Fundraising/Chapters/WMDE

This page is for discussion and informational purposes about fundraising tests from Wikimedia Germany. Discussion should occur on the discussion page. If want to leave a note in German, the German portal site might be a better place. Till Mletzko (WMDE) (talk)

Completed tests

Test 1: more than thousands words...

13.9.2012, 10:00-12:30 UTC

Wikipedia is held and guarded by the amazing support of our donors. In our appeals to Wikipedia readers we try to make this aware. Can we also communicate this successfully by using pictures instead of just relying on text? This was the question for our first test this year. Therefore we changed the layout of the landing page profoundly. Equally intended was to make the site less text heavy and more appealing. What do you think about the new design? Do you like it, do you have critical remarks? We are happy about every comment!

The results of the test show that we still need to improve the new layout. Both versions of the new landing page performed not as good as the old one. It can be that the reason for this lies in the necessity to expand the box with Jimmys appeal and in one case as well the donation form. Perhaps the additionally needed clicks have the effect of a barrier. But all in all the results are not very selective and the difference to the default landing page is only in one case statistically significant, according to ABBA (here und here). In addition, we noticed afterwards that the new layout didn't fit in small screens and appeared cutted. So all in all we see potential in improving the new layout to create a more compelling landing page.

Banner	Landingpage	Visitors	Sum	Amount	Average	Numbers per View	Sum per View	% Women
Jimmy Jacket	default layout	11136	266	5365,74	20,17	0,02389	0,481837	22,95
Jimmy Jacket	globe_form_expandable	11281	235	4582,00	19,50	0,02083	0,406170	22,81
Jimmy Jacket	globe_big_form	11052	208	4142,12	19,91	0,01882	0,374785	20,00

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Test 2: donation sums

20.9.2012, 08:00-10:00 UTC

In this test we focused on the donation form. We analysed the effect of different donation sums given in the form. What we can see clearly is that total amount and average sum are effected positively, although we didn't check statistical significance, yet. Equally interesting are the similar donation numbers which give us confidence that the changes in donation numbers don't effect the will to support.

For analysis we used amount_50 this time. By doing so, the effect of rare high donation sums is diminished. What we see is that the different donation amount and average sums in the test are not due to singular outliers.

Banner	Landingpage	Visitors	Sum	Amount	Average	Numbers per View	Sum per View	Sum_50	Sum_50 per View
Jimmy Jacket	default	7740	190	3748,34	19,73	0,02455	0,484282	3148,34	0,40676
Jimmy Jacket	Sum_A	7832	167	4727,77	28,31	0,02132	0,603648	3740	0,47753
Jimmy Jacket	Sum_B	7719	192	7167,50	37,33	0,02487	0,928553	4022,5	0,52112

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Test 3: closer to the reader

Wednesday, 10.10.2012, 8:00-10:00 UTC

These results tell a clear story! We tested WMF’s facts and drop down banners and they obiously have a strong power to motivate people to donate. Comparing the drop down to the default personal appeal banner we saw a 185 % increase in donation numbers and a 55% higher total sum. The approach of reaching more people by putting the message into the banner and shifting the point of decision to donate before the banner click seems to work very well. 20% of the people clicking on the facts banner really donated – a level of “productive clicks” never seen before by us. On the other hand the average donation of the new banners appears to be smaller. The reason could be the sentence directly asking for 5 €, an effect we wondered about last year as well. Finally what really needs to be figured out now is what happens to the circa 500 people deciding to donate in the drop down banner and finally don’t do it.

Banner	Landingpage	Impressions	Visitors	Sum	Amount	Average	Click- Through- Rate	Numbers per Imp.	Numbers per View	Sum per Imp.	Sum per View	% Women
control / appeal Jimmy	default	846300	10038	296	7485,50	25,29	0,01186	0,0003498	0,02949	0,008845	0,745716	25,00
facts	default	847900	3722	785	12050,99	15,35	0,00439	0,0009258	0,21091	0,014213	3,237773	15,77
dropdown	default	843300	1398	846	11611,52	13,73	0,00166	0,0010032	0,60515	0,013769	8,305808	14,64

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Test 4: green is the new blue

Tuesday, 16.10.2012, 8:00-10:00 UTC

From previous WMDE und WMF tests we know that colours of campagin elements play a major role in communication. This finding holds for the new facts banner as well. WMF found out that a blue version outperformed grey. Since by a somewhat strange regularity the colour green often worked best in our tests we wanted to see how it would be this time. And the 'rule' applies again: The green banner lead to a 27 % increase in donation numbers compared to control and 18 % to blue.

Banner	Landingpage	Impressions	Visitors	Sum	Amount	Average	Click- Through- Rate	Numbers per Imp.	Numbers per View	Sum per Imp.	Sum per View	% Women
drop control grey	default	869200	1095	675	10022,19	14,85	0,00126	0,0007766	0,61644	0,011530	9,152685	16,20
drop green	default	838500	1465	856	12890,00	15,06	0,00175	0,0010209	0,58430	0,015373	8,798635	17,14
drop blue	default	849800	1268	725	9928,00	13,69	0,00149	0,0008531	0,57177	0,011683	7,829653	16,95

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Test 5: Jimmy and the facts

Tuesday, 23.10.2012, 9:30 - 11:30 UTC

The facts banner is very successful but unfortunately it is not personalized. It is impossible to realize when personal appeals on the landing page change and someone new tells his /her story. But for the dramaturgy of the campaign this is crucial. So we tried to merge the appeal banner with the facts. Sadly, our layouts did not work out. Facts_green and Photo_green have identical click rates but more people donate through the facts banner. Since landing pages are similar more people are convinced through the facts banner to donate even before they click. Interesting to see is that the Jimmy photo with green background seems to be less successfull than the one with white background, although it's not clear wether the photo or the design or (most probably) the combination of both explains the different outcome of the two foto banners.

Banner	Landingpage	Impressions	Visitors	Sum	Amount	Average	Click- Through- Rate	Numbers per Imp.	Numbers per View	Sum per Imp.	Sum per View	Average_100
control facts_green	default	898800	3364	602	8540,90	14,19	0,00374	0,0006698	0,17895	0,009503	2,538912	14,10
facts/photo_green	default	912300	3196	413	5954,50	14,42	0,00350	0,0004527	0,12922	0,006527	1,863110	14,41
facts/photo_green_white	default	917600	2323	348	6569,09	18,88	0,00253	0,0003793	0,14981	0,007159	2,827848	15,88

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Test 6: new appeals

Tuesday, 30.10.2012, 09:10-12:10 UTC

This time we were happy to test this years first appeals that are not from Jimmy. Three appeals showed different perspectives on Wikipedia. Gerd Seidel, fotographer and Wikipedian, explained his participation and why he thinks volunteering is so important. The donor Gunther Tutein described why he donated last year and what feelings he had. WMDE Project Managerin Elly Köpf introduced education projects of the chapter.

Unfortunately, we did not succeed in beating Jimmy. Nevertheless the results are interesting for us. The best performing appeal was the one of Gunther. Is it because readers can identify with his perspective and the feelings he describes strongly? That could be an explanation. Looking at donations per lp we can see that his appeal was best performing (leaving Jimmy aside). At a glance on the click-through-rates you can see the incredible attention that Elly's banner received. Twice as much people clicked on her banner than on Jimmy's, but her appeal convinces readers the least. All in all, the personal appeals of this test (including Jimmy) did nowhere reach as much donations as the facts banners in previous test.

Banner	Landingpage	Impressions	Visitors	Sum	Amount	Average	Click- Through- Rate	Numbers per Imp.	Numbers per View	Sum per Imp.	Sum per View	% Women
Jimmy	appeal Jimmy	1121600	11045	255	5525,36	21,67	0,00985	0,0002274	0,02309	0,004926	0,500259	20,54
Gunther	appeal Gunther	1119600	9733	137	3428,50	25,03	0,00869	0,0001224	0,01408	0,003062	0,352255	17,09
Elly	appeal Elly	1105900	23871	104	2676,00	25,73	0,02159	0,0000940	0,00436	0,002420	0,112103	25,88
Gerd	appeal Gerd	840100	8976	84	2286,00	27,21	0,01068	0,0001000	0,00936	0,002721	0,254679	21,33

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 7: reformulated banner texts

Thursday, 1.11.2012, 10:00-12:00 UTC

One of the key elements of the success of the facts banner is the important phrase "If everyone donated 5€ ..." Unfortunately, the sentence also affects the average donation which in turn decreases significantly. In this test we tried out different banner texts to avoid that effect. Simply replacing "5€" by "a small contribution" didn't bring a solution - while the average donation increased only slightly, the donation per impression descreased by 13%. Based on findings from a donor focus group and donor communication in general, we modified the banner textes more profoundly. For example by adding the mission statement of Wikimedia and the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have any commercial interests. One of the text alternatives (new text 2) performed very well. Even with "5€" replaced by "a small contribution" the donation per impression rate is practically the same as in the unmodified facts banner. Furthermore, the average donation increases so that the new version of the facts banner outperforms the older one.

