Lauren Simonutti is a Baltimore-based artist/photographer. Having been told that her work didn’t “fit in” in the US (and having more positive experiences in European and Australian markets), she turned to the web—more precisely, to self-publishing her artwork in print-on-demand books through Lulu—in order to reach her audience.

I’ve been interested in using print-on-demand for some time, so I contacted Lauren who kindly agreed to answer my questions about her experiences (and for me to publish her answers here - thank you, Lauren).

Lauren, how did you go about promoting your books on Lulu?

“sorrow…and the end of sorrow” by Lauren Simonutti - available on Lulu.com”

Promotion is always difficult for me. I would rather work than spend time on marketing and I have very few outside resources so I have to find them myself.

Initially my promotion always begins with imagery/layouts that I create and post on deviantart and flickr. The majority of my sales have come via deviantart.

My work seems to hold much greater appeal in Europe and Australia than it does in the States, and in my home city of Baltimore I have been refused for every single thing for which I have applied and just this week was actually refused as a volunteer to work a photobooth at an arts festival (Artscape).

It’s become rather amusing but I have been told in no uncertain terms that here I simply do not fit in.

I mention all this because that is what brought me to the web in the first place. I make considerably more sales in prints or handmade artists books but Lulu.com does provide an alternative.

How easy was it publish your book with Lulu?  What did the process entail? Were there any problems?

Lulu is free which was its first appeal as I have no money.  The process of signing up was simple, it is best to give them a PayPal account for revenue payments as they are faster and require no minimum amount.  I had no problems.  I am adept at design so while it was time consuming that was because of my pickiness.

Now here’s the main issue.  When I signed on and for my two extant books there was the issue of starting with a blank slate - a simple white or black page.  Your picture placements were somewhat limited but not beyond reason and I opted to include the text into my JPEGs as opposed to using their text option.

They have since changed their options to themes - they have pre-ordained themes from which you can not alter page colour or even have a blank background.  This also leads sometimes to unwanted cropping.  I wrote them about this change (they do answer questions quite readily) and replied that the themes were greatly preferred by their clientelle.

Now keep in mind they keep good records, they pay revenues directly and without fuss and their Calendars which I make seasonally are really very nice.

After trying another option I have since gone back to Lulu and believe that using their ‘Portfolio’ book option I can get what I want, it will just take some tweaking and again the text will have to be incorporated in the JPEGs.  But I think it will work and there is the option of hardcover.

Important Note: I have noticed, not just with Lulu but with overnightprints.com and a few others that you should lighten your JPEG in levels about 15 to 20% lighter (using the midtone arrow) than you want them to look.  Digital printing tends a little towards the dark side.

So that has been my experience.  I am working on the new portfolio book selection at this time.  Again, there is no financial outlay and no obligation and if you use the themes it is very fast and easy.

You can see Lauren’s work on her deviantArt account, her Flickr account, and, of course, her Lulu account.

Facebook Pages are a recent addition to Facebook, and they’re currently the best way for an artist to promote their artwork on Facebook (better than Facebook Groups, which are an earlier addition).

If you’ve got a normal Facebook account then setting up an Artist’s Page is very easy: go to this page, make your choices, and follow the instructions.

Facebook supply several resources to help you maintain and promote your page.  First you’ll need the Facebook Pages Insider’s Guide -  a PDF guide to how to do everything.  It’s only 28 pages long, and to Facebook’s credit, is very clearly written and easy to understand.

Customising your page, adding applications (such as a feed from your blog) and uploading gallery images is easy.

You can promote your Facebook page both on Facebook itself (with Facebook’s Social Ads program if you’ve got a budget), and outside Facebook (so long as you follow their guidelines) like so:

The Lazarus Corporation on Facebook

(Go on, follow the link and become a fan!)

Expecting a longer post? Not this time - I was very pleasantly surprised to find how quick and easy it was. I’m planning a follow-up post soon with some strategies for using your Facebook Artist’s Page.

Those of you that venture beyond this blog to other parts of this website will probably know I’m currently working on a limited edition series of handmade artists books.

In this post I want to show how all the elements of this website will work together to help promote this new artwork, and a possible freeconomics model I’m looking at for selling the artwork.

