More notes for next fundraiser.
So, the first thing I need to say as preamble is that I am by no means complaining about the outcome of the (still ongoing) spring fundraiser. The proceeds for it stand at around $1,200 right now, and while the bulk of that has already vanished into the Ether of Financial Obligation, that's really not bad. If it doesn't bring in another dollar more, that's an extra $400 per month when I divide it out over a quarter. Before I hit on the very successful Fundraiser Friday concept, I was kind of expecting an overall take in the neighborhood of $1,000, so... yeah, pretty good.
The second thing I need to say is that not having anything to complain about isn't a reason to not look at ways to make more money. I have no interest in being cutthroat. I don't want anybody in particular to feel obligated to me, especially someone who can't really afford to pay. But the more efficiently I can encourage people who are willing and able to pay, the less cutthroat I'll need to be. The whole point of doing a quarterly fundraiser is it means I don't have to rattle the cup constantly.
So, it makes sense to make the quarterly fundraiser as big as it can be.
With that as preamble:
A big message I'm getting from multiple people is that they're not joining in because they don't feel that the amount they contribute will have an impact. As I said in a previous post I think part of that might come from the drawn out nature of this race... someone can chip in $5 when it's a three-way tie for 0 and then watch over the weeks as their choice falls farther and farther behind... and it's very possible I'll see a surge in small donations in the last few days, but anybody who's got a buck or five that they're holding back in the theory that they'll use it if it makes a difference or if it seems "safe"... well, it seems like there's only a 1 in 3 or maybe 2 in 3 chance they'll actually do it, you know?
And I don't think it's only about the timing. I think it's also about the fact that some people who only have $1, $5, and even $10 look at the triple-digit jumps the scores make and just think "I can't compete with that".
Whereas if everybody who only has a few bucks to spare did pitch in, the board might look very different right now. And I'd have more money.
I don't for anything in the world want to tell the people who throw in a hundred dollars at a time to knock it off, but I don't want the people who don't have as much to spend to feel like they're wasting it.
So here's what I'm thinking for the next time I do a vote/race... and there's nothing saying the next fundraiser will be one, but just for the future in general I think I'm going to switch over to a "point" system, where every donation comes with a certain amount of points built in that goes up with the dollar amount. This way it'll be weighted... a hundred dollar donation will still be worth impressively more but $1 donations will have a greater impact.
Of course, if the weighting makes people feel like the larger donations aren't worth it I could see those go down, but 1) I'd rather have a model where my income is coming from more people giving a little than a few people giving a lot and 2) I think the people who are so generously paying the "big bucks" aren't doing so exclusively out of a sense of the power it gives them to directly impact these races.
Even if I don't end up doing weighting, having points would simplify things when I do double impact days, because right now I have the "full" dollar amounts listed in the box at the top of the site and breakdowns on the fundraiser page explaining how much of that total is imaginary money from the double days. Having a point system would let me show the standings without giving the impression that I've made almost 50% more money than I actually have.
Other things I can do besides weighting:
* Offer really kick-ass milestone incentives and remind people from the beginning that their contribution isn't wasted if it helps reach those.
* Offer a reward to each contributor - this will be something I can maybe do more easily in the future as my catalogue of stories for sale grows. If you can pick a story that I sell for a buck with your vote, why not throw in your dollar? This might "absorb" some sales I would have made anyway but I'm betting it will get more new contributions... and put more copies of my e-books into circulation. Something to definitely consider.
* Make a clear benefit to the number of people voting for each item, separate from the "highest total wins" thing. In the current one I was planning on using the totals for the two "losers" to judge the overall demand for the characters/plotlines. If I did that, I'm not sure I'd get a clear reading when it comes to the underdog underworlders... is demand for those characters/plotlines really that low, or is the interest just not showing up because it doesn't seem like they have a chance of winning what looks like an all-or-nothing race? If I had a "second prize" that was based on number of contributors, maybe that would change things up a bit.
Again, these are all observations for the future. I don't know that I would do all of them. I kind of like the e-book one, though. Seems like a win-win-win-win situation.
This entry automatically cross-posted from http://alexandraerin.dreamwidth.org/247835.html. Comment hither or thither. Void where yon.
The second thing I need to say is that not having anything to complain about isn't a reason to not look at ways to make more money. I have no interest in being cutthroat. I don't want anybody in particular to feel obligated to me, especially someone who can't really afford to pay. But the more efficiently I can encourage people who are willing and able to pay, the less cutthroat I'll need to be. The whole point of doing a quarterly fundraiser is it means I don't have to rattle the cup constantly.
So, it makes sense to make the quarterly fundraiser as big as it can be.
With that as preamble:
A big message I'm getting from multiple people is that they're not joining in because they don't feel that the amount they contribute will have an impact. As I said in a previous post I think part of that might come from the drawn out nature of this race... someone can chip in $5 when it's a three-way tie for 0 and then watch over the weeks as their choice falls farther and farther behind... and it's very possible I'll see a surge in small donations in the last few days, but anybody who's got a buck or five that they're holding back in the theory that they'll use it if it makes a difference or if it seems "safe"... well, it seems like there's only a 1 in 3 or maybe 2 in 3 chance they'll actually do it, you know?
And I don't think it's only about the timing. I think it's also about the fact that some people who only have $1, $5, and even $10 look at the triple-digit jumps the scores make and just think "I can't compete with that".
Whereas if everybody who only has a few bucks to spare did pitch in, the board might look very different right now. And I'd have more money.
I don't for anything in the world want to tell the people who throw in a hundred dollars at a time to knock it off, but I don't want the people who don't have as much to spend to feel like they're wasting it.
So here's what I'm thinking for the next time I do a vote/race... and there's nothing saying the next fundraiser will be one, but just for the future in general I think I'm going to switch over to a "point" system, where every donation comes with a certain amount of points built in that goes up with the dollar amount. This way it'll be weighted... a hundred dollar donation will still be worth impressively more but $1 donations will have a greater impact.
Of course, if the weighting makes people feel like the larger donations aren't worth it I could see those go down, but 1) I'd rather have a model where my income is coming from more people giving a little than a few people giving a lot and 2) I think the people who are so generously paying the "big bucks" aren't doing so exclusively out of a sense of the power it gives them to directly impact these races.
Even if I don't end up doing weighting, having points would simplify things when I do double impact days, because right now I have the "full" dollar amounts listed in the box at the top of the site and breakdowns on the fundraiser page explaining how much of that total is imaginary money from the double days. Having a point system would let me show the standings without giving the impression that I've made almost 50% more money than I actually have.
Other things I can do besides weighting:
* Offer really kick-ass milestone incentives and remind people from the beginning that their contribution isn't wasted if it helps reach those.
* Offer a reward to each contributor - this will be something I can maybe do more easily in the future as my catalogue of stories for sale grows. If you can pick a story that I sell for a buck with your vote, why not throw in your dollar? This might "absorb" some sales I would have made anyway but I'm betting it will get more new contributions... and put more copies of my e-books into circulation. Something to definitely consider.
* Make a clear benefit to the number of people voting for each item, separate from the "highest total wins" thing. In the current one I was planning on using the totals for the two "losers" to judge the overall demand for the characters/plotlines. If I did that, I'm not sure I'd get a clear reading when it comes to the underdog underworlders... is demand for those characters/plotlines really that low, or is the interest just not showing up because it doesn't seem like they have a chance of winning what looks like an all-or-nothing race? If I had a "second prize" that was based on number of contributors, maybe that would change things up a bit.
Again, these are all observations for the future. I don't know that I would do all of them. I kind of like the e-book one, though. Seems like a win-win-win-win situation.
This entry automatically cross-posted from http://alexandraerin.dreamwidth.org/247835.html. Comment hither or thither. Void where yon.