Here is the (somewhat crude) translation of the successful new banner text (since it is not translated in the banners linked in the chart below):

• Wikipedia is non-profit and doesn't charge fees. It's the #6 website in the world. We don't pursue commercial interests. Our goal is the free access to knowledge for everybody.
• Google and Yahoo have thousands of servers and staff. We have 641 servers and less than 200 employees. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads.
• 450 Millionen people use Wikipedia every month. For a lot of them it has become a naturally part of every day life. If everyone made a small contribution, our fundraiser would be done in an hour.

Banner	Landingpage	impressions	clicks	visitors	sum	amount	average	click- through- rate	numbers per imp.	numbers per click	numbers per View	sum per imp.	sum per view	average _100
control	default	364320	4141	821	469	6354,50	13,55	0,011366	0,0012873	0,1132577	0,57125	0,017442	7,739951	13,23
"small contribution"	default	484990	5851	906	513	7996,27	15,59	0,012064	0,0010578	0,0876773	0,56623	0,016487	8,825905	15,59
new text 1	default	489940	5649	647	370	6797,22	18,37	0,011530	0,0007552	0,0654983	0,57187	0,013874	10,505750	17,56
new text 2	default	480040	7263	1022	601	10749,90	17,89	0,015130	0,0012520	0,0827482	0,58806	0,022394	10,518493	17,30

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 8: layout donation form and landing page

Tuesday, 6.11.2012, 10:30-13:30 UTC

The new drop down banner modifies the whole donation process. With that banner the decision to donate is directly made on the expanded banner and before reaching the landing page. We were wondering why still 40% of the people that reach the landing page quit the process and don't donate. Our assumption was that the old layouts of landing page and donation form distract people because first the Jimmy appeal is displayed again and second people have to think about the donation amount again because now they see recurrent donations are possible as well. To reduce the drop out rate, we modified the donation form inside the banner by adding amount, frequency and payment methods. The donation process continues on the landing page where donors need to fill in their personal data. We tested different layouts of the landing page to see if they can reduce the drop outs.

By the modification of the donation form we could reduce the drop outs on the landing page significantly but at the same time less people reached the landing page, that is less people filled out the donation form inside the banner. Obviously, filling out the form in the old banner version cannot be interpreted as a strong decision to donate. Rather some people just want to see how the donation process goes on and to decide later. In the new banner version these people don't fill out the form any more. All in all the modification of the donation form seems to have a slightliy positive effect - more people donate per click - but the difference is not statistically significant.

Concerning the new and very different layouts of the landing page we surprisingly did not see any impact on donation numbers. But we can learn from it that distraction by layout does not seem to be the reason for a drop out.

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.	amount pro lpvisitor	average _100
form_A ctrl	default	825700	8994	1007	481	8233,17	17,12	0,010893	0,0005825	0,0534801	0,47766	0,009971	8,175938	16,39
form_B	default	719200	7703	608	432	7751,63	17,94	0,010711	0,0006007	0,0560820	0,71053	0,010778	12,749391	17,06
form_B	clear	587900	6521	531	368	5973,77	16,23	0,011092	0,0006260	0,0564331	0,69303	0,010161	11,250038	16,32
form_B	photo	704500	7679	593	425	6790,72	15,98	0,010900	0,0006033	0,0553457	0,71669	0,009639	11,451467	15,78
form_B	5 facts	712300	7667	600	422	7301,54	17,30	0,010764	0,0005924	0,0550411	0,70333	0,010251	12,169233	16,35

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 9: call for action

Thursday, 8.11.2012, 10:30-13:45 UTC

In this test we analyzed the effect of the call for action inside the donation form. We tested four different phrases against a form without a call. Surprisingly there was no real difference between the groups. Only mentioning our most common and our average donation sum seems to increase the number of donations but in return to decrease the average donation. The differences in the groups were not statistically significant so we decided not to change our donation form.

Here is the translation of the phrases:

• fact_ctrl: If everyone would give a small contribution our fundraiser would be over in one hour.
• fact_please help: Please donate to keep Wikipedia free, independent and ad free.
• fact_5/23: 5€ is the most common donation. 23€ is the average.
• fact_give: How much is Wikipedia worth to you? Today you can say thank you.

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.	amount pro lpvisitor	average _100
fact_ctrl	5_facts	725200	7019	537	388	5960,60	15,36	0,009679	0,0005350	0,0552785	0,72253	0,008219	11,099814	15,23
fact_noline	5_facts	630300	5954	437	327	5925,74	18,12	0,009446	0,0005188	0,0549211	0,74828	0,009401	13,560046	16,44
fact_pleasehelp	5_facts	746700	6901	532	385	6210,29	16,13	0,009242	0,0005156	0,0557890	0,72368	0,008317	11,673477	15,74
fact_5/23	5_facts	757000	7171	575	417	5845,63	14,02	0,009473	0,0005509	0,0581509	0,72522	0,007722	10,166313	14,02
fact_give	5_facts	858600	8012	609	436	7200,66	16,52	0,009331	0,0005078	0,0544184	0,71593	0,008387	11,823744	16,52

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 10: facts-banner texts II

Tuesday, 13.11.2012, 10:30-14:15 UTC

With the begin of the campaign we saw a need to retest two aspects which had narrow outcomes in our previous tests. We reviewed first the decision for the drop down banner version and second the substitution of "5€" by "a small contribution" in the banner text. Furthermore we tried an alternative no_google version.

We are happy that our old test results were confirmed by this new test. More people click on the drop down banner version and this results in more donations as well. Writing "5€" instead of "a small contribution" generates more donations but decreases the average donation so much that our current version performes better. Our new banner text version unfortunately wasn't successful.

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.	amount pro lpvisitor	average _100
no_google	5_facts	941400	8442	550	362	6887,50	19,03	0,008967	0,0003845	0,0428808	0,65818	0,007316	12,522727	17,65
no_google2	5_facts	1068000	8597	472	294	4813,83	16,37	0,008050	0,0002753	0,0341980	0,62288	0,004507	10,198792	16,37
no_google_5€	5_facts	1064200	8772	669	450	6025,32	13,39	0,008243	0,0004229	0,0512996	0,67265	0,005662	9,006457	13,06
no_drop_no_google	5_facts	948800	xxxx	4041	311	5634,50	18,12	0,00426	0,0003278	xxxx	0,07696	0,005939	1,394333	17,80

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 11: call for action

Wednesday, 14.11.2012; 17:15-20:45 UTC

In our last test we saw how important the dropdown-tab is. Much more people click on the dropdown version of the facts banner than the non-drop down. In this test we wanted to use the attention which the tab obviously receives. We put different calls for donation inside the tab and tried a different tab layout. Furthermore we tested a modification of donation numbers indicated in our donation form.

The last one didn't have a positive effect. But both versions of a long call to action (tab_1 and tab_2: 'Please help to keep Wikipedia free and independent') did perform better than our control. So we changed our current campaign banner according tab_2.

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.	amount pro lpvisitor	average _100
ctrl	5_facts	838700	5974	394	281	5198,46	18,50	0,007123	0,0003350	0,0470372	0,71320	0,006198	13,194061	18,50
tab_1	5_facts	836000	xxxx	432	301	5184,82	17,23	xxxx	0,0003600	xxxx	0,69676	0,006202	12,001898	xxxx
tab_2	5_facts	874300	6915	437	306	5186,14	16,95	0,007909	0,0003500	0,0442516	0,70023	0,005932	11,867597	16,78
tab_3	5_facts	830300	5625	429	277	5451,51	19,68	0,006775	0,0003336	0,0492444	0,64569	0,006566	12,707483	18,89
10/20/30	5_facts	845000	6127	355	260	4736,79	18,22	0,007251	0,0003077	0,0424351	0,73239	0,005606	13,343070	18,22

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 12: layout banner: bold text

Thursday, 15.11.2012; 14:00-17:00 UTC

A simple but effective test. We tested bold versus regular text. It looks like bold text increases attention: More people click on the banner, more people donate.