Public documentation from the beginning of the project

Public documentation on my website

Firstly, I’ve been documenting the whole process in the Notebook section of this site.  The Notebook section is free open-source wiki software called Mediawiki - the same wiki software originally written for Wikipedia.

I chose to use wiki software because it meant I could simply log into it, create and edit pages, and cross-reference between pages very easily.  Unlike most wikis, I have turned off the ability for other people to edit it.  This is because I just want to use it as my notebook rather than as a collaborative tool.

I’ve also just started a thread in the discussion forum.  This only has an introductory post at the moment, but I expect that side of things to get busier as I progress with the project (I don’t expect to finish the artwork until around November/December 2008).  The discussion forum thread will enable people to ask questions, creating a dialogue rather than a monologue.

It’s important to note that public documentation starts the moment the project starts - it’s not something that is put together afterwards.  The Notebook section especially makes the creative process itself open and transparent.

Public documentation on Social Networks

As well as documenting the project on this site, I’m also documenting it on various social networks.  My DeviantArt profile was the obvious first choice—it’s an applied social network dedicated to artwork—so I’ve uploaded some of the initial photographs and text, and also explained the project in journals entries.

MySpace and Facebook are perhaps less immediately useful, but still important.

MySpace bulletins and blogs provide a space to explain the project and give updates, and images can always be uploaded to your MySpace photo albums (so long as they comply with MySpace’s somewhat restrictive photo policy), but linking out to your own website for further information is a grey area - MySpace seems to allow it for some sites, but not for others.

Facebook is also useful - and the ability to create groups and pages is something that should be investigated.

Using a Freemium model

I’ve blogged about Freeconomic/Freemium models before, but I’ve never suggested how they can be used to sell artwork.  So now I’m going to explain how I’m going to use them.

In the my blog post A Summary of Freeconomic Models I described the “multi-tier freemium” model used by the Trent Reznor’s band Nine Inch Nails:

Nine Inch Nail’s recent Ghosts release. 9 free tracks are available for download for free. The full 36 tracks are available for download for $5. Various limited edition high-(visual/tactile aesthetic)-standard production CD/DVD versions are available for higher prices (full details on Techdirt).

So, how do I apply this to a limited edition series of handmade artists books?

Well, having turned pale when adding up the costs of my materials so far, I am resigned to the fact that the thirty to fifty handmade artists books I create are going to have to be priced quite highly.  I’m not sure how much yet (because I haven’t finished spending), but for the purposes of this post let’s presume each one is going to be around £200 ($400 US).

Now, not everyone can afford that, or is willing to spend that much money on artwork, or—let’s be honest—likes my artwork enough to spend £200 on it.

So, here’s a possible multi-tiered freemium model I’ve been considering:

• A downloadable PDF ebook.  It’s not tactile, it’s neither handbound nor letterpress-printed by the artist, it’s not got the high production standards of one of the 30-50 books, it doesn’t even exist in hard-copy format (unless you chose to print it out on your printer) but it’s free.  This is for people who—for whatever reason—would never buy my artwork but quite like it.
• A print-on-demand hard-copy book.  Again, it lacks a lot of the high-(visual/tactile aesthetic)-standard production of an original piece of handmade artwork, but it’s printed by a professional print-on-demand publisher for around £25 (I’ve spent more than that on a round of drinks).  I need to do some research into the print quality of images in print-on-demand books.
• A Limited Edition series of thirty to fifty handmade artists books, finished to a very high standard, with photographs collaged in and the text letterpress-printed.  Each artists book will be uniquely and individually hand-bound by the artist.

I may slot some other options in there as well. How about a more expensive print-on-demand book, but with a limited edition set of postcards of some of the images?  Or just a set of postcards of the images as something people could buy separately?

By providing various options, from free to expensive via a mid-range of prices, I can not only get my artwork out to as many people as possible, but also make money as an artist.

Freeconomics took another step into the mainstream this week, as Multiplatinum-selling pop group McFly announced they would be giving away their new CD with The Mail On Sunday on July 20th.

Now, in terms of brands that combination is enough to make me vomit (I hate McFly and I hate the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday’s small-minded right-wing bigotry), but putting my personal hatred aside, it’s got to be said that it’s another big step forward for the mainstream adoption of new business models.

Taking a (probably well-deserved) shot at their former record company, Universal, McFly said that “Setting up our own label allows us to rip up the rulebook and find new ways of reaching an audience.”

Adapting a freemium model most famously championed by Nine Inch Nails, the band are giving away the basic CD to an estimated 3 million newspaper customers (for which the newspaper will obviously pay McFly a hefty lump sum), then selling a deluxe version of the album a month later as a CD, featuring four extra new songs, a bonus DVD and a 32-page booklet.

Obviously the record companies hate this (just like they hated the same newspaper’s free giveaway of Prince’s last album).

The BBC reports Music consultant and former Sony executive Neil Cartwright saying “The record industry invests in new artists, and if that money disappears you’re going to find it a lot more difficult if you’re a young band to find support. That really is the danger the industry faces.”

Well, yes, the record industry does face disaster if it refuses to engage with new business models (other than suing music fans), but musicians—both new and established—can easily continue to make money, and music fans can continue to enjoy new music.

It’s just the middle men who won’t be taking a big fat cut any longer (unless they start engaging with the internet and new business models in a positive way rather than ranting against them, and even turning against their biggest promotional tool - music radio).

Anyway, that’s far more than I ever wanted to write about McFly & The Mail On Sunday.

I was chatting to a good friend of mine yesterday about business strategies for her music.  She’s not planning on chart-topping super-stardom, she just wants to have a plan for getting her music out there and hopefully making some money on it.

So, I thought I’d put together my ideas for a good start-up web strategy for a musician or band.

1. Create a website.

This is about getting your web presence set up.  For your own website I’d recommend getting some cheap (but not free) hosting space with your own domain name.  Hosting space will cost you less than £50 / $100, and a domain name is frequently thrown in for free in your first year of hosting.

You’ll need web space with PHP and MySQL because you’re going to need to install WordPress—the same blog software that runs this site—along with a couple of WordPress plugins created by Illinois developer Dan Coulter.

Dan has two “must have” WordPress plugins for musicians:

• The Discography plugin, which lets you upload your MP3s, publish a list of albums and auto-generate a WordPress page for each song, so that fans can comment, save links to your songs and share them with friends, and
• The Gigs Calendar plugin, which lets bands and musicians manage and display a calendar of their gigs within WordPress, even managing venue data complete with mapping and ticket links.

The normal “blog” section of your blog should be regularly updated to keep your fanbase up to date on forthcoming gigs, progress on new tracks, inside info on the writing/recording etc.

Some sort of email newsletter plugin is also required.  I don’t have any recommendations for a particular plugin here - just one recommendation for strategy: don’t spam anyone.  The only people you want to receive your email newsletter are the people who want to receive your email newsletter.

When you’ve got all this set up (it’s about a 1 hour job for your neighbourhood geek) then you need to get a decent theme for your site - there are plenty of free themes on the WordPress Theme Viewer or you can get one designed specially for you by a decent web designer.

You’re now ready to upload all your MP3s and make them available for free on your website - you’re not going to make any money selling compressed digital files so set them free.  To quote Tim O’Reilly: “Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy“.

2. Create associated social network profiles.

The next stage is to create a MySpace band profile page, a Last.fm profile…  There are other good social networks for music - I hesitate to name them here because in 6 months my list will be out of date.  Search them out and get on them.

Andrew Dubber has some very good suggestions for what to do on your MySpace page, as has Wired magazine.

Your aim (at this stage, anyway - perhaps always) is not to be able to afford a guitar-shaped swimming pool, but to get 1000 True Fans. Or perhaps it’s 500 or 5000 true fans - whichever figure is correct, the point is that you’re looking at an achieveable target, not a dream of superstardom.

3. Keep making music & playing gigs.

No matter how cool your website, how interactive your blog, or how many friends you have on MySpace, you need to keep creating music and making it available as free MP3 files on your site.

Keep playing gigs.  You could try giving away CDs at gigs (make sure your website address is clearly mentioned on the CD or case!) - I wrote about this strategy back in February explaining the rationale behind it.

4. Your first pay-for product.

Now, apart from getting paid to play gigs—and let’s face it, the money you get for paying gigs at this stage barely covers your gig overheads—you’re not getting any money from your music yet.

I think that a good starting strategy is to put together a good CD.  Spend time and money on the packaging (I love card-stock digipacks - they’re so much more appealing as objects than jewel cases).

