A fourth model perhaps is also one which would be the combination of the first three: some chapters would follow path1 (no donation received) whilst some chapters would follow path2 (share) and some path3.

Beyond this, I think a path is to propose the list of ALL countries where there is a chapter, with the default choice being determined by the IP localization. It avoids making the choice for the donor in redirecting him to a certain chapter or to the WMF based on either language or IP. But it simplifies its work in suggesting which place to go.

This said, I fully agree with Rand. The real challenge for the future is not this issue of directing the donor to chapterA or chapterB or Wikimedia Foundation. The real challenge is to motivate people to give ONCE, then to cultivate them enough so that the following year, the issue for us is not to direct him to one place or another from the sitenotice announcement, but to treat him like a friend, a partner, to write him to give him good news about what we do and gently suggest to give AGAIN to an organization he came to know and trust. Right now, everyone knows Wikipedia. Hardly anyone know of the chapters. The day a French person will think “Wikipedia is really great, I’ll set aside a banknote to Wikimedia France to encourage them”, we will have won.

Thanks WittyLama.

It’s weird that I can simultaneously agree with all of the above yet still feel uncertain how to respond. To me, the core issues are threefold:
1) How best to get a prospective donor to give via making a case/story that resonates and compels them to give;
2) Make it as quick, easy, and painless for the prospect to give once they have decided;
and, most importantly:
3) How best to manage and cultivate the relationship between the donor and the Wikimedia movement.

Personally, I’m not super worried about where the money goes and how it is distributed. My primary concern is getting that donor to give again. Our future growth as a fundraising organization lies with our ability to turn one time donors to passionate and repeat donors, donors who will be willing advocates for our cause. The only way that is going to happen is with proper education and cultivation after the first donation is made.

While the 3 models above are theoretically true, I think the mark is off base and would rather focus on how best to keep donors engaged/cultivated after they have given. In the long term, I believe that a local chapter, given training and compelling story, will be better cultivators than the WMF.

The best approach for me will always be the one that has the most certainty of continued and proper cultivation and stewardship of current donors.

As far as the distribution theories…they all seem somewhat right to me right now. We are on a path to make similar things happen (though maybe not this year) and we can evaluate the IP Geolocation model after this fundraiser.

-Rand

There’s a huge difference between “forcing a choice” and “giving a choice”. To give a choice to the donor to give where they want in one click is one thing. To have them look for the place they might give by scrolling five pages and looking for the right link is another.

I am glad you think that we’re on the path to 3. (at least that’s what I understand from your comment), but frankly, I don’t see that happening in the near future if we go on with strange page percentages and funky 50/50 spending schemes.

To me, we should make sure that we have the BEST possible fundraising scheme available, gather as much money as possible where the money is (ie. each chapter should be allowed fundraise to the max). The money should then be redistributed as follows:
- WMF has an annual budget that needs to be covered
- Chapters have a responsibility to see that this budget is covered
- To do so, they would:
*Make a budget of their own, entailing fundraising goals
*Make the funding of WMF’s budget (if it is not reached by WMF’s own fundraising) a priority. It needs to come before their own budget if necessary, the survival of WMF is critical
*Keep the money necessary to their budget
*Redistribute (to WMF and/or other chapters) anything that’s above their own planning expenditure +/- x% if they want to be able to grow.

This is not the way Wikimedia is working right now, as far as I can observe.

I agree with Arne that a map or list should be easily available on demand, rather than being the first thing a donor sees, in part because ideally chapters will also be able to speak to the mission in ways that appeal to donors in their geographic regions. Forcing an initial choice IMO creates a first wall between the donor and their desire to give.

Moreover, there are plenty of countries without chapters, or without chapters ready to take on fundraising responsibilities. In those countries, WMF needs to continue to be the first choice, and a map would be confusing.

I prefer a simple revenue share over spending money on mutually agreed upon specific activities, because it makes it easier for WMF and chapters to plan, and to address the most critical needs first.

So much for the theory – in practice there’s a huge amount of capacity building to do to help chapters become great fundraisers (even the WMF is just barely growing up in that regard). But I agree with the theory.

I totally agree with your analysis here. The most important being “donors just want to donate”. And my addition to this would be “donors want to donate where it’s easiest/most interesting etc.” for them. I tackled this here last year.

I don’t agree with Arne, all chapters/organisations that can take donations should be on the front page, algorithms are just complicated. Everyone else is doing it. Why not Wikimedia? Not sure.

I like the idea of different models (I’d prefer calling them “models” instead of “stages” because IMHO it’s too early to say whether all chapters should end up with the distributed model).

What I don’t agree with, is putting “everybody” on the fundraising page. This would be worse than the current situation where users already have to decide between WMF and Wikimedia chapters. We need less options to choose from, not more. Because the user – as you put it very well – “just wants to donate”.

We should be able to come up with an algorithm based on language and location to show the best match (or several good matches in case of doubt) for almost all potential donors. Of course this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t provide a link to a page/map/list with all chapters.