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.	amount pro lpvisitor	average _100
regular	5_facts	1785800	12556	661	419	7722,00	18,43	0,007031	0,0002346	0,0333705	0,63389	0,004324	11,682300	18,07
bold	5_facts	1805900	14232	716	476	8515,49	17,89	0,007881	0,0002636	0,0334458	0,66480	0,004715	11,893142	17,57

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 13: alternative wording facts banner III (Google/Yahoo/FB)

Friday, 16.11.2012; 11:30 am -02:30 pm UTC

We started the campaign with a facts banner that compares Wikipedia with other top sites but doesn't explicitly mention google and yahoo. In this test we tried google/yahoo and google/facebook plus another different wording. Explicitly refering to google etc. seems to increase donation numbers on a small level (+9%), but the difference is not statistically significant (chi-squared test). This let us to the decision not to change the banner text.

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.	amount pro lpvisitor	average _100
ctrl	5_facts	702500	4753	271	194	4169,50	21,49	0,006766	0,0002762	0,0408163	0,71587	0,005935	15,385609	21,49
go_yahoo	5_facts	705800	5203	293	213	3944,50	18,52	0,007372	0,0003018	0,0409379	0,72696	0,005589	13,462457	17,81
go_fb	5_facts	802100	6030	323	237	4276,00	18,04	0,007518	0,0002955	0,0393035	0,73375	0,005331	13,238390	18,04
no_go2	5_facts	808900	5869	297	184	4059,51	22,06	0,007256	0,0002275	0,0313512	0,61953	0,005019	13,668384	20,43

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 14 & 15: banner colour & length Jimmy appeal

test 14, Friday, 16.11.2012, 5:30-7:45 pm UTC and Test 15 am Monday, 19.11.2012, 01:40-03:30 pm UTC

Beeing convinced to donate after reading the text on the facts banner - is there still a need for the long and much space occupying Jimmy appeal? We tested WMF's condensed version of the appeal inside the drop down and saw that this had a negative effect on donation numbers.

Instead the main focus of test 14 and 15 was the colour of the banner. In a first test 4 green won against blue and grey. In the light of the success of blue in WMF's tests we wanted to retest that. Now blue won against green in test 14. This contradictory result puzzled us. A possible reason could be that banners are not allocated to one single user but instead every reader sees all banners by clicking through Wikipedia. (Bucketing function in Central Notice was not available yet.) By that it is possible that banner impacts influence each other and the whole test is biased. Since 2/3 of the banners were green in test 14 the more infrequent blue alternation created perhaps more attention and by that more clicks. To avoid the chance of such an effect we tried another testing configuration. In four successive 30 minutes slots we only displayed one banner, alternating green and blue. Afterwards we summed up the results of the time periods. Now it looks like the two colours do not have such a strong difference as expected, but green did a bit better. Still on methodological thin ground we decided to take green.

test 14

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	amount pro imp.
green/long	5_facts	684100	5125	237	4179,00	17,63	0,007492	0,0003464	0,0462439	0,006109
blue/long	5_facts	689900	5633	255	5062,33	19,85	0,008165	0,0003696	0,0452690	0,007338
green/short	5_facts	695000	5249	203	3652,00	17,99	0,007553	0,0002921	0,0386740	0,005255

test 15

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	amount pro imp.
green	5_Fakten	1375900	8503	216	4230,01	19,58	0,006180	0,0001570	0,0254028	0,003074
blue	5_Fakten	1395200	8431	195	3556,24	18,24	0,006043	0,0001398	0,0231289	0,002549

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 16: appeal inside banner

Monday, 19.11.2012; 6:00-8:00 pm UTC

In test 14 we saw the importance of the unshortened Jimmy appeal instead of a condensed version. Now we wanted to know if it is possible to replace Jimmy's appeal by another. We ran Jimmy against our donor Gunther Tutein. The outcome is very promising. Gunther's appeal nearly performed as good as Jimmy's although in a personal appeal banner test their difference in donation numbers was very high. More tests with different appeals are needed now.

On the occation of the anniversary of 1.500.000 articles in the german language version of Wikipedia we had a thank-you banner on for a short time. It featured a call for donations but it didn't work good.

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.	amount pro lpvisitor	average _100
facts_Jimmy	5_facts	945900	5686	265	196	4026,00	20,54	0,006011	0,0002072	0,0344706	0,73962	0,004256	15,192453	18,91
facts_Gunther	5_facts	909600	5512	241	185	3947,00	21,34	0,006060	0,0002034	0,0335631	0,76763	0,004339	16,377593	19,71
article record	5_facts	433100	1074	56	32	620,00	19,37	0,002480	0,0000739	0,0297952	-	-	-	19,37

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 17: Jimmy personal appeal vs. facts-banner

Tuesday 20.11.2012; 09:30 - 12:00 am UTC

After the first week of the campaign we saw a decrease in donations stronger than expected. We wanted to know if it is now possible to convince more people with the Jimmy appeal banner. For the first time we successfully used the new bucketing function of central notice. Indeed donation numbers increased, so we decided to continue the campaign with the Jimmy appeal (difference in numbers/imp. statistically significant, chi-squared test: p=0,00009). In the first test of Jimmy against the facts (test 3) the latter increased donations by 185%. Now Jimmy outperformed the facts by increasing donations by more than 30%. Thats remarkable. It looks like there are really two target groups and a big share of the people being responsive to our facts banner donated during the first week.

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.	amount pro lpvisitor	average _100
facts_green	5_facts	1374800	8242	398	271	5593,00	20,64	0,005995	0,0001971	0,0328804	0,68090	0,004068	14,052764	18,63
Jimmy	appeal Jimmy	1364300	x	15464	367	8492,00	23,14	0,01133	0,0002690	x	0,02373	0,006224	0,549146	22,32

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 18: layout Jimmy banner

Wednesday, 22.11.; 1:45-3:15 pm UTC

Today we tested a new layout of the Jimmy appeal banner trying to generate more attention with a coloured background and white text. This didn't work well. The new layout has a lower click rate and hence less donations. (difference statistically significant; chi-squared test: numbers/imp.: p=0,028, clics/imp.: p=2,2e-16)

banner	landingpage	impressions	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.
Jimmy ctrl	Jimmy appeal	978200	9323	155	3292,50	21,24	0,00953	0,0001585	0,01663	0,003366
Jimmy green	Jimmy appeal	972800	7121	118	2566,62	21,75	0,00732	0,0001213	0,01657	0,002638

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 19 & 20: integrating the facts on LP

Test 19: Wednesday, 21.11., 3:15 pm - Thursday, 22.11., 9:00 am UTC; Test 20: Thursday, 22.11., 3:00-5:00 pm UTC

We tried to integrate the facts banner on our landing page this time. This indeed increased the conversion rate. An alternative wording of the facts didn't work well in test 20.

test 19

banner	landingpage	impressions	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers per LP	amount per imp.
Jimmy	default	5619200	52544	1030	22368,94	21,72	0,00935	0,0001833	0,01960	0,003981
Jimmy	facts	5660000	52409	1120	26269,10	23,45	0,00926	0,0001979	0,02137	0,004641

numbers per LP statistically significant (chi-squared-t., p=0,04323)

test 20

banner	landingpage	impressions	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers per LP	amount per imp.
Jimmy	facts_ctrl	1232400	10984	184	4166,01	22,64	0,00891	0,0001493	0,01675	0,003380
Jimmy	facts_alt	1236800	10938	161	3473,36	21,57	0,00884	0,0001302	0,01472	0,002808

numbers per LP not statistically significant (chi-squared-t., p=0,2267)

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

test 21: 2nd round of new appeals

Friday, 23.11., 11:10 am- 01:30 pm UTC

Today we tested a second round of non-Jimmy appeals. We had an appeal of Wikipedia author Harald Krichel describing his captivation since he first discovered the online encyclopedia. Wikpedia donor Solveig Wehking explains the importance of free accessible knowledge. Wikimedia fundraiser Till Mletzko compares Wikipedia with a classic library to illustrate the uniqueness of the project. We did not manage to create an appeal which beats Jimmy's but we've learned a lot for future improvements.

banner	landingpage	impressions	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.	average _100
Jimmy	appeal Jimmy	515900	4274	99	2005,00	20,25	0,00828	0,0001919	0,02316	0,003886	20,25
Till	appeal Till	583000	5368	74	1838,00	24,84	0,00921	0,0001269	0,01379	0,003153	24,84
Solveig	appeal Solveig	583300	5001	57	2235,00	39,21	0,00857	0,0000977	0,01140	0,003832	23,42
Harald	appeal Harald	493100	4562	58	1057,00	18,22	0,00925	0,0001176	0,01271	0,002144	18,22

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 22, 23 & 24: yellow facts banner

In this test round wir evaluated the impact of a yellow version of the facts banner. The direct comparison of the new colour against the green facts (test 22) as well as against the Jimmy banner (test 23) revealed a clear increase in donations. In the light of this result - were we wrong to run the Jimmy Banner the last days? If we look closer to the results the answer is no. While the yellow banner increased donations/imps by 123,6% compared to the green facts the augmentation compared to the Jimmy banner only amount to 87,3%. Hence the Jimmy banner still performed better than the green facts banner.

