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.
“Only a small portion of our readers contribute.”
Keeping sites up and running
“Have I ever thought about how much money we could have made if we had run ads? Of course I have. But it wouldn’t have been the same,” Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says in one of the many requests for donations. Wales: “To protect our independence, we will never run ads.”
The well-known source of information is annually flooded with a shower of eye-catching appeals to donate money. “The money we raise with this is intended to keep the sites up and running for the coming year,” volunteer Lodewijk Gelauff (then 23) told MT in 2011 .
It doesn't have to
By then, there had already been about 7 donation rounds, according to Tweakers . At the time of writing this article, we are now almost halfway through 2018, with that familiar call still in place. However, it does not have to be an annual phenomenon: “If everyone who reads this donates just €2,-, then we do not have to worry in the coming years”, is the applied text in the call, of which there are also telling variations:
For example: “If everyone reading this donated €2, Wikipedia could survive for years.”
Or: “If everyone reading this donated €2, Wikipedia could continue to develop for years to come.”
The most impressive: “If everyone reading this donated €2, our campaign would be finished in an hour.”
What goes wrong then?
Professionals who emigrate to the world of marketing know in advance that Cialdini's principles have a prominent place in the integration course. Social proof is such a widely embraced principle. brazil whatsapp number list Marketers try to profit from our unconscious tendency to copy the behavior of others. All sorts of examples have already appeared in which the desired behavior is often displayed: from 'They went before you', 'bought x number of times' and 'So many others like this product' to 'Most chosen' and 'Popular now'. Then it must be good, right?
social proof
The eagerness to embrace this influence technique sometimes results in misuse. In this way, the technique does have influence, but with a counterproductive effect: 'adverse evidentiary power', negative social proof. When do you use the technique incorrectly?
1. If you communicate that the unwanted behavior is displayed frequently
If you emphasize the undesirable behavior, instead of the desired behavior. You are communicating that many people exhibit the undesirable behavior. By doing so, you are more or less saying that it is normal.