Still testing with (positive) social proof?
Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2024 3:48 am
Testing improvements: data and psychology
Judging by Tretikov's statements, I suspect that Wikipedia is already doing some A/B testing (hopefully according to the ROAR method ), otherwise this is the time. Just make sure that they are not random A/B tests. Go for subtle text changes with a prominent share of psychology. Digital data and persuasion psychology have to do it together in all possible meanings. Then the frequency and the pushiness can perhaps be reduced in steps. How nice would it be: more donors, less (often) banners. More sympathy, more credibility and fewer question marks.
View content and context per case
This may mean that we need to look at other influencing techniques than social proof. Communicating very correctly that the desired behavior is often displayed does not necessarily have to have a positive effect in this specific case: the emotional seriousness of the situation may disappear (why would you donate if everyone is already donating?).
Wikipedia's donation requests teach us that we may brazil whatsapp number list be cautious or very sharp and continue to apply psychological principles that 'always work'. The content and context per case remain important.
Other principles may provide a solution and source of inspiration for testing new texts. Despite the warning, it is of course never forbidden to try it anyway with social proof in a positive way: many people show the desired behavior. And 'many' is relative: 'hundreds of thousands of donors' already sounds very different from 'a very small part of our readers' or 'less than 1%'. It often does not even matter whether something is actually a lot or a little, it is related to the connotation (emotional value) of the content. Possible options:
Hundreds of thousands of indispensable donors keep Wikipedia alive. Donate too , so that Wikipedia can continue to develop in the years to come.
Hundreds of thousands of indispensable donors have gone before you: donate too . Together we will ensure that Wikipedia can continue for years to come.
Donate too , just like hundreds of thousands of others: then this campaign will be completed within an hour.
wikipedia donation campaign
“You Dutch are known for your many cycle paths.”
Bonus: cycle path versus parking costs
Or keep doing it the way it's always been done, because the long-running versions are entertaining enough for a full article on Frankwatching. "Wikipedia is like the world's largest and widest cycle path. (...) You Dutch are known for your many cycle paths and you rely on being able to get everywhere by bike. That's how you also trust that Wikipedia is freely accessible. Please help keep it that way." Elsewhere: "If everyone who reads this donates €2, probably a lot less than your parking costs this Monday, (...)". You Dutch? Parking costs? Me, Dutch, I'm on a bike, aren't I?
“A lot less than your parking fee this Monday.”
The third certainty of life
Wikipedia is doing reasonably well, but for now you still know for sure: you were born, you will die and it is time to wait for the next donation campaign of the free encyclopedia. Not normal, so normal. Time for a cup of coffee… Does anyone happen to have a few euros.
Judging by Tretikov's statements, I suspect that Wikipedia is already doing some A/B testing (hopefully according to the ROAR method ), otherwise this is the time. Just make sure that they are not random A/B tests. Go for subtle text changes with a prominent share of psychology. Digital data and persuasion psychology have to do it together in all possible meanings. Then the frequency and the pushiness can perhaps be reduced in steps. How nice would it be: more donors, less (often) banners. More sympathy, more credibility and fewer question marks.
View content and context per case
This may mean that we need to look at other influencing techniques than social proof. Communicating very correctly that the desired behavior is often displayed does not necessarily have to have a positive effect in this specific case: the emotional seriousness of the situation may disappear (why would you donate if everyone is already donating?).
Wikipedia's donation requests teach us that we may brazil whatsapp number list be cautious or very sharp and continue to apply psychological principles that 'always work'. The content and context per case remain important.
Other principles may provide a solution and source of inspiration for testing new texts. Despite the warning, it is of course never forbidden to try it anyway with social proof in a positive way: many people show the desired behavior. And 'many' is relative: 'hundreds of thousands of donors' already sounds very different from 'a very small part of our readers' or 'less than 1%'. It often does not even matter whether something is actually a lot or a little, it is related to the connotation (emotional value) of the content. Possible options:
Hundreds of thousands of indispensable donors keep Wikipedia alive. Donate too , so that Wikipedia can continue to develop in the years to come.
Hundreds of thousands of indispensable donors have gone before you: donate too . Together we will ensure that Wikipedia can continue for years to come.
Donate too , just like hundreds of thousands of others: then this campaign will be completed within an hour.
wikipedia donation campaign
“You Dutch are known for your many cycle paths.”
Bonus: cycle path versus parking costs
Or keep doing it the way it's always been done, because the long-running versions are entertaining enough for a full article on Frankwatching. "Wikipedia is like the world's largest and widest cycle path. (...) You Dutch are known for your many cycle paths and you rely on being able to get everywhere by bike. That's how you also trust that Wikipedia is freely accessible. Please help keep it that way." Elsewhere: "If everyone who reads this donates €2, probably a lot less than your parking costs this Monday, (...)". You Dutch? Parking costs? Me, Dutch, I'm on a bike, aren't I?
“A lot less than your parking fee this Monday.”
The third certainty of life
Wikipedia is doing reasonably well, but for now you still know for sure: you were born, you will die and it is time to wait for the next donation campaign of the free encyclopedia. Not normal, so normal. Time for a cup of coffee… Does anyone happen to have a few euros.