Reflecting on the rise of donations by the Jimmy appeal in the beginning of the week we were wondering if there are two different target groups that are each more or less responsive either to the facts or to the personal appeal. If it would be like this, would it be possible to appeal to both groups at the same time? We tried to do this (test 24) by showing one group of readers both Jimmy and facts alternating each other (group B). The comparison group only saw the yellow facts banner (group A). Unfortunately this did not work out. Group B did perform worse than group A.

friday, 23.11.; test 22: 1:30-4:00 pm UTC; test 23: 4:00-5:30 pm UTC; test 24: 5:30-8:15 pm UTC

test 22

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.
facts_yel	5_facts	768400	6485	328	263	5257,44	19,99	0,008440	0,0003423	0,0405551	0,80183	0,006842
facts_green	5_facts	777500	4160	173	119	3356,00	28,20	0,005350	0,0001531	0,0286058	0,68786	0,004316

difference in numbers per imp. statistically significant (chi-squared-t., p=7.221e-14)

test 23

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.
Jimmy	appeal Jimmy	714600	5677	329	223	3949,00	17,71	0,00794	0,0003121	0,0392813	0,67781	0,005526
facts_gelb	5_facts	726300	x	6260	121	2321,00	19,18	0,00862	0,0001666	x	0,01933	0,003196

difference in numbers per imp. statistically significant (chi-squared-t., p=1.596e-08)

test 24

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers pro click	numbers pro LP	amount pro imp.
group A facts_yellow	5_facts	1193800	9279	602	414	9473,63	22,88	0,007773	0,0003468	0,0446169	0,68771	0,007936
group B	aggregated results	1200900	4819	6127	341	7394,54	21,68	0,008875	0,0002840	x	x	0,006157
facts_yellow	5_facts	603100	4819	288	196	3768,54	19,23	0,007990	0,0003250	0,0406723	0,68056	0,006249
Jimmy	appeal Jimmy	597800	x	5839	145	3626,00	25,01	0,00977	0,0002426	x	0,02483	0,006066

difference in numbers per imp. bucket A-B statistically significant (chi-squared-t., p=0,006169)

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 25, 26 & 27: new design facts banner

Today we tested WMF's new best performing facts banner with and without sticky function. As we can see in the results the pure modification of the layout does not increase donations (test 25). Interesting to see is the stable donations/imp. while click rate and conversion after clicking the banner (numbers per click) vary a great deal. Test 26 shows the impact of the sticky function which leads to a huge increase in donations per impressions. We were wondering if formating the text in blocks like we had it before would be easier to read and thereby convince more people to donate. But as test 27 reveals continuous text performes better in this banner layout.

test 25, 26.11., 1:15 - 3:30 pm UTC

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers per click	numbers per LP	amount per imp.	average _100
ctrl facts_yelw	5_facts	1480200	9011	345	214	4174,77	19,51	0,006088	0,0001446	0,0237488	0,62029	0,002820	19,51
var facts_yelw	5_facts	1501700	2821	334	219	4367,35	19,94	0,001879	0,0001458	0,0776320	0,65569	0,002908	19,94

test 26 , Monday 26.11., 3:30 - 6:00 pm UTC

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers per click	numbers per LP	amount per imp.	average _100
facts_yelw_ctrl	5_facts	1655300	10616	454	311	7213,83	23,20	0,006413	0,0001879	0,0292954	0,68502	0,004358	22,23
facts_yelw_sticky	5_facts	1434400	7718	887	624	14304,51	22,92	0,005381	0,0004350	0,0808500	0,70349	0,009972	21,32

difference donation/imp. statistically significant (chi-squared-test, p-value < 2.2e-16 )

difference click/Imp. statistically significant (chi-squared-test, p-value < 2.2e-16 )

difference donation/click statistically significant (chi-squared-test, p-value < 2.2e-16 )

test 27 , Tuesday 27.11., 12:00 am - 01:45 pm UTC

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers per click	numbers per LP	amount per imp.	average _100
running text	5_facts	830900	13140	526	383	7311,07	19,09	0,015814	0,0004609	0,0291476	0,72814	0,008799
text blocks	5_facts	816100	13018	428	295	5923,05	20,08	0,015951	0,0003615	0,0226609	0,68925	0,007258

difference donation/imp. statistically significant (chi-squared-test, p-value = 0.00165 )

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 28: appeals inside facts banner: Jimmy, Gunther, Till

Tuesday, 27.11., 1:45-4:00 pm UTC

Another time we tested different appeals inside the drop down facts banner. Against Jimmy we ran our current best performing texts from Wikipedia donor Gunther and from Till. Jimmy was ahead another time but the difference was not so big (donation/click ~ -15%). For the purpose of having a more diversified campaign we decided to replace Jimmy's appeal by the one of Till.

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers per click	numbers per LP	amount per imp.
Jimmy	5_facts	1107000	18898	663	484	11005,50	22,74	0,017071	0,0004372	0,0256112	0,73002	0,009942
Till	5_facts	1112400	18970	593	411	7890,00	19,20	0,017053	0,0003695	0,0216658	0,69309	0,007093
Gunther	5_facts	1112600	18940	619	407	8411,02	20,67	0,017023	0,0003658	0,0214889	0,65751	0,007560

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 29 & 30: Who is talking?

These tests focused on the current non-Jimmy appeal in our banner. We analyzed if explicitly mentioning costs would have an effect on donation conversion. Leaving the relevant sentence out seems to have a small negative impact (test 29). Since the appeal is kind of non-personal (it has no biographic component) we could alter the person who speaks. Interestingly in this case it did practically not make a difference who is talking (test 30). However according to the result it could be that the percentage of female donors rises when the speaker is also a woman.

test 29, Wednesday, 28.11., 1:00-3:00 pm UTC

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers per click	numbers per LP
ctrl	5_facts	905400	13511	475	331	6430.50	19.13	0.014923	0.0003656	0.02450	0.69684
without_costs	5_facts	912100	13323	440	315	7624.06	21.35	0.014607	0.0003454	0.02364	0.71591

difference donation/click not statistically significant (chi-squared-test, p-value=0.6477)

test 30, Wednesday, 28.11., 2:00-11:00 pm UTC

banner	landingpage	impressions	clicks banner	visitors lp	donations	amount	average	click- Through- Rate	numbers per imp.	numbers per click	numbers per LP	% women
Till	5_facts	1736700	31829	959	694	16802.61	24.21	0.018327	0.0003996	0.02180	0.72367	21.38
Alice	5_facts	1994900	35740	1105	774	17175.25	22.19	0.017916	0.0003880	0.02166	0.70045	24.29
Pavel	5_facts	1980100	36148	1058	733	14918.02	20.35	0.018256	0.0003702	0.02028	0.69282	22.30
Elly	5_facts	1757800	31780	986	699	14908.77	21.33	0.018079	0.0003977	0.02199	0.70892	27.35

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Test 31: wording facts banner: dear readers

Thursday, 29.11., 10:00 am - 03:00 pm UTC

In this test we can see the effect of clear adressing readers. We tried WMF's text modification of the facts banner starting the text with "dear Wikipedia readers" and finishing it with a "thank you". With the new text the donation rate (numbers/imp) improved by 18%.

Banner Tracking	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop Imp	Donation Imp	Donation Click Drop	Visitors LP	Donation LP Visitor	Amount Imp
ctrl	5_facts	2057500	28137	674	14027.00	20.81	0.013675	0.0003276	0.02395	995	0.67739	0.0068175
dear readers	5_facts	2046900	28728	791	16356.02	20.68	0.014035	0.0003864	0.02753	1134	0.69753	0.0079906

difference in numbers/imp. statistically significant (p-value = 0.001456)

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Test 32: Scroll-Down-Icon

Thursday, 29.11.2012, 3:00-7:30 pm UTC

Sometimes it's remarkable to see how small changes have big effects. In this test we re-integrated the small symbol in the tab of the banner which indicates the drop down of the banner after clicking instead of opening another page. The symbol has a strong effect: the click rate increases by 35%. Not all of them do actually donate, but still numbers/imp increased by 13%.

Banner Tracking	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop Imp	Donation Imp	Donation Click Drop	Amount Imp
ctrl	5_facts	1840000	30927	752	16412.84	21.83	0.016808	0.0004087	0.02432	0.0089200
icon	5_facts	1813500	41087	842	18885.76	22.43	0.022656	0.0004643	0.02049	0.0104140

difference in numbers/imp. statistically significant (p-value = 0.01095)

difference in clicks/imp. statistically significant (p-value < 2.2e-16)

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Test 33: caution! you're redirected

Friday, 30.11., 2:30-6:00 pm UTC

During the donation process there is a 30% drop out rate after clicking the donation button inside the banner and being forwarded to the landing page. This is a result of fake donations and transactions that fail, but still it's a very high rate. We tried to decrease that rate in test 8 by various changes to the landing page layout which didn't work. Now we thought donors are perhaps simply cautious by the redirect to an unknown landing page. So we integrated an animated notice which appears after clicking the donation button and explains the transmission to the ssl encrypted landing page for security reasons. Unfortunately this didn't change the drop out rate at all. At least we know sure that the transimssion to the landing page is not the problem.

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop Imp	Donation Imp	Donation Click Drop	Amount Imp
ctrl	5_facts	1317700	27244	644	15553.04	24.15	0.020675	0.0004887	0.02364	0.0118032
ssl notice	5_facts	1326600	26887	619	13942.21	22.52	0.020268	0.0004666	0.02302	0.0105097

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Test 34, 35 & 37: wording + speaker of appeal

Over long time periods in this tests we tried some small changes in the appeal text. We changed the wording of the request for donate (test 34) and added focused on the usefulness of Wikipedia for readers (test 35). Both tests didn't bring much change to the conversion. Furthermore we altered the speaker of the (unpersonal) appeal. It didn't make a difference if Till or Pavel appeared as author. Even changing the role of Pavel (staffer vs. CEO) practically had no effect.

test 34,Friday, 30.11., 07:00 pm UTC - Sunday, 2.12., 01:30 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop Imp	Donation Imp	Donation Click Drop	Amount Imp
ctrl	5_facts	3266600	87677	1904	42850.45	22.51	0.026840	0.0005829	0.02172	0.0131178
var_2	5_facts	3747700	99776	2187	48507.85	22.18	0.026623	0.0005836	0.02192	0.0129434
var_3	5_facts	3766500	99841	2194	50402.21	22.97	0.026508	0.0005825	0.02197	0.0133817
var_1	5_facts	3287500	87253	1928	44210.40	22.93	0.026541	0.0005865	0.02210	0.0134480

test 35, Sunday, 2.12., 01:30 pm UTC - Monday, 3.12., 01:45 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop Imp	Donation Imp	Donation Click Drop	Amount Imp
ctrl	5_facts	5849500	131660	2588	60299.82	23.30	0.022508	0.0004424	0.01966	0.0103085
var_1	5_facts	5911200	132308	2638	59400.66	22.52	0.022383	0.0004463	0.01994	0.0100488

test 36, Monday, 3.12., 06:15 pm UTC - Monday, 4.12., 10:30 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop Imp	Donation Imp	Donation Click Drop	Amount Imp	% Women
Till	5_facts	1766100	42743	840	19087.72	22.72	0.024202	0.0004756	0.01965	0.0108078	25.37
Pavel_CEO	5_facts	1738100	42567	815	17461.23	21.42	0.024491	0.0004689	0.01915	0.0100462	25.24
Pavel_staff	5_facts	1777200	43077	797	19646.53	24.65	0.024239	0.0004485	0.01850	0.0110548	22.69

all test are not statistically significant

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Test 36 & 43: testing sticky function

The stickyness of our current banner wasn't yet well implemented: the banner "jumps" in the top position when scrolling down instead of sticking to the top all the time. In this tests we checked a new stable sticky version. We had to test this twice - a second time for a very long period to be sure - because we were supprised by the results.

It looks like readers react in different ways to the different banner behaviours. While click rate increases by ~6-8% in the jumping version, a higher percentage of people clicking the banner actually donates in the stable version (+ ~10%). It seems like the old version generates more attention by kind of popping up. However these are no productive clicks. Despite statistically significant differences in click rate and donation/click all in all both banner versions perform almost identically in donation/impression. Because the new version has greater usability we decided to continue with it.

test 35, Monday, 3.12., 1:45-6:15 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop Imp	Visitor per Banner-Click	Donation Imp	Donation Click Drop	Donation LP Visitor
ctrl	5_facts	1912200	37550	903	628	14793.68	23.56	0.019637	0.02405	0.0003284	0.01672	0.69546
sticky_new	5_facts	1940300	35669	923	601	13498.50	22.46	0.018383	0.02588	0.0003097	0.01685	0.65114

test 43, Sunday, 9.12., 1:30 pm - Tuesday, 11.12., 3:45 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop Imp	Visitor per Banner-Click	Donation Imp	Donation Click Drop	Donation LP Visitor
ctrl	5_facts	12612500	211079	5718	3977	87053.16	21.89	0.016736	0.02709	0.0003153	0.01884	0.69552
sticky_new	5_facts	12854800	199427	5907	4080	94801.39	23.24	0.015514	0.02962	0.0003174	0.02046	0.69071

click-rate: -7,30% ; p-value < 2.2e-16

numbers/imp: +0,66%; p-value = 0.7691

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Test 38 & 42: wording text facts banner

Since a lot of text variations of the appeal text inside the facts drop down banner didn't make a real difference, in this two tests we tried small changes of the banner text itself. Not mentioning the lack of fees seems to reduce click rate and the will to donate on a small scale (test 38). Explicitly refering to costs does improve conversion (test 42): Although we left out a sentence pointing out the importance of Wikipedia in everyday live (for reasons of banner size) more people donated in the modified version (numbers/imp: + ~7%).

test 38, Tuesday, 4.12., 10:30 am - 02:15 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop Imp	LP- Visitor Imp	Visitor per Banner-Click	Donation Imp	Donation Click Drop	Donation LP Visitor
ctrl	5_facts	1510200	26277	750	515	11470.05	22.27	0.017400	0.000497	0.02854	0.0003410	0.01960	0.68667
fees	5_facts	1542200	25423	710	460	9694.95	21.08	0.016485	0.000460	0.02793	0.0002983	0.01809	0.64789

click rate: statistically significant (p-value = 5.918e-10)

test 42, Friday, 7.12., 12:20 am - Sunday, 9.12., 1:30 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop Imp	Donation Imp	Donation Click Drop	Donation LP Visitor
ctrl	5_facts	9069600	166528	4906	3708	83480.55	22.51	0.018361	0.0004088	0.02227	0.75581
costs	5_facts	9035800	166669	5253	3940	91454.85	23.21	0.018445	0.0004360	0.02364	0.75005

numbers/imp: statistically significant (p-value = 0.004679)

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Test 39: blue link

Tuesday, 4.12., 2:15 - 6:15 pm UTC

To highlight the well performing sentence "If everyone made a small contribution..." we tested a layout modification of WMF formatting the phrase blue and as a link. This does improve conversion rate (numbers/imp) by 21% while click rate seems to decrease a bit.

