You can see even in Stripe's earliest UX the desire to dramatically limit the "pain" that goes into entering CC details online.
When they added the "remember me" button I said to myself this is going to wind up being the "billion dollar checkbox" once merchants really understand the power of not forcing people to re-enter their CC details.
It's still somewhat mind-boggling to me how badly browser "auto-fill" solutions fail at this incredibly valuable problem.
Amazon and Apple, IMO, basically hold onto their dominating positions in physical & digital content respectively because their hold so many CC's and it's just so much damn easier to not have to re-authorize, re-input, etc etc.
If not - change a bank.
While that's an interesting data point, plausible explanations could be anything from very positive, such as
(a) Stripe's Checkout process being dramatically more effective for signed-in users, for example because of the reduced effort required to complete the transaction
to very negative, such as
(b) Stripe's Checkout process causing a horrible drop in conversions for users who aren't signed in, for example because of the added complexity that comes from their "remember me" mechanism or the unfamiliar branding.
It doesn't seem at all surprising that previous Stripe users would convert better with either of these relatively extreme explanations -- either those people had an easier interface to use, or they were necessarily already familiar with the Stripe brand.
Today is the day we learn more. Hopefully some of our candidates will win. Another important factor to keep in mind is that this an experiment. The knowledge we generate about what it takes to move elections on this issue, and the attention we have brought to the issue of money in politics are an important part of our goals.
(Disclaimer: I work for Mayday)
So the biggest goal of this process is learning how to move elections?
I shouldn't be concerned that the media isn't mentioning MayDay as a factor in the elections or control of congress?
- Users logged into stripe probably buy more stuff online. Maybe they donate more money because they have more money.
- The fact that a ton of repeat donations came in the last week might have been due to email campaigns or some other external thing. It isn't necessarily a fundamental principle of fundraising drives (though it certainly could be). Same thing could explain mobile usage driving up (SMS campaign or something).
Overall I think it is cool that data is being shared like this, and it is interesting. But at the same time, the post shouldn't be speaking about data in such absolutes... no confidence intervals, few caveats mentioned or explored, conclusions are made with bolded certainty.
However, that doesn't indicate how many users fell into the "had a Stripe account already" bucket. (I'd wager not many.)
(Off topic aside about data integrity: the downloadable data, from October onward, has donation dates from 2018.)
Watching this sort of thing, knowing that the researchers behind many very worthwhile lines of medical research that might bring great benefit to hundreds of millions struggle to raise a tenth of this amount over the course of years, is ever eye-opening.
We're not a very rational species.
This is to me a killer insight. I just sent my first invoice from my mobile phone. I have always always assumed I could not use my mobile for a complex website but it was relatively painless - and 1000 times more convenient (at work, not on clients network etc)
I only did it because I "had to", and it worked because the company (freeagent) has put enough effort in. Now I can do more accounts on my mobile - and all those who donated above will be likely to donate earlier me time than the last day because it worked this time round.
Looking at repeat donations prompted us to ask: do people donate more or less
their second time? On average, the answer is roughly 50% more. While first
donations had a mean of $88 and a median of *$30*, repeat donations had a mean
of $114 and a median of *$50*.
Average doesn’t mean typical, however. If you look at each repeat donor one by one,
it turns out they’re split almost exactly into thirds: 33% donate less the second time
(most commonly half), 35% donate more (most commonly double), and 32% donate
exactly the same. The averages get pushed up because doubling (and the
occasional tripling or even quadrupling) makes a bigger difference overall
than halving does.
if people cross the old median, this is perfectly possible. although initially counter-intuitive ...
My first reaction is always "I never told you a goddamn thing about my email. How'd you get it from swiping my credit card?"
Pretty sure stripe/square/paypal don't share the card's email with the merchants (yet), but even so, it's a bit disconcerting to see the food truck guy "has" my email without me ever giving it out.
Consumer databases are a huge business. It's election day today... think it's an accident that the campaign mailers you got match your census block's demographic profiles? http://www.esri.com/data/esri_data/ziptapestry Normally only the credit card companies were privvy to this data collection. It would be poor business decisions if selling these profiles was not part of stripe and square's business projections.
The solution is to put the cursor in the card number box and hit delete, but this is not obvious in the UI.
I am not aware of Mayday users raising the concern that their details have been saved.
Our audience is heavily from the tech community, and people like seeing the latest technology used on a site. I remember at least one email coming in to that effect.
there have been times i've had to 'abandon' a checkout step and return later, but i can't recall any times that a financial transaction was important enough to make but not important enough to return to, e.g. if i didn't have a particular card with me.
stripe sees things differently--and probably for good reason--but i wonder if they might be inferring user intent from user behavior too directly.