wikipedia counterproductive social proof
Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2024 4:19 am
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 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 .”
“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)?
A greater danger?
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:
In early 2009, Wales announced that Wikipedia had received $6 million in donations in 6 months (a little over an hour), thanks to more than 125,000 backers. ( Metro )
In early 2011, a donation round already exceeded 10 million dollars, thanks to more than 500,000 donors. ( Tweakers )
“Our costs continue to rise, but fortunately so do the donations,” Gelauff said that year. ( MT )
“The organization runs on donations from readers. That amounts to around 70 million euros worldwide each year. Last year, a profit of 21 million was booked. This is used as a reserve in case of major expenses.” ( AD , early 2016)
“The annual collection campaign with banners at the top of Wikipedia articles may suggest otherwise, but Wikipedia is certainly not doing badly. In the past fiscal year, parent company Wikimedia received 75.8 million dollars in donations worldwide, the only source of income. Expenditures meanwhile amounted to 52.6 million dollars.” ( RTL , mid-2016)
Credibility and sympathy
“A large building requires more maintenance than an attic room.” Yes, a columnist was completely right with his Wikipedia metaphors in a contribution to Frankwatching at the beginning of 2014. At malaysia phone number list the end of that year, however, there was also criticism , with the (not even metaphorical) question whether ' golden chairs ' are also necessary. And with that, whether that annual frequency is undeniably a necessity. Or whether the pretended seriousness of the situation is not so bad and that a year can be skipped?
Pushiness
In that established question mark lies perhaps a greater danger than the misapplication of social proof: the loss of credibility and sympathy. Banners suggest that Wikipedia needs money to stay out of trouble, while at the same time there are those profits and reserves. And then there is the pushiness of the banners. Pushiness that is somewhat reminiscent of… right, advertisements .
wikipedia negative social proof
“Yet only a very small portion of our readers donate.”
From changes to improvements
“We are not perfect and we are constantly working on improvements,” (then) Executive Director Lila Tretikov responded to that criticism. “This year we made only minor changes to the text on the banner. Next year we will try different texts, and the team is open to your suggestions.”
“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 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 .”
“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)?
A greater danger?
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:
In early 2009, Wales announced that Wikipedia had received $6 million in donations in 6 months (a little over an hour), thanks to more than 125,000 backers. ( Metro )
In early 2011, a donation round already exceeded 10 million dollars, thanks to more than 500,000 donors. ( Tweakers )
“Our costs continue to rise, but fortunately so do the donations,” Gelauff said that year. ( MT )
“The organization runs on donations from readers. That amounts to around 70 million euros worldwide each year. Last year, a profit of 21 million was booked. This is used as a reserve in case of major expenses.” ( AD , early 2016)
“The annual collection campaign with banners at the top of Wikipedia articles may suggest otherwise, but Wikipedia is certainly not doing badly. In the past fiscal year, parent company Wikimedia received 75.8 million dollars in donations worldwide, the only source of income. Expenditures meanwhile amounted to 52.6 million dollars.” ( RTL , mid-2016)
Credibility and sympathy
“A large building requires more maintenance than an attic room.” Yes, a columnist was completely right with his Wikipedia metaphors in a contribution to Frankwatching at the beginning of 2014. At malaysia phone number list the end of that year, however, there was also criticism , with the (not even metaphorical) question whether ' golden chairs ' are also necessary. And with that, whether that annual frequency is undeniably a necessity. Or whether the pretended seriousness of the situation is not so bad and that a year can be skipped?
Pushiness
In that established question mark lies perhaps a greater danger than the misapplication of social proof: the loss of credibility and sympathy. Banners suggest that Wikipedia needs money to stay out of trouble, while at the same time there are those profits and reserves. And then there is the pushiness of the banners. Pushiness that is somewhat reminiscent of… right, advertisements .
wikipedia negative social proof
“Yet only a very small portion of our readers donate.”
From changes to improvements
“We are not perfect and we are constantly working on improvements,” (then) Executive Director Lila Tretikov responded to that criticism. “This year we made only minor changes to the text on the banner. Next year we will try different texts, and the team is open to your suggestions.”