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop Imp	Donation Imp	Donation Click Drop	Donation LP Visitor
ctrl	5_facts	1658800	31490	712	484	10360.99	21.41	0.018984	0.0002918	0.01537	0.67978
link	5_facts	1653800	30078	849	584	13420.51	22.98	0.018187	0.0003531	0.01942	0.68787

• click-rate: p-value = 8.042e-08
• numbers/imp.: p-value = 0.001872

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Test 40 & 41: appeal Harald Krichel: text + photo

In this test we evaluated the conversion of different text variations of the appeal of Wikipedia editor Harald Krichel. We are very happy that the results enable us to continue the campaign showing an editor appeal for a longer period of time inside the facts banner. All in all the appeals of Pavel (control) and Harald performed on the same level. One text version of Haralds appeal performed slightly better, but the results are not statistically significant. (Although the test lasted nearly 24 hours the samples are too small for such minor differences.) In a further test we wanted to see which impact the personalization by a picture of the speaker has. Inside the facts banner in this test leaving the portrait of Harald away did not have an effect on donation conversion.

test 40, Tuesday, 4.12., 6:15 pm - Wednesday, 5.12., 4:00 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	LP- Visitor/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp
Pavel_ctrl	5_Fakten	2504300	44977	1303	945	19281,92	20,40	0,017960	0,000520	0,02897	0,0003774	0,0210107	0,72525	0,007700
Harald_1 (lang)	5_Fakten	2770600	49827	1489	1066	23455.49	22.00	0.017984	0.000537	0.02988	0.0003848	0.02139	0.71592	0.0084659
Harald_2 (kurz)	5_Fakten	2763300	49477	1448	1004	20418,48	20,34	0,017905	0,000524	0,02927	0,0003633	0,0202923	0,69337	0,007389
Harald_ctrl	5_Fakten	2517500	45238	1320	914	19171,12	20,97	0,017969	0,000524	0,02918	0,0003631	0,0202043	0,69242	0,007615

• difference numbers/click not statistically significant (p-value = 0.6826)

test 41, Wednesday, 5.12., 6:15 pm - Thursday, 6.12., 3:30 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	LP- Visitor/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp
photo	5_facts	4618200	77639	2383	1721	36460.45	21.19	0.016812	0.000516	0.03069	0.0003727	0.02217	0.72220	0.0078949
no_photo	5_facts	4642200	77766	2488	1753	38080.87	21.72	0.016752	0.000536	0.03199	0.0003776	0.02254	0.70458	0.0082032

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Test 44 & 50: banner layouts personal appeals

In these two tests we analyzed different ways to present personal appeals in banners. We know from the second week of our campaign that there was a point, where more pepole were convinced to donate by the personal appeal of Jimmy than the facts banner with which we started the campaign (test 17). Of course by improvements in banner design this result was reversed (test 23). After weeks of facts banners - why should't personal appeals gain more attention and more donations by now?

To find out we tested our current facts banner which features the appeal of Wikipedia editor Harald Krichel inside against a personal appeal banner of Harald. Compared to the old inline banners our new appeal banner has a new design (top, yellow, sticky). Still, it did not work out. While the personal appeal indeed gets more attention (click rate +16%), less people are convinced to donate (numbers/imp. -53%).

Since we couldn't be sure about our new appeal banner layout (which e.g. has a smaller picture) we tested it against the classic inline banner. Here we can see that our layout modifications really improved the appeal banner. The old inline banner received far less clicks (-40%) and didn't convince as many people to donate (numbers/imp. -21%).

test 44, Tuesday, 11.12., 3:45 pm - 8:15 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	LP- Visitor/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp
facts	5_facts	986200	15736	422	297	6370.99	21.45	0.015956	0.000428	0.02682	0.0003012	0.01887	0.70379	0.0064601
pa_top	5_facts	1001200	18564	241	142	3978.01	28.01	0.018542	0.000241	0.01298	0.0001418	0.00765	0.58921	0.0039732

• difference click-rate: statistically significant (p-value < 2.2e-16)
• difference numbers/imp: statistically significant (p-value = 4.127e-14)

test 50, Friday, 14.12., 9:30-11:45 am UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	LP- Visitor/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp
pa_top	5_facts	726300	11214	241	139	4490.00	32.30	0.015440	0.000332	0.02149	0.0001914	0.01240	0.57676	0.0061820
pa_inline	5_facts	809100	0	7446	123	4193.00	34.09	0.000000	0.009203	0.00000	0.0001520	0.00000	0.01652	0.0051823

• difference click-rate: statistically significant (p-value < 2.2e-16)
• difference numbers/imp: statistically significant (p-value = 0.06229)

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Test 45 & 52 : fundraising video, inside facts banner

In this year's campaign we wanted to illustrate as many perspectives on Wikipedia as possible and therefore also let readers speak in a donation appeal. Another goal was to try new ways to communicate. Both we intended to achieve by producing a fundraising video for the campaign. In this two-minute clip Wikipedia readers of different age, background and interest describe their experiences with the online encyclopedia and explain why they like it so much. After that Wikimedia Deutschland CEO Pavel Richter in a short appeal asks for suppport.

Given the lack of experience with video appeals we were very curious about the test results. Now we are happy to see: inside the facts banner the video increased donations per banner click by 12% compared to the current control facts banner with a personal appeal of Wikipedia editor Harald Krichel. Hence, after one week with an editor appeal inside, we continue to show the video inside the facts banner. Since for the success of a video length is a crucial factor we were wondering if a shorter version would perform better than the relative long lasting 2 minute clip. In another test we analyzed the effect of a condensed version which only consists of the appeal of Pavel. This short version improved donations per bannerclick by another 7,7%. Still, this result doesn't hold generally since it is a strong influencing factor that the video is combined with the facts banner.

test 45, Wednesday, 12.12., 1:45-5:45 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Amount/ Imp
ctrl	5_facts	1606000	24412	528	349	7732.74	22.16	0.015200	0.0002173	0.01430	0.0048149
video	5_facts	1596200	25077	611	403	8798.28	21.83	0.015710	0.0002525	0.01607	0.0055120

• donation/click: p-value = 0.1067 (chi-squared-test)

test 50, Friday, 14.12., 6:30 pm - Saturday, 15.12., 1:00 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp
video_long	5_facts	2783500	48063	1319	1012	21565.91	21.31	0.017267	0.0003636	0.02106	0.76725	0.0077478
video_short	5_facts	2794800	47875	1296	936	19848.08	21.21	0.017130	0.0003349	0.01955	0.72222	0.0071018

• donation/click: p-value = 0.09847 (chi-squared-test)

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Test 46, 47, 48 & 49: facts banner vs. video banner

One reason of showing video and personal appeals is to win attention especially from new target groups. Although we already had a multifaceted campaign with different kind of appeals this all took place inside the facts banner so that nobody realizes the change without clicking on the banner. With our campaign video, we hoped to receive high attention so that we tested a new banner design announcing the video against the facts banner (test 46). Unfortunately, the results werde disappointing: donation/impression was reduced by 70%. The new banner did't even receive more clicks.

During three further test we aimed to improve the performance of the video banner on ground of our previous findings. We strenghened the direct appeal to the readers and added the facts-text into the unfolded banner (test 47). Than we changed the video still inside the banner, altered the banner wording and modified the position of the facts-text inside the banner (test 48). In a final step we added two explicit calls to donate (test 49). Step by step we managed to improve the video banner so that it now received much more attention (e.g. clicks) than the facts banner. Although we did not achieve to reach the level of success of the facts banner. A decline of 27,9% in donation/imp. of the optmized video banner (compared to the facts banner) in test 48 also means an improvement by more than 100% compared to the first video banner version. This gives us confindence to achieve further improvements of non-facts banners.

test 46, Wednesday, 12.12., 6:00-7:45 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Amount/ Imp
facts_video	5_facts	622200	10595	247	170	3517.88	20.69	0.017028	0.0002732	0.01605	0.0056539
video_1	5_facts	642000	10218	91	52	1335.00	25.67	0.015916	0.0000810	0.00509	0.0020794

test 47, Thursday, 13.12., 11:00 am - 1:00 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Amount/ Imp
facts_video	5_facts	719400	9654	253	167	3365.22	20.15	0.013420	0.0002321	0.01730	0.0046778
video_2	5_facts	717400	9868	142	72	1738.50	24.15	0.013755	0.0001004	0.00730	0.0024233

test 48, Thursday, 13.12., 3:15 am - 6:15 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Amount/ Imp
facts_video	5_facts	1091600	16435	372	264	5533.50	20.96	0.015056	0.0002418	0.01606	0.0050692
video_3	5_facts	1066300	20898	305	186	3805.50	20.46	0.019599	0.0001744	0.00890	0.0035689

• donations/imp: difference statisticaly significant (p-value = 0.0006062, chi-squared-test)

test 49, Friday, 14.12., 11:30 am - 2:30 pm UTC

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Amount/ Imp
facts_video	5_facts	1010400	13345	348	250	5663.00	22.65	0.013208	0.0002474	0.01873	0.0056047
video_4	5_facts	969000	15139	266	169	3478.33	20.58	0.015623	0.0001744	0.01116	0.0035896

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Test 51: personal editor appeals

Friday, 14.12., 2:30-6:30 pm UTC

In this third group of new personal appeals featuring three Wikipedia editors we illustrated the wide age sprectrum of the volunteering encyclopedians. Beeing 86 years old, Dr. Peter Cueppers already edited Wikipedia more than 19.000 times. In his appeal he describes how he began contributing to the free encyclopedia. That it is possible to get involved with Wikipedia at a young age is shown by Tobias Klenze who started editing at the age of 16. As a crucial reason he states his motivation to help others and he emphasizes the voluntariness of the community as a precioius characteristic of Wikipedia. With a full time employment and a family Gereon Kalkuhl needs to take the time to write about topics like his favourite field chess. In his appeal he points out the high relevance of free access to knowledge for all parts of the society.

We are very happy about the results of this test. The appeal of Dr. Cueppers came as close to the success of Jimmy's appeal as no other text from this year (-7,8% donation/imp). Also the appeal of Tobias performed quite well (-24,54% donation/imp) whereas the one of Gereon didn't convince readers as good (-42,9% donation/imp). A closer look at the results reveals that the reasons for good performance once again lie in a high click rate e.g. attention that non-Jimmy appeal banners often are receiving. While the appeal texts of Gereon and Tobias have a similiar conversion (donation/click) far more people click on the banner of Tobias (+31% compared to Jimmy). One possible explanation could be that Tobias and Dr. Cueppers with their age irritate assumptions about the typical Wikipedia editor and therefore create interest. Still it is not only the high click rate (+33% compared to Jimmy) but also a good performance of the appeal text that explains the success of Dr. Cueppers.

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	LP- Visitor/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
Jimmy	5_facts	563400	10911	211	153	3425.00	22.39	0.019366	0.000375	0.01934	0.0002716	0.01402	0.72512	0.0060792	27.74
Tobias	5_facts	648900	16415	241	133	4492.56	33.78	0.025297	0.000371	0.01468	0.0002050	0.00810	0.55187	0.0069233	26.32
Dr.Cueppers	5_facts	571200	14715	227	143	3433.00	24.01	0.025762	0.000397	0.01543	0.0002504	0.00972	0.62996	0.0060102	25.00
Gereon	5_facts	645300	12710	158	100	2740.00	27.40	0.019696	0.000245	0.01243	0.0001550	0.00787	0.63291	0.0042461	19.10

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: Meanwhile we successfully ended the 2012 fundraiser. Our more than 60 tests played a significant role in achieving our campaign goal. Still the results and 
reportings of some tests are missing. To supply a full documentation of the campaign we will continue to post test results in the coming days and weeks.

Test 53 & 54: 5€ banner

To have a strong message for the final run of the campaign we tested the most successful banner text from last year ("If everyone donated 5€..."). Instead of beeing part of the facts text we wanted to see the effect as isolated sentence on the banner (whereat the facts text was displayed on the banner after clicking on it) (test 53). Interestingly the text had the same effect as last year: decreasing the click rate (-27%) but increasing donation rate (+64%). Great! It's the first time that the facts banner was beaten by another banner.

In the following test we analysed which appeal works best inside the "5€ banner": the campaign video or the appeals of Dr. Cueppers, Pavel or Jimmy (test 54). With small differences the best performing appeal was the one of Pavel, the least one that of Jimmy. But unfortunately the results are not statistically significant.

test 53, Saturday, 15.12., 1:00 - 4:00 pm UTC

Banner	Landing- Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
facts banner	5f	822200	13578	346	257	5625.30	21.89	0.016514	0.02548	0.0003126	0.01893	0.74277	0.0068418	21.50
5€ banner	5f	840400	10111	563	432	8449.93	19.56	0.012031	0.05568	0.0005140	0.04273	0.76732	0.0100547	22.47

• click-rate: -27.15% (p-value < 2.2e-16)
• don/click: +125.70% (p-value < 2.2e-16)
• don/imp: +64.44% (p-value = 1.756e-10)

test 54, Saturday, 15.12., 4:00 - 9:00 pm UTC

Banner	Landing- Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
5€_Video	5f	789000	9610	531	403	7271.00	18.04	0.012180	0.05525	0.0005108	0.04194	0.75895	0.0092155	21.90
5€_Pavel	5f	799500	9711	584	446	8563.41	19.20	0.012146	0.06014	0.0005578	0.04593	0.76370	0.0107110	24.32
5€_Cueppers	5f	713400	8551	492	369	6273.00	17.00	0.011986	0.05754	0.0005172	0.04315	0.75000	0.0087931	20.97
5€_Jimmy	5f	701700	8432	458	332	5144.50	15.50	0.012017	0.05432	0.0004731	0.03937	0.72489	0.0073315	24.91

• appeal_Pavel: don/imp: +9.21% (p-value = 0.1993)

Test 55 & 56: Layout banner of Dr. Cueppers' appeal

To analyse different ways to present the very successfull appeal of Dr. Cueppers on a banner was the aim of these two tests. At first we tried out two personal appeal banners with one featuring a quote to hopefully gain interest of the readers (test 55). Unfortunately the quote had no effect at all.

We then once again tested a personal appeal banner against a facts banner with the appeal inside the drop out. The result shows that more readers clicked on the personal appeal banner but a smaller percentage actually donated. Still the result is not as bad since the degree of the decline of donation rate (donation/imp) is lesser than in test 44 (-32% compared to -53%).

test 55, Monday, 17.12., 3:00 - 6:00 pm UTC

Banner	Landing- Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
pa_Cueppers_ctrl	5f	1254300	30691	457	276	6190.11	22.43	0.024469	0.01489	0.0002200	0.00899	0.60394	0.0049351	22.04
pa_Cueppers_cite	5f	1267500	31018	451	275	6294.00	22.89	0.024472	0.01454	0.0002170	0.00887	0.60976	0.0049657	22.32

• don/imp: -1.38% (p-value = 0.8686)

test 56, Tuesdeay, 18.12., 11:15 am - 2:00 pm Uhr

Banner	Landing-Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	LP- Visitor/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor
facts_Cuepp	5_facts	1033100	19338	492	366	8517.62	23.27	0.018718	0.000476	0.02544	0.0003543	0.01893	0.74390
pa_Cuepp	5_facts	1056100	23810	441	254	6366.95	25.07	0.022545	0.000418	0.01852	0.0002405	0.01067	0.57596

• click-rate: + 20,45% (p-value < 2.2e-16)
• don/click: -43,63% (p-value = 7.569e-13)
• don/imp: -32,12% (p-value = 1.814e-06)

Test 57: new personal appeals

Tuesday, 18.12., 2:00 - 5:45 pm UTC

A bunch of new interesting stories and perspecitvse are told in the new appeals we tested today. Robin Müller already as a shool child began to participate in the largest free encyclopedia, Christoph Meineke as a mayor and Wikipedian explains the importance of Wikipedia in his small town and donor Cornelia Dietz writes about quality and helpfulness of the content. As in the other appeal tests the click rates increased compared to Jimmy's appeal but less people donated. While Cornelia recieved the highest attention (click rate +33%) the appeal of Robin performed best in total (don/imp -27%).

Banner	Landing- Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
Jimmy	5f	697200	13532	262	160	4040.55	25.25	0.019409	0.01936	0.0002295	0.01182	0.61069	0.0057954	26.43
Robin Müller	5f	805600	20080	261	134	4214.00	31.45	0.024926	0.01300	0.0001663	0.00667	0.51341	0.0052309	22.88
Christoph Meineke	5f	812700	18809	255	121	3326.00	27.49	0.023144	0.01356	0.0001489	0.00643	0.47451	0.0040925	25.23
Cornelia Dietz	5f	706900	18319	194	104	4378.18	42.10	0.025915	0.01059	0.0001471	0.00568	0.53608	0.0061935	20.93

• Robin Müller: click-rate: +28.42%; don/click: -43.54%; don/imp: -27.52% (p-value = 0.005769)
• Christoph Meineke: click-rate: +19.24%; don/click: -45.57%; don/imp: -35.13% (p-value = 0.0002949)
• Cornelia Dietz: click-rate: +33.52%; don/click: -51.97%; don/imp: -35.89% (p-value = 0.0003719)

Test 58: facts banner: appeals of Pavel and Dr.Cueppers

Tuesday, 18.12., 7:00 pm - Wednesday, 19.12., 12:15 am UTC

Given the success of the appeal of Dr. Cueppers and the good performance of Pavel's appeal in combination with the 5€ banner we wanted to see which of both works better in combination with the facts banner. With an increase of 10% in donation rate the appeal of Dr. Cueppers does.

