should have no problem raising their $16 million target by January 15th.
Uchikoma 16y ago
Funny: Add says "founder", article says "co-founder". I thought only Steve has a reality distortion field. http://yfrog.com/mv3nvp http://yfrog.com/mv3nvp
- die_sekte 16y ago
  Lots of people have them. It's just that Steve's is particularly strong and the transition from RDF to reality is particularly jarring.
- fylox 16y ago
  maybe they regard co-founder as a subset of founder ;-)
chaosmachine 16y ago
Lots of stats here, and you can view each variation: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testi...
troymc 16y ago
The Wikimedia Foundation collected similar data from their 2008-2009 campaign, where they also varied the appeal: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Fundraising_2008/Report https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Fundraising... If you look at the 'Total Donation by Template' graph, you'll see that the "jimmy letter" appeals (templates) generated the most donations then as well.
loewenskind 16y ago
Oh great, I guess that means I can expect to see more faces staring back it me when surfing the web now. Is anyone writing a "face blocker" browser plug in? I have a feeling I'll be willing to pay for one soon.
andre 16y ago
Put up a female face up there and see what happens....
- reinhardt 16y ago
  Or perhaps some other female aspect instead of (or in addition to) face...
  - beaumartinez 16y ago
    Worked for Evony...
thenbrent 16y ago
I would gladly have 2-3 lines of relevant Google ads shown to me everytime I visit wikipedia if it meant I didn't have to see Jimmy staring back at me for a few days.
- jackowayed 16y ago
  That's what Greasemonkey scripts (aka userscripts) are for: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/13657 http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/13657
- FluidDjango 16y ago
  I felt the same way ...so strongly that it took me several days to notice the little 'x' in upper right corner. However, after once having clicked box, wikipedia remembered for me (on all pages) that I did not want to be distracted by Jimmy's rugged good looks.
- blub 16y ago
  That's funny, because I'd rather have Jimmy stare at me instead of being tracked by Google in even one more place.
- philwelch 16y ago
  From my personal experience as a Wikipedia editor and contributor (which is a few years old; things may have changed) enough editors are opposed to advertising, and the Wikipedia community is conducive enough to the formation of angry mobs, that advertising is a non-starter.
duck 16y ago
This was discussed two days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1908546 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1908546 And last year for the 2009 campaign: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006438 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006438
dennyabraham 16y ago
When I saw the 'personal appeal', I thought Wikipedia was to shut down if they didn't receive funds. After reading the letter, I realized they were in no more danger than any other nonprofit. I wonder if others who donated did so because of what that sort of advertisement implied to them. tldr; I feel like wikipedia cried wolf this year.
- e1ven 16y ago
  I absolutely agree. The header emphasized this- "A personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales" gave the impression that they were in trouble, and badly needed help. Further, the "Please Read:" header at the beginning implies that this banner is more important than the others they had shown you before. While it may have raised revenue this year, if they try the same tactic next year I suspect they'll start seeing user fatigue.
brendano 16y ago
I still don't understand why they didn't use a more pleasant image, say, pictures of kids learning in classrooms.
steipete 16y ago
Instead of turning it of, just activate it for all sites. hilarious. https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/idkjdjficifbfjjkdkiimioljbloddpl https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/idkjdjficifbfjjk...

33 points by aspir 16y ago

Also of note: if you follow the link to the source of the data, it shows that the click through rate for the "staring eyes" banner was sometimes 10x greater than some of their other tries. See https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=t79ue7YKT1c4AmHRs6sswzw&hl=en#gid=12 https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=t79ue7YKT1c4AmHRs6ss...

rmc 16y ago
How much of clickthrough were because of the desire to donate, and how many were people misssing the tiny X close button?

darwinGod 16y ago

While its really cool that they have raised 15-X donation, for the "staring eyes" banner on every single wiki, for a site that has 400 million monthly users, 47 K still seems less. I would have expected atleast double the amount.

gojomo 16y ago
That's the number from some small test. You can view daily numbers for this campaign (and prior ones) here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatis... They're currently pulling in over $400K per day. If they keep it up, and/or the pattern from prior years holds, they should have no problem raising their $16 million target by January 15th.

Uchikoma 16y ago

Funny: Add says "founder", article says "co-founder". I thought only Steve has a reality distortion field. http://yfrog.com/mv3nvp http://yfrog.com/mv3nvp

die_sekte 16y ago
Lots of people have them. It's just that Steve's is particularly strong and the transition from RDF to reality is particularly jarring.
fylox 16y ago
maybe they regard co-founder as a subset of founder ;-)

chaosmachine 16y ago

Lots of stats here, and you can view each variation: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testi...

troymc 16y ago

The Wikimedia Foundation collected similar data from their 2008-2009 campaign, where they also varied the appeal: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Fundraising_2008/Report https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Fundraising... If you look at the 'Total Donation by Template' graph, you'll see that the "jimmy letter" appeals (templates) generated the most donations then as well.

loewenskind 16y ago

Oh great, I guess that means I can expect to see more faces staring back it me when surfing the web now. Is anyone writing a "face blocker" browser plug in? I have a feeling I'll be willing to pay for one soon.

andre 16y ago

Put up a female face up there and see what happens....

reinhardt 16y ago
Or perhaps some other female aspect instead of (or in addition to) face...
- beaumartinez 16y ago
  Worked for Evony...

thenbrent 16y ago

I would gladly have 2-3 lines of relevant Google ads shown to me everytime I visit wikipedia if it meant I didn't have to see Jimmy staring back at me for a few days.

jackowayed 16y ago
That's what Greasemonkey scripts (aka userscripts) are for: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/13657 http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/13657
FluidDjango 16y ago
I felt the same way ...so strongly that it took me several days to notice the little 'x' in upper right corner. However, after once having clicked box, wikipedia remembered for me (on all pages) that I did not want to be distracted by Jimmy's rugged good looks.
blub 16y ago
That's funny, because I'd rather have Jimmy stare at me instead of being tracked by Google in even one more place.
philwelch 16y ago
From my personal experience as a Wikipedia editor and contributor (which is a few years old; things may have changed) enough editors are opposed to advertising, and the Wikipedia community is conducive enough to the formation of angry mobs, that advertising is a non-starter.

duck 16y ago

This was discussed two days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1908546 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1908546 And last year for the 2009 campaign: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006438 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006438

dennyabraham 16y ago

When I saw the 'personal appeal', I thought Wikipedia was to shut down if they didn't receive funds. After reading the letter, I realized they were in no more danger than any other nonprofit. I wonder if others who donated did so because of what that sort of advertisement implied to them. tldr; I feel like wikipedia cried wolf this year.

e1ven 16y ago
I absolutely agree. The header emphasized this- "A personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales" gave the impression that they were in trouble, and badly needed help. Further, the "Please Read:" header at the beginning implies that this banner is more important than the others they had shown you before. While it may have raised revenue this year, if they try the same tactic next year I suspect they'll start seeing user fatigue.

brendano 16y ago

I still don't understand why they didn't use a more pleasant image, say, pictures of kids learning in classrooms.

steipete 16y ago

Instead of turning it of, just activate it for all sites. hilarious. https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/idkjdjficifbfjjkdkiimioljbloddpl https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/idkjdjficifbfjjk...