Make the optional voluntary contribution more clear
A
Amanda
One of our donors complained that the donation to Zeffy was not optional. Turns out they did not understand that you have to change from the suggested donation percentage to be "other" and then type in "0". Could that be customized/changed? We would prefer there be a 0% option directly in the drop down menu.
Log In
Rowan from Zeffy
Thank you all for your comments. We appreciate you taking the time to share your feedback and your donors' experience. We wanted to address each concern here.
How is Zeffy working to explain the contribution model?
We understand that our model may not be familiar for most donors, that’s why we mention it twice on our forms. The first - when the donor is beginning to fill it out and the second - at the payment confirmation step. We’ve also added additional opportunities for donors to learn more about our model on our forms, in donor confirmation emails, in the donor dashboard and more.
As for the transparency and accessibility to adjust the contribution, we are working on various design options that we will be rolling out in the coming months. These type of changes affect both donors and nonprofits, therefore we need to do extensive testing to see the impact on donor experience along with the impact on our model.
It's important to us that donors understand and encourage our model, so changes moving forward will be focused on the donor experience.
How can we facilitate donor understanding?
Because we know that our model is newer and donors are curious by nature, we need your help to explain the voluntary contribution to them along with how Zeffy benefits your organization. Our model is about providing you with free technology, but it is also about collaboration. We would be extremely grateful if you encouraged your donors to contribute to Zeffy so that we can continue to provide our tools for free.
We want to be able to address each concern thoroughly and we understand that each nonprofit may have a specific situation. Please feel free to reach out to our team at [email protected].
J
Jenny
Whilst I understand the need for people to donate to keep the platform available for you to offer the service for free - in reality it would be less expensive for people to pay a Paypal fee of 2.9% rather than the high % that is auto-populated.
As you state in your video people want to do things quick, so putting lots of questions can be off-putting, lots of people don't pay attention and will whiz through the form and as most have stated are surprised at the high additional charge when they thought it was free for all.
I have just signed up, but I am now concerned how sustainable this model is - because people cannot afford to lose money, donations have dropped and I just do not think that this is transparent enough.
I realize it is a balance of offering the service for free - but if 95% of the people decide they would rather donate more to the organization and not make a donation to the platform - what happens then??
Your platform operates the same as Better World and I stopped using them for this reason, it comes across as deceptive and takes away from the good that you are trying to do.
I think if you have to have a set % then it should be inline with what people would pay if they were charged the fee's not many times more.
I appreciate what you offer, but the sustainability of the platform is a concern.
A
Anthony
This is an up-vote for making the default zeffy donation percentage lower, say 5%, or requiring acknowledgement. The default 15% for not paying attention seems predatory. Also, choosing 15% has made our members question/mistrust the use of the zeffy platform. 15% and 20% is associated with tip-flation at point of sale devices.
W
WCSFA Secretary
I just wanted to pop in to acknowledge that several weeks ago I was approached by Zeffy to review and provide feedback on some ideas they are considering to resolve this issue, and I'm fairly certain others on this thread were approached as well.
I got to see a couple of well constructed designs hat which only beget a few suggestions for improvment from me, so I have hopes that we'll see something that solves this issue oth for both us - the non-profits - and their business needs.
R
Raven
Unless this issue is fixed we will not use Zeffy next year.
W
WCSFA Secretary
Michel (Product @Zeffy) ,
I was just donating something to a Go-Fund-Me campaign and noticed they use the same model that you do, using voluntary donations to cover costs. They call it a "tip", and also start with a high percentage (16%), but their UI makes it clear that you can adjust the value via a slider bar.
They have also written a clear explanation that is from their POV rather than sounding like it comes from the person running the Go-Fund-Me campaign.
Just something else to consider.
Michel (Product @Zeffy)
Thanks WCSFA Secretary for sharing again your feedback and suggestions!
The thing that Go-Fund Me doesn't say clearly is that they are charging 2.5% of fees on each transaction (they label it transaction cost which is different from platform cost) which is above the fee they are really paying o they are already making (small) benefits on each transaction. The tip received is only a bonus on top of that.
The main difference is that Zeffy is not charging anything: no platform fees and no transaction fees so we are basically loosing money each time a payment is made without tip.
It doesn't mean of course that we cannot be transparent, quite the opposite. The challenge we have is to be able to explain our business model in the very few seconds a donor will look at our checkout and this is why we are testing various ideas.
Zeffy is the ONLY 100% free platform in North America that is charging neither transaction nor platform cost and we intend to keep it that way for our non profits.
We will do our best to deliver the most transparent possible experience while keeping this unique positioning!
W
WCSFA Secretary
Maryse from Zeffy, Rowan from Zeffy
There have been several "Merged in a Post" items over the last several months so your company is clearly aware of the number of customers who have raised this issue. What I haven't seen, however, is someone from Zeffy commenting on the more recent comments and suggestions that have come in over the year and a bit since Rowan made the pinned post.
Also, while the pinned post suggests contacting Zeffy by email to discuss further, doing so takes the conversation out of this forum and thus removes the opportunity for the whole community to learn from and comment on this discussion.
This is very obviously a high-priority ask among the organizations that use your service and, to be honest, I'm actually really surprised at just how long it's remained an issue. Posts in this thread have offered many suggestions on how your company could fix this problematic UI. It should not have taken 2+ years (and counting) to solve this issue.
We all appreciate what your service offers us and I'm fairly certain we all want to see it continue to grow and thrive as a result. But we also don't want
our
customers to be frustrated or angry with us
because of the deceptive design patterns implemented in your UI for requesting the donations you need.Michel (Product @Zeffy)
Dear WCSFA Secretary,
Thank you for your precious feedback and the detailed suggestions you’ve provided. We truly appreciate your commitment to helping us improve Zeffy’s user experience!
We understand and acknowledge the concerns raised about transparency in our checkout process. It’s important to us that our donors have a clear and straightforward experience so that it doesn't hurt their trust in the organization they are donating to and in Zeffy.
We are already actively experimenting with new checkout experiences that aim to be more explicit and transparent for donors, while also ensuring that we maintain our necessary revenue stream. These changes are part of an ongoing effort, and users can expect to see updates in the coming 2-3 months based on the results of these experiments.
To be fully transparent, our current experiments are focused primarily on the copy used during the checkout process. We have not yet implemented changes to the opt-in mechanic or the default donation amount. Our goal is to proceed iteratively, ensuring we make improvements without causing a significant and abrupt impact on our revenue, because again, this is our only revenue stream.
We appreciate your patience and understanding as we work towards providing a more transparent and trustworthy experience for all our users. Your feedback is invaluable in guiding these improvements, and we look forward to sharing the positive changes with you soon.
Warm regards,
Michel, Head of product @Zeffy, in behalf of the whole Zeffy team
W
WCSFA Secretary
Michel (Product @Zeffy)
Thank you for responding to my last comment so promptly. I appreciate your attention to our concerns. I'm also glad to hear that you are in the process of some changes to address this issue, even if it is only in changing the terminology (I've seen a few different phrasings recently that you must be testing).
I do still believe you must make an effort to get rid of the "opt-out" dark pattern because, while you may see a small uptick with the terminology changes, there are still going to be individuals who don't even notice the added amount until it has been paid, and others who will notice but will be turned off by the way the request is presented, both groups then getting upset with the non-profit.
Here are a few reasons why this is likely to continue happening:
- Styling and layout in the summary box downplay the presence and effect of the contribution UI.
- Contribution alternatives are "hidden" from the viewer by being in a dropdown menu.
- The few request text variations I've seen appear to share two issues: The reason for the contribution request is unclear, and there is nothing to "hook" a buyer into wanting to contribute.
Point 1:
Whether intentional or not, the order summary box visually downplays the presence (and resulting monetary effect) of the "opt-out" contribution section.
Specifically, the top line with the label "Order" and the associated total uses the largest font and is coloured, making it the most prominent text there so it pulls the viewer's eye. This is deceptive because the most visible value
never changes
while the actual
total that will be charged immediately differs from the "Order" due to the default amount and will change if the user alters that. The "Total" row is also the same font size and colour as the default page body text, and so does not stand out even a little. (This is slightly mitigated by the fact that the font is bold weight and the region it is in does have a shaded background; so long as the buyer takes a moment to do more than a quick scan of the order details, the total to be paid won't simply blend in with the rest of the order information.) Point 2:
Since nothing in the summary body is styled to pull the buyer's focus from the "Order" line, we know some users fail to notice there is a donation requested until they discover they've been "overcharged". Some of the people who do look at the order details, may not notice the value is a dropdown menu.
Point 3:
When I consider the few phrases I've seen, my first thoughts are:
- "What is "the platform" they're referring to?"
- "Why are they asking me for additionalcontributions?"
- "What's in it for me?" (i.e., how will supporting this nebulous platform benefit me, as the buyer)
The text does not give your company name, referring to "the platform". So the statement doesn't offer a clear focus and may seem suspicious ("Why aren't you telling me what the platform is?". The average buyer isn't going to look around to try and figure that out either).
The text also says "the platform" is "100% free", but there's no explanation about what that means or why the buyer might want to contribute. Considering that your own donation form process reminds us to provide specific details about how a donor's money will be used, I'm surprised you haven't already considered this! I believe the contribution requet would do much better if the text identified "Zeffy" by name and also provided something more specific about the benefits to the non-profits using your platform. For buyers with more than a passing interest in the success of a non-profit they are dealing with, specific benefits to the non-profit will likely be perceived as beneficial to themselves.
Regarding the "opt-out" dark pattern:
It occured to me that you can get away from the dark pattern without adding a separate "opt-in" checkbox. It would require switching to a UI similar to the mutually exclusive toggle buttons I described before. The one key change is that an explicit
"$0.00"
button should be present, placed immediately before the "Other" button. This UI design would offer two benefits: The size and colour of the buttons will draw a buyer's eyes to the area of the donation request (so it is less likely to be overlooked), and all possible options are shown to the buyer upfront (so they have complete knowledge and full control over the decision). This format even makes it perfectly reasonable to continue with 15% as the default contribution - since the user can see that a default is set and what other options are available, starting with a higher percentage will not be as jarring as when it's the only option you see at first.And, of course, I've made another prototype to show this variation, which you can see here: https://www.figma.com/proto/jKWuJ4gAuftNuH2byHYggq/Zeffy-Donations?page-id=69%3A207&node-id=69-492&hide-ui=1
D
Danielle
Michel (Product @Zeffy)
Hello - I have received multiple complaints about Zeffy auto populating the Zeffy contribution field with high percentage amounts. Our organization is now considering moving away from Zeffy. How do we get the prepopulated % amounts to be more reasonable like 2-3%?
Also, will Zeffy refund a large donation that a member gave? It was prepopulated at 17% which was almost $50. Now it is my job to reimburse because our member felt taken. Can you help?
Also, is it possible to get a report of all the donations Zeffy received as a result of our usage?
Thanks so much. I look forward to hear from you.
Michel (Product @Zeffy)
Thank you for reaching out Danielle !
Unfortunately, there is no way to configure the pre-populated amounts.
The main issue we have is that most users have no idea about what Zeffy is and most will not even take time to find out (so that they can decide whether they want to donate or not).
We want to push users to take 5 seconds to consider what Zeffy is trying to achieve AND THEN decide whether they want to keep or remove their contribution.
We already experimented in the past with other pre-populated amounts and we saw a massive drop in terms of revenue.
If we applied this, Zeffy would not be able to continue its mission of empowering non profit to raise funds for free.
In short I am convinced that there is no "easy answer" to this question and the trade off that we chose was to make sure people at least take these few seconds to understand the Zeffy model.
HOWEVER, we do not want this to be deceptive neither and that is why we are testing out a mandatory checkbox to make sure that they are well aware of what this contribution means.
In the meantime, is totally possible to refund the Zeffy tip, please reach out to our support team with the name of the donor and payment date and they will do it for you.
Regarding the report of the donation, there is no feature that allows that at the moment but we can surely send you the data manually. Please include this request in the ticket you open to our CS team and we will provide it.
Thank you and don't hesitate shall you have additional questions!
S
Stephanie
WCSFA Secretary I really like your thoughtful feedback and your proposal !
E
Eric
We have been using Zeffy for two years to manage pre-sales on an event we operate. This has been our number one complaint with some saying they would rather we use a subscription based service where it is clear how much they have to pay. Zeffy is a wonderful tool for non-profits that don't have much funding, but we too are seeing backlash from some and in some cases have had to refund sales back to people who spread the word that this is not a good practice.
W
WCSFA Secretary
Maryse from Zeffy, Rowan from Zeffy :
In addition to my work with the non-profit, I am a UX Designer by profession, and I wanted to offer some additional commentary about dark/deceptive UX patterns.
Using a dark pattern like "opt-out" might result in short-term boosts to donations received, but, as the many comments on this thread show, they cause customers to become frustrated as they feel like they've been "tricked". This is bad enough on its own, but it is causing demonstrably negative harm to the very non-profit organizations your service is designed to support because these customers don't see
Zeffy
as the source of their frustration but the organization they are dealing with. Switching the design from "opt-out" to "opt-in" with a "yes, I want to donate" checkbox that defaults to unchecked (as Erin suggested on March 21, 2023) would be an excellent way to increase transparency and give control to the customer. It is very important to treat customers with respect by giving them choices that are transparent and clear--while doing so won’t lead to the same short-term gains a dark pattern offers, it will lead to a less frustrating and much-improved customer experience and
that
will result in more gains for both you and the non-profits using your service over the long term.Here are some links regarding dark/deceptive patterns and the reasons (some of them legal) why they should be avoided:
• https://www.deceptive.design/ - "opt-out" falls under the "Preselection" type
• https://www.fastcompany.com/3060553/why-dark-patterns-wont-go-away - a quote: "If your business depends on dark patterns to succeed, you’re just leaving yourself open to being disrupted."
• https://www.nngroup.com/articles/deceptive-patterns/ - a quote: "Deceptive patterns promote business outcomes at the user's expense."
In addition to switching to an "opt-in" model, I agree with most of the others that, given your current design, a lower default value would be preferable. However, I would not suggest a value as low as the 3% that others have suggested, as I recognize that you must bring in substantially more than just the cost of credit card service fees if you are to keep the company afloat (especially as not every customer will donate). That said, you could improve customers' perception of their options and justify a default value only slightly lower than the current 15% by modifying the UI from a dropdown box to a collection of mutually exclusive toggle buttons. The main advantage of the toggle button format is that the customer would be able to clearly see that there are several options available to them, versus having the options hidden in the dropdown menu that requires a deliberate action to open and view (one that several people have previously reported their customers failing to notice).
Another change you might wish to consider is modifying your terminology. Using different words to describe the same thing can alter how customers perceive and respond to them. As a specific example, instead of requesting a "donation", change it to a request for a "tip". This change would bring the following advantages:
• A "tip" is a different type of expense from a "donation", and customers are more likely to recognize it as something that can be added to the transaction they are completing. This also creates a clear distinction between the customer's relationship with the organization and their relationship with Zeffy.
• In countries where tipping is the norm (North, Central and South America), the "going rate" for gratuities is generally between 15% and 25% today, and it was between 10% and 20% before the 2000s, so most customers will perceive the higher percentage suggestions to be reasonable.
To show you what I mean more accurately, I've taken a moment to create a quick interactive prototype in Figma that includes all of the above suggestions:
I hope my comments have been helpful and the prototype proves useful. I also hope your organization will make changes along these lines sometime soon.
M
Maryse from Zeffy
A
Amanda
Agreed
Load More
→