Banner	Landing- Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
facts_Pavel	5f	3300300	61264	1650	1174	25596.74	21.80	0.018563	0.02693	0.0003557	0.01916	0.71152	0.0077559	25.47
facts_Cueppers	5f	3293000	60851	1747	1285	28382.53	22.09	0.018479	0.02871	0.0003902	0.02112	0.73555	0.0086190	25.58

• don/imp: +9.71% (p-value = 0.02180)

Test 59: merging facts and personal appeal

Thursday, 20.12., 11:45 am - Friday, 12.12., 10:00 am UTC

What an exciting test. We are still working to optimze the banner layout for personal appeals. So far the problem was that we only were able to show personal appeals within the drop down banner. Hence we were unable to let readers know when we have changed the appeals because the facts stay the same all the time. But personal appeal banners were not as successful as the facts.

What we have learned from tests with the fundraising video is that moving the facts text into the drop down block has a positive effect. Our aim with this test was to make this changing more visible. For that, we changed the layout in terms of colour (red) and text (white with a 3D-effect). Due to this we were able to increase the success of the personal appeal banner profoundly. With a decrease of the donation rate by 6,7 % it now performes nearly on the same level as the facts banner - which is a sucess compared to the performance of the personal appeal banner in previous tests with decreases up to 53% (Test 44 and Test 56). With our constant work on optimizing the banner designs we were happy to find succeed in finding a decent way to present personal appeals.

Banner	Landing- Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
facts_Cueppers	5f	4558900	84225	2157	1592	35548.10	22.33	0.018475	0.02561	0.0003492	0.01890	0.73806	0.0077975	22.89
pa_Cueppers_red	5f	4614300	95496	2246	1503	36993.23	24.61	0.020696	0.02352	0.0003257	0.01574	0.66919	0.0080171	23.20

• click-rate: +12.02% (p-value < 2.2e-16)
• don/click: -16.73% (p-value = 2.700e-07)
• don/imp: -6.72% (p-value = 0.05285)

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Test 60: more personal appeals

Friday, 21.12., 10:00 am - 5:00 pm UTC

How you became a Wikipedian on Christmas and why you can get into coding at the age of 12 - those were topics in our new round of personal appeals. Dirk Franke, a digital encyclopdian from the very early days, tells us how he perceived the start of Wikipedia. Jens Ohling and Denny Vrandečić are two programmers working for WikiData. Both tell us what their motives are while programming for Wikipedia.

The outcome of this test is similar to other personal appeal tests: a better click rate but worse donation rate compared to Jimmy. But we were very happy about how close we came with the appeals of Dirk (4 % lower donation per imp) and Jens (8 % lower donation per imp).

Banner	Landing- Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
Jimmy	5f	802300	13831	393	259	6039.70	23.32	0.017239	0.02841	0.0003228	0.01873	0.65903	0.0075280	28.13
Dirk Franke	5f	775800	15601	366	239	4803.00	20.10	0.020110	0.02346	0.0003081	0.01532	0.65301	0.0061910	21.95
Jens Ohlig	5f	683300	12727	286	203	5420.79	26.70	0.018626	0.02247	0.0002971	0.01595	0.70979	0.0079333	21.74
Denny Vrandečić	5f	700900	12137	257	167	4317.50	25.85	0.017316	0.02117	0.0002383	0.01376	0.64981	0.0061599	16.08

• Dirk Franke: click-rate: +16.65%; don/click: -18.21%; don/imp: -4.56% (p-value = 0.6019)
• Jens Ohlig: click-rate: +8.04%; don/click: -14.84%; don/imp: -7.97% (p-value = 0.3753)
• Denny Vrandečić: click-rate: +0.45%; don/click: -26.54%; don/imp: -26.19% (p-value = 0.002122)

Test 61 & 62: personal appeal banners: Dr. Cueppers, Dirk Franke, Jens Ohlig

With these two tests we compared the best performing personal appeals from besides Jimmy so far. The outcome shows that the "senior Wikipedian" Peter Cüppers performs way better than the young Wikimedia progammers.

test 61: Friday, 21.12., 03:15 pm - Saturday, 22.12., 11:30 am UTC

Banner	Landing- Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
pA_Cueppers	5f	3028500	65157	1533	1059	26708.93	25.22	0.021515	0.02353	0.0003497	0.01625	0.69080	0.0088192	20.70
pA_Dirk	5f	3027600	61302	1350	905	20761.10	22.94	0.020248	0.02202	0.0002989	0.01476	0.67037	0.0068573	21.69

• click-rate: -5.89% (p-value < 2.2e-16), don/click: -9.15% (p-value = 0.03222), don/imp: -14.52% (p-value = 0.0005225)

test 62, Saturday, 22.12., 11:30 am - Sunday, 23.12., 12:00 am UTC

Banner	Landing- Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
pA_Cueppers	5f	4308900	90930	2011	1455	36632.47	25.18	0.021103	0.02212	0.0003377	0.01600	0.72352	0.0085016	20.92
pA_Jens	5f	4362400	82325	1769	1287	33033.07	25.67	0.018871	0.02149	0.0002950	0.01563	0.72753	0.0075722	19.54

• click-rate: -10.57% (p-value < 2.2e-16), don/click: -2.29% (p-value = 0.5398), don/imp: -12.64% (p-value = 0.0004124)

Test 63: 5€ banner: Dirk Franke vs. Dr. Cueppers

Sunday, 23.12., 12:00 am - Wednesday, 26.12., 12:30 am UTC

The personal appeal banners have been up for the last three days now. Since christmas days have never been very good days in terms of donations, we did another longer test with the very effective 5 Euro-Banner with the appeals of Peter Cüppers and Dirk Franke. Both appeals perform about the same, with Cueppers performing about 3,5 % better. Interestingly, we were able to get a large sample resulting in a significant result even though the difference is pretty small. The second interesting observation is the interaction between the banner text and the appeal. We know from other tests that appeals don´t work for themselves but in combination with the banner text. In this test, we see that the banner text lowers the difference of the impact of the two appeals which has always been a lot bigger in previous tests.

Banner	Landing- Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
5€_Cueppers	5f	13694900	152822	6840	5307	100731.12	18.98	0.011159	0.04476	0.0003875	0.03473	0.77588	0.0073554	19.07
5€_Dirk	5f	13680500	152959	6641	5112	99742.54	19.51	0.011181	0.04342	0.0003737	0.03342	0.76976	0.0072909	18.04

• don/click: -3.77% (p-value = 0.04656)
• don/imp: -3.57% (p-value = 0.0633)

Test 64 & 65: personal appeal Dr.Cueppers: 5€ banner, personal appeal banner, stickyness

Before we wanted to end the campaign with a 5-day-personal-appeal marathon of every one who participated with their story so far, we ran a couple of last tests. We compared the effect of Peter Cueppers' appeal in the 5 Euro banner and in the personal appeal banner (Test 64). Basically, both perform as in a the previous comparable test 53 but with a different amplitude. While in Test 53 the 5 Euro banner had a 27 % lower click rate, now we see a decrease of 51 %. The same with the donation rate (+64% vs. +26%). What we don´t know is whether the reason for this is an effect of "banner fatique" or a difference in the facts/appeal banner.

In the second test (65) we focused on the effect of the sticky function. Again, we see an outcome comparable to a previous test with a different magnitude. Certainly, the sticky function provokes lower click rates along with a boosting of the donation rate (Test 26: +128%; Test 65: +68%).

test 64, Wednesday, 26.12., 12:30 am - 2:45 pm UTC

Banner	Landing- Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
5€_Cueppers	5f	699000	7289	310	227	4424.60	19.49	0.010428	0.04253	0.0003247	0.03114	0.73226	0.0063299	23.83
pA_Cueppers	5f	670600	14355	227	173	4060.00	23.47	0.021406	0.01581	0.0002580	0.01205	0.76211	0.0060543	23.78

• don/imp: p-value = 0.02225

test 65, Wednesday, 26.12., 2:45 pm - Thursday, 27.12., 1:45 pm UTC

Banner	Landing- Page	Impressions	Banner Clicks	Visitors LP	Donations	Sum	Average	Click Drop/ Imp	Visitor/ Banner-Click	Donation/ Imp	Donation/ Click-Drop	Donation/ LP-Visitor	Amount/ Imp	% Women
sticky	5f	4952600	98570	1853	1388	35532.50	25.60	0.019903	0.01880	0.0002803	0.01408	0.74906	0.0071745	22.28
non_sticky	5f	5669000	45621	1305	947	26481.50	27.96	0.008047	0.02861	0.0001670	0.02076	0.72567	0.0046713	20.18

• don/imp: p-value < 2.2e-16

--TobiasSchumann(WMDE) (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)