This makes sense to me. Offering a few options rather than just one can change people's decision frame from "shall I do this?" (yes vs. no) to "how shall I do this?" (option 1 vs. option 2. vs none of the above). Offering a one-time option can allow people to try engaging without making more of a commitment than they feel ready for. Of course it would be good to include an option to receive occasional communications as a result of the one-time donation, but important for that to be opt-in with a clear promise that you can unsubscribe anytime. And it's certainly good to avoid making people feel at all pressured or manipulated, which can threaten peoples' need for autonomy and trigger psychological reactance (i.e. the motivation to avoid doing what you feel pressured to do, even if you might have chosen to do it on your own if you hadn't felt that someone was pressuring you).
I also think it may be helpful or even important to offer options for fractional and multiple patronage. For example, if a project has a lot of a patrons so the monthly amount per patron is high, and I'm only an occasional user of what that project produces but would like to support it, I could opt to be 1/4 of a patron. Or if a project I use heavily and care a lot about doesn't yet have so many patrons, or has plenty but I still want to give it extra support, I could opt to be a double or triple patron, etc. Best, Michael Michael Siepmann, Ph.D. *The Tech Design Psychologist*™ /Shaping technology to help people flourish/™ 303-835-0501 TechDesignPsych.com <http://www.TechDesignPsych.com?id=esig> OpenPGP: 6D65A4F7 <http://pool.sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?search=0x6D65A4F7&fingerprint=on&hash=on&op=vindex> On 05/01/2016 10:11 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > So, I learned from in research in traditional fundraising this > interesting bit: > > This pertains to fundraisers wanting to get people to sign up as ongoing > members where they donate monthly or annually (no matching in these > traditional cases, of course — nobody has built the Snowdrift.coop model > yet). If they include an opt-in checkbox for "one-time only donation" in > what would otherwise assume that everyone signing up is going to be a > sustaining member… then the mere presence of that opt-in choice results > in *more* people becoming sustaining members! > > In other words, when people feel they aren't forced into being > sustaining donors but have a choice to do one-time-only, they end up > feeling more comfortable with going ahead and becoming sustaining > members after all. > > So, we could use this idea in our design. We'd provide an opt-in choice > to participate only once for just the next month's pay period. We'd set > it up so that we don't encourage people to choose that. But maybe this > would end up helping more people accept the normal sustaining pledge > that we want everyone to go with… > > Incidentally, besides hearing thoughts from others, I'm not clear in our > new project management where is the best place to write down this idea > so that it gets discussed and can then be something our research and > design folks can consider and test… > > Cheers, > Aaron > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss