Editing 1948: Campaign Fundraising Emails

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 14: Line 14:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Donate now.''' It's crunch time, and we're low on cash. If you chip in just $5 by midnight, we…
 
|'''Donate now.''' It's crunch time, and we're low on cash. If you chip in just $5 by midnight, we…
|This is the classic formula for campaign fundraising emails, and may be a real example. It is always "crunch time" during a campaign (at least between filing for candidacy and election day), and campaigns are always "low" on cash relative to the unlimited funding they would prefer.  The ends of financial reporting periods, often at midnight, are conflated with "deadlines" of significant consequence.  Further, the donation requested is less about the actual money - even if $5 each from several thousand voters can add up - but to get a donor to have their money placed on a candidate, making it more likely that donor will vote for the candidate (via encouraging {{w|Sunk cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy|the "sunk cost" fallacy}}), or to allow the targeting of future messages based on how engaged the recipient is with the campaign.
+
|This is the classic formula, and may be a real example. It is always "crunch time" during a campaign (at least between filing for candidacy and election day), and campaigns are always "low" on cash relative to the unlimited funding they would prefer.  The ends of financial reporting periods, often at midnight, are conflated with "deadlines" of significant consequence.  Further, the donation requested is less about the actual money - even if $5 each from several thousand voters can add up - but to get a donor to have their money placed on a candidate, making it more likely that donor will vote for the candidate (via encouraging {{w|Sunk cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy|the "sunk cost" fallacy}}).
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Donate $35.57 now!''' Our data team has determined that we should ask you for $35.57 to optimize the…
 
|'''Donate $35.57 now!''' Our data team has determined that we should ask you for $35.57 to optimize the…

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)