Seek out local artists who might be prepared to create artwork for your CD.  Seek out graphic designers to put the artwork together with the text.  You might think you can do these things yourself, but the work of a good artist and a good graphic designer makes the difference between something that looks OK and something that looks great.

Small Limited Editions are almost a necessity (after all, you probably can’t afford huge print runs) so make a feature of it.  Hand-number them as limited editions, make the packaging really, really attractive, and sign them all to make them special.

5. Make more music and play more gigs.

You can’t sit back and just wait for your CD to sell.  You need to get out there, make more music, play more gigs, get on the latest social networks and music sites…

Don’t wait for your CD to sell out before you make the next one - otherwise it never will. The more CDs you make, the more opportunities you have to sell both your frontlist (your new CD) and backlist (your previous CDs).

In my first post on this blog I wrote (critically) about ACAP - a thoroughly wrong-headed attempt by some publishers to enforce stringent limitations on the way search engines index the content that publishers make public on their websites.

Today ACAP is completely dead in the water.

Google, Yahoo and Microsoft (see those links for details) today jointly announced their backing for the existing Robots Exclusion Protocol (REP) which comprises robots.txt, the Sitemap protocol, and individual page meta elements.

The people behind ACAP are probably still claiming that they have the backing of the world’s 4th largest search engine Exalead, but in the words of Bill Hicks “Yeah, maybe, but you know what, after the first 3 largest armies search engines, there’s a REAL big fucking drop-off.”

The decision by the three big search engines to back the existing REP standard—and to clarify exactly how they implement it—is a great example of these three competitors working together to the benefit of both website owners and searchers.

UPDATE - 4th June 2008: I just heard from a colleague that the whole ACAP debacle could have been avoided.  ACAP was primarily conceived as a way to convey rights/permissions metadata when feeding data from one partner organisation to another (for example, from a publisher to Amazon).

For some unknown reason the people behind ACAP decided to try to roll it out as a website technology.

This was obviously a huge strategic error, and it backs up my belief that the people behind this technology just don’t get the web. As a protocol for communicating permissions information from a publisher to Amazon or Google Books (not Google Search!) in a data feed it’s probably fine.  But ACAP has no place on the web.

What prompted the people behind ACAP to try to force it onto the web is unimaginable.  This ill-conceived idea was doomed from the start, especially when combined with their secretiveness (they have a forum on their site, but it’s hidden from view and they only give out logins to selected partners) and their attitude when replying to the tidal wave of criticism they received from bloggers.

I’ve seen a lot of artist’s websites with fierce and furious demands not to “steal” their artwork (by which they mean the small digital reproductions of their artwork), insulting visitors before they’ve even begun to explore a website.

I’ve seen those annoying cut-and-paste JavaScripts to attempt to disable the right-click functionality (as well as a lot of other useful and legitimate functionality) to prevent visitors from saving the small digital reproductions of the artist’s work, in the process crippling visitors’ browsers and pissing them off.

I run things slightly differently - I agree with Tim O’Reilly’s seminal post “Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution” where he stated:

“Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy”

To me the small digital reproductions of my artwork that I display on my site are not my artwork - they’re my marketing.  And if they’re viral marketing (i.e. visitors want to download them and use them as their PC wallpaper or—even better—distribute them to other people on their MySpace pages) then I’ve been even more successful.

My artwork—as you’ll know if you’ve taken a look at my galleries—consists of collages, assemblages and drawings, with a few photographs.  It doesn’t consist of the small digital images of those pieces of artwork.  So when people take those images and use them for their own non-commercial purposes then it isn’t theft, it’s other people doing my marketing for me.

Now, you could say that because I don’t watermark my images then how can it be marketing - how can someone seeing one of my images on someone’s MySpace account possibly help me when the image can’t be attributed to me?

It’s simple - people like being Mavens. When asked “Wow, where did you get that image from” (OK, it’s probably more likely to be phrased as “OMFG!!111 - WHR DD U GT THT PIC FRM?!!”, but you get the idea) then the person can show off their knowledge by pointing the amazed newcomer in the direction of the originating website - my website!

Sure, in that situation some idiots may claim that they made it themselves, but that doesn’t cost me anything so I don’t care.

