

This is why different Wikipedia banners result in different average gifts - saperduper
http://saperduper.org/post/293243288/wikipedia-donators-anchoring-heuristic
It was on HN yesterday.
"Optimizing Wikipedia's Fundraising Banner Ads" (http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/12/11/annual-fundraiser-checking-banner-results) asked readers to post their thoughts on the difference of average gifts donated by wikipedia users, when shown different banners.
I wrote a blog post about the "anchoring heuristic", which explains the phenomenon.
======
almost
From a very quick scim of the original blog Wikimedia blog post it looks like
the total for #18 was higher (with the same number of impressions). What this
suggests to me is that the lower amount shown on the banner made people feel
there donation would count even if it wasn't very much. If more of these
people donated one would expect the average to go down and the total to go up,
and that appears to be what happened.

~~~
almost
Obviously I skimmed the article far too quickly. Here's the relevant bit:

    
    
        Compare the numbers of gifts for the two banners:
    
        #18: 832 gifts, $15073.47 total
        #22: 301 gifts, $9572.83 total
    
        Not close right?  But look at the average gift sizes:
    
        #18:  $15.84 for Paypal, $21.87 for credit card
        #22:  $27.92 for Paypal, $36.58 for credit card
    

So I was totally wrong in saying that #18 did better overall.

------
xuhu
The total amount (not the average amount) is what counts to wikimedia. From
the original blog post (less suggested -> more donated):

    
    
      #17 suggests $30,   totals $22,000
      #18 suggests $1.95, totals $11,000 (same views)

------
timdorr
So, Wikipedia should be showing just large donations? ;)

I wonder what would happen if they changed it to just a $1000 donation all the
time?

~~~
byrneseyeview
It would be cool for them to create a genetic algorithm that trawled through a
primordial soup of pitches and talking points, mixing various appeals, quotes,
images, and quantities to see what would make the most money.

~~~
ovi256
Why not take it to the next level and do a whole campaign like that ? Even ...
a whole company ? Called [name to be found by market study], doing [TBF by
customer survey] using [TBF by best practices review]. Or by an evolutionary
algo :)

~~~
byrneseyeview
It all depends on your 'soup' you start with. Online advertising is a perfect
example of punctuated equilibrium: big ideas that get gradually refined, until
the highest return on investment comes from creating another big idea.

