Examples Wikipedia
Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2024 3:49 am
Example Rabobank
Rabobank in Utrecht unintentionally became a textbook example of this years ago: “More than 95% of Dutch children do not eat enough fruit and vegetables”. The powerful principle of social proof has such a negative effect: according to this message, a large majority shows the undesirable behavior. That is apparently the norm, with the chance that more people will follow. “Norm communication: would Rabobank understand that this is counterproductive?”, was the rightful question from Fréderike Mensink (expert in behavior change, Voedingscentrum).
2.
Even if you do emphasize the desired behavior, you can still do it wrong. For example, if you communicate that the desired behavior is rarely displayed (and is therefore in conflict with the 'general norm').
Wikipedia excels in both scenarios. Humanity, seeking free knowledge, is digitally confronted with messages that emphasize the negative norm (1) and the unpopularity of the desired behavior (2), to brazil whatsapp number list the point of being almost hilarious. Some examples of applied texts:
“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 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.
Rabobank in Utrecht unintentionally became a textbook example of this years ago: “More than 95% of Dutch children do not eat enough fruit and vegetables”. The powerful principle of social proof has such a negative effect: according to this message, a large majority shows the undesirable behavior. That is apparently the norm, with the chance that more people will follow. “Norm communication: would Rabobank understand that this is counterproductive?”, was the rightful question from Fréderike Mensink (expert in behavior change, Voedingscentrum).
2.
Even if you do emphasize the desired behavior, you can still do it wrong. For example, if you communicate that the desired behavior is rarely displayed (and is therefore in conflict with the 'general norm').
Wikipedia excels in both scenarios. Humanity, seeking free knowledge, is digitally confronted with messages that emphasize the negative norm (1) and the unpopularity of the desired behavior (2), to brazil whatsapp number list the point of being almost hilarious. Some examples of applied texts:
“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 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.