A greater danger?
Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2024 4:16 am
“Only a small portion of our readers contribute .” (2)
“Yet only a very small portion of our readers donate .” (2)
“It's easy to ignore this message , most people do .” (1)
At first it was a 'small part' that made a contribution, later it is even a 'very small part' that actually donates. As icing on the cake of proof, it is easy to ignore the message ( easier is more positive ) and what's more, most people do that too!
wikipedia negative social proof
“It's easy to ignore this message, most people do.”
Key message: almost nobody donates
“Dear readers in the Netherlands, today we ask you to help Wikipedia.” The English version also relies on social proof and again this backfires, because:
Also read: The donor journey: this is how online fundraising actually works
“… only a tiny portion of our readers give ”.
That remains a shame: “If everyone reading this right now gave €2, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come.” English or not, it is apparently very normal not to donate. The unintended core message: almost no one donates (norm). Let's then look at that other common thread: if everyone donates €2, the campaign will be completed within an hour and Wikipedia can continue for years to come. With 'if' you imagine a certain situation: 'if' everyone would donate, then… But then you rule out that situation in advance. Not very promising.
Crown Jewel
No wonder if the donation request comes back every year. And the fact that it comes back every year makes it even worse! They could go on for years, if everyone would donate? Apparently malaysia phone number list almost no one donates! Oh wait, they already said that themselves. I feel a vicious circle coming. And then I even have to reveal that I haven't even mentioned the crown jewel. Here it is again:
“ Less than 1% of our readers donate .”
wikipedia counterproductive social proof
“Less than 1% of our readers donate.”
How encouraging! Dear Wales, have you ever thought how much money you could have earned (extra), if you had used different texts (and/or influencing techniques)?
Not that there is necessarily too little coming in. With all those requests for donations, you might think that the volunteer organization is struggling (every year), but despite everything, that is not the case. With hundreds of millions of unique visitors per month (worldwide), there is still 'a nice bit of extra money' coming in if 'a very small part' donates. Let's do a chronological media round.
“Yet only a very small portion of our readers donate .” (2)
“It's easy to ignore this message , most people do .” (1)
At first it was a 'small part' that made a contribution, later it is even a 'very small part' that actually donates. As icing on the cake of proof, it is easy to ignore the message ( easier is more positive ) and what's more, most people do that too!
wikipedia negative social proof
“It's easy to ignore this message, most people do.”
Key message: almost nobody donates
“Dear readers in the Netherlands, today we ask you to help Wikipedia.” The English version also relies on social proof and again this backfires, because:
Also read: The donor journey: this is how online fundraising actually works
“… only a tiny portion of our readers give ”.
That remains a shame: “If everyone reading this right now gave €2, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come.” English or not, it is apparently very normal not to donate. The unintended core message: almost no one donates (norm). Let's then look at that other common thread: if everyone donates €2, the campaign will be completed within an hour and Wikipedia can continue for years to come. With 'if' you imagine a certain situation: 'if' everyone would donate, then… But then you rule out that situation in advance. Not very promising.
Crown Jewel
No wonder if the donation request comes back every year. And the fact that it comes back every year makes it even worse! They could go on for years, if everyone would donate? Apparently malaysia phone number list almost no one donates! Oh wait, they already said that themselves. I feel a vicious circle coming. And then I even have to reveal that I haven't even mentioned the crown jewel. Here it is again:
“ Less than 1% of our readers donate .”
wikipedia counterproductive social proof
“Less than 1% of our readers donate.”
How encouraging! Dear Wales, have you ever thought how much money you could have earned (extra), if you had used different texts (and/or influencing techniques)?
Not that there is necessarily too little coming in. With all those requests for donations, you might think that the volunteer organization is struggling (every year), but despite everything, that is not the case. With hundreds of millions of unique visitors per month (worldwide), there is still 'a nice bit of extra money' coming in if 'a very small part' donates. Let's do a chronological media round.