Let’s Play A Game
Here’s a game for you, the professional fundraiser.
Below is Wikipedia’s solicitation. It has been floating around for a while now, and, as a behavioral scientist, I wonder why they haven’t changed it yet.
Can you spot the issues with this request? Tell us in the comments section what they are and what suggestions tied to evidence you have for improvement.
[To see what we would do differently (Hint: it’s 4 things), look out for Monday’s post.)
Looking forward to reading your ideas!
Kiki
6 responses to “Let’s Play A Game”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Thanks so much for raising this. Yes, capturing donor information can be helpful for stewardship like newsletters, thank-you letters, impact updates. But how you ask matters. Forcing full data capture introduces friction that can significantly depress conversion, many donors may simply abandon the process. Beyond the friction itself, required fields also shift the emotional experience […]
Read Full Answer
Unlike holidays that everyone already knows, Giving Tuesday is a created event. Many donors recognize the name but not the exact timing, so referencing it becomes a helpful cue. It serves as a reminder and taps into social norm activation (“everyone’s giving today”), which boosts response. However, we still want it paired with the mission, […]
Read Full Answer
When a subject line leads with the match (“Your gift matched!”), it risks triggering market-norm thinking: the sense that giving is a financial transaction rather than an act rooted in values, identity, and care. This shift reduces intrinsic motivation and, over time, can weaken donor satisfaction and long-term engagement. It also makes the email indistinguishable […]
Read Full Answer
There’s no evidence that QR codes suppress mid-value giving; all available research suggests they either help or have no negative effect. In fact, behavioral and usability research consistently shows the opposite: reducing friction at any point in the donation process increases completion rates and total response. And that has nothing to do with capacity and […]
Read Full Answer
What you’re experiencing is very common. Resistance often isn’t about capability, but about motivation quality. If board members feel pushed into fundraising, that triggers controlled motivation (low quality motivation) i.e. obligation, guilt, or fear of judgment, which often results in avoidance. Instead, we need to create conditions for volitional motivation (high quality motivation) by satisfying […]
Read Full Answer
That’s a really thoughtful question, and you’re not the first to raise it. Many of our clients have been cautious about placing the ask at the very end. To address their concern, we’ve tested both approaches, and the results are clear: when the ask comes last, even if that means it appears on the second […]
Read Full Answer
Interestingly, Wikipedia’s fundraising messages have been tested tens of thousands of times, and the “most people don’t give” line is one product of that huge amount of testing. It definitely, definitely works for them.
I did a blog about this last year: https://medium.com/@chriskfundraising/why-doesnt-social-proof-work-for-wikipedia-fundraising-65d55a047911
Hi Chris, thanks for sharing their report – good to know Wikipedia tested the negative social proof message out. That answers part of the research question I had in mind – the other half will be revealed on Monday. Let’s continue this conversation then!
Indeed – look forward to seeing your other thoughts!
I would suggest that most of it be in the “I” the founder, vs “we” Wikipedia voice to strengthen the I/you direct connection with reader. Everything else looks good–it matches who they are, their tone. I have given to them, and hardly give to anyone 🙂
Just looked up their financial statement for 2019 which they post on their website. $111 Million posted in donations and contributions, and a pretty fine balance sheet.
Thanks Gayle – the fact they raise good money on this request doesn’t mean they couldn’t raise even more if it was adapted. That’s why Wikipedia keeps testing messages too. We just wanted to identify key behavioural principles that could be tested to see if they could increase giving further. But you’re right, my word choice (“issues”) was probably not the right one.