Sure, it costs me a tiny bit of bandwidth if people are too lazy to host it themselves, but if that’s the case then AWStats—my stat-tracking software—will tell me where it’s being used (because the referring page will be logged), which lets me see who likes the images of my artwork and how they’re being used - which is incredibly valuable information.  And the bandwidth cost is neglible - my £100-a-year web-hosting package gives me 150GB bandwidth transfer per month and I only use a fraction of that anyway.

There’s just one exclusion to the above.  I specified people using these images for non-commercial purposes.  Commercial usage is an entirely different matter, and for commercial usage money should change hands (from their hands into my hands!).

I’ve written about social networks and their uses before, but I wanted to expand on some of my original thoughts.

So, let me start with a quote from my previous article stating my position:

I’m sure this isn’t just because I’m an anti-social bastard, but it seems like the big social networks have absolutely no purpose to an individual user. The signal-to-noise ratio is ridiculous - it’s just marketers (whether they be bands or brands) hitting you incessantly with really bad marketing. It reminds me so much of UseNet in the late 1990s it hurts. It’s like being forced to listen to Barry Scott shouting at you about the benefits of Cillit Bang, on a continuous loop.

You see, social networking shouldn’t be the raison d’être of a site. It’s a feature. Add social networking to a site that already has a purpose and you might add value to that site.

When a new concept or technology appears on the internet everyone wants it on their site. Or worse still, everyone wants their site completed devoted to it. Then after an initial—huge—adoption of these new sites, interest—and therefore usage—starts to decay.

This is not a bad thing. The massive adoption of MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, Orkut, FaceParty et al. introduces people to the essential concepts: adding friends, creating and maintaining your profile, adding applications, deleting 99% of those applications when you discover they’re pointless, etc.

As you’ll probably have guessed, my prediction is that usage of Pure Social Networks—sites whose only purpose is “to be a social network”—will start to tail off, and sites which use social networking models as a means to an end (which I’m classing as Applied Social Networking ) will increase thanks to easy adoption of the new tools because everyone’s learnt the ropes on MySpace and Facebook.

I’ve used this example before, but it’s a good one: deviantArt is a prime example of an an Applied Social Networking site - it uses social networking tools as an integrated part of a multi-artist gallery site. It’s not perfect, but it’s on the right path.

MySpace has caught on and has been moving from Pure to Applied over recent years - it’s evolving into a music-orientated site, connecting bands with fans.  Networks such as Flickr and LinkedIn had a purpose from the start (although LinkedIn probably needs to do some work on making itself more useful).  Facebook, however, doesn’t have a purpose yet, and if I were Facebook I’d be worried about that.

1. Disabling right-clicking

JavaScript that disables right-clicking (to prevent people “stealing” your images) is wrong on so many levels. But it’s such a prevalent mistake that I feel the need to tell you why it’s wrong:

Small screen-sized digital images of your artwork are your most basic form of marketing, and (thanks to the wonders of the internet) can be reproduced and redistributed at no cost. If you think that trying to stop people from distributing your marketing material is a good thing then you need to rethink everything from scratch.

It doesn’t work anyway - anyone can disable JavaScript in a matter of a second. Which means I’ve still got your images, but now you’ve annoyed me as well, so I’m less likely to rave about (i.e. promote) your artwork.

2. Flash websites

Now I know this one tends to get Flash evangelists in a tizz, but I hate Flash websites. Part of the reason is that they often completely fail to work on my PC (I’m running 64-bit Linux, and there’s no official flash plugin for 64-bit Linux, so your “website” is rendered as an inactive 800×600 pixel dead-grey rectangle).

Flash websites are also favoured by linear-minded control freaks to dictate how a visitor views a website - they restrict choice. For example, they restrict the visitor from entering the site on anything but the “front” page (which invariably contains a painfully tedious animation that I’m forced to watch before the “enter” link appears).

They also seem to be used as an over-engineered “solution” to people attempting to help market your artwork (in that they prevent you from right-clicking and saving an image). Again, it doesn’t actually do anything but slow your visitor down for a matter of seconds (print-screen will capture that images easily) whilst pissing off your potential customers.

The worst Flash artists’ websites always seem to say to me “I’m a self-important wanker who demands that you see things my way - you will not deviate from the true way to appreciate my artwork” (in 8pt type that I can neither read nor resize). I know I’m ranting here, but it’s a pet hatred of mine.

I should add that I’m not opposed to small bits of Flash embedded within an (X)HTML website, where rich content or animation needs to be delivered, such as using YouTube’s Flash embedding to drop a video into a webpage. That’s fine - that’s what Flash is for.

3. Tiled wallpaper behind the artwork

Galleries have plain walls so that the viewer’s attention isn’t distracted from the artwork. Your website should too. It’s just visual noise that gets in the way of your artwork.

4. Arty Navigation

While I may be inclined to spend my valuable time analysing and building an understanding & appreciation of your artwork, I’d rather not spend that time analysing and building an understanding of your website’s navigation/menu - I don’t care enough and I’ll just go somewhere else.

I want a menu on every page of the site with the main menu items should be in writing and not icons/symbols/images whose meaning I can only deduce by clicking on them and seeing where I end up. I don’t care how “clever” they are.

5. Splash pages with “enter” links

I used to make this mistake many years ago. I had a splash page with an impressively large image and an “enter” link.

It comes from an over-extension of the analogy that an artist’s website is their personal gallery—with a door through which you enter—but that analogy is wrong.

A website is a gallery—and much more—where all the artwork is hung on the exterior walls facing out into the world, rather than being contained in a space for which there is only one entrance (this is a mistake frequently made by aficionados of Flash websites).

Building on Chris Anderson’s article Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business I wanted to try to summarise some of the freeconomics models that have been tried out so far (if I’ve missed any, please feel free to add them in the comments).

For the purposes of this summary I’m ignoring products or services that are free because of government grants or funding. I’m also ignoring models which claim to have a free component, but the free item can’t be gained without paying for another product/service (for example, phone companies that give you a free mobile/cell-phone so long as you sign yourself into a minimum-duration contract). Finally I’m excluding “free sample” offers, because it’s a non-sustainable temporary discount rather than a long-term model.

The Freemium Model

Description

In this model, the basic service or product is free. The majority of people will be happy with the free version. Production/service cost-retrieval and revenue come from the minority of people choosing the premium paid-for version(s). The word “freemium” was coined by venture capitalist Fred Wilson.

Examples

• Simple 2-tier: Flickr - the basic service (with a limited monthly upload) is free, but an enhanced version (with no monthly limit) is available at a cost.
• Multi-tier: Nine Inch Nail’s recent Ghosts release. 9 free tracks are available for download for free. The full 36 tracks are available for download for $5. Various limited edition high-(visual/tactile aesthetic)-standard production CD/DVD versions are available for higher prices (full details on Techdirt).

The Cross-sell Free Model

Description

In this model, one service/product is free and one or more different—but related—service/products are available at a cost. A percentage of the people who enjoy the free product will also want to have the related non-free product(s).

Examples

• A band makes all their recorded songs available for free on the web in order to attract people to their (pay-for-entry) gigs. Additional non-free products available might include merchandise.
• An author blogs about a subject over time & in depth (free content), then publishes the same content—edited into book format—as a paid-for hardback/paperback book.
• A piece of software—e.g. a Linux distro—is free, but a technical support contract is available at a cost for those that want it.

The Sponsorship/Ad-Supported Free Model

Description

A product is given away free, and the creators make their money from adverts embedded in or around the product.

Examples

• Mozilla Firefox - the Firefox browser is free, and Mozilla receive about $72 million from Google for making Google’s search facility the default search engine in the search bar at the top of the browser.
• Google - Google’s search engine is free, but is supported by adverts running on Google’s AdSense advertising network.
• The free newspaper I read on the bus on the way to work - the cost of the newspaper is paid for by adverts throughout the paper.
• Commercial terrestrial television channels.

The Patronage-supported Free Model

Description

The product is free, but people are encouraged to financially contribute. Reasons to pay might include goodwill/appreciation, or some more tangible “reward” (e.g. being visibly acknowledged as a financial contributor or having some input into the final product).

Examples

• Radiohead’s “pay what you want” release last year. Although strictly not free (the credit card processing fee was obligatory) fans could choose how much they wanted to contribute. The average contribution was $5.
• Wikipedia—or rather the Wikimedia Foundation—is mainly funded by public donations who are listed at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors