Still testing with (positive) social proof?
Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2024 4:19 am
Small changes came, other texts not so much. The gist has been the same for years: if everyone would…, but almost no one . You don't have to change complete texts, but that gist can certainly be better.
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 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 malaysia phone number list 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.
appily adds a third certainty: not a year goes by without a donation campaign from the free encyclopedia. In a way that is remarkable and perhaps even surmountable. Especially when you look at the duration of the campaign: often several weeks to several months.
If everyone donated 2 euros, the campaign would be over in an hour, according to Wikipedia. Why don't we do that? Discover how Wikipedia has been excelling in (negative) social proof for years.
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 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 malaysia phone number list 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.
appily adds a third certainty: not a year goes by without a donation campaign from the free encyclopedia. In a way that is remarkable and perhaps even surmountable. Especially when you look at the duration of the campaign: often several weeks to several months.
If everyone donated 2 euros, the campaign would be over in an hour, according to Wikipedia. Why don't we do that? Discover how Wikipedia has been excelling in (negative) social proof for years.