Greg Mayer points to this news article, “The Simple Nudge That Raised Median Donations by 80%,” which states:

A start-up used the Hebrew word “chai” and its numerical match, 18, to bump up giving amounts. . . . It’s a common donation amount among Jews — $18, $180, $1,800 or even $36 and other multiples.

So Daffy lowered its minimum gift to $18 and then went further, prompting any donor giving to any Jewish charity to bump gifts up by some related amount. Within a year, median gifts had risen to $180 from $100. . . .

I see several warning signs here:

1. “Within a year, median gifts had risen to $180 from $100.” This is a before/after change, not a direct comparison of outcomes.

2. No report, just a quoted number which could easily have been made up. Yes, the numbers in a report can be fabricated too, but that takes more work and is more risk. Making up numbers when talking with a reporter, that’s easy.

3. The people who report the number are motivated to claim success; the reporter is motivated to report a success. The article is filled with promotion for this company. It’s a short article that mentions “Daffy” 6 times in the short article, for example this bit which reads like a straight-up ad:

If you have children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews, there’s another possibility. Daffy has a family plan that allows children to prompt their adult relatives to support a cause the children choose. Why not put the app on their iPhones or iPads so they can make suggestions and let, for example, a 12-year-old make $12 donations to 12 nonprofits each year?

Why not, indeed? Even better, why not have them make their donations directly to Daffy and cut out the middleman?? Look, I’m not saying that the people behind Daffy are doing anything wrong; it’s just that this is public relations, not journalism.

4. Use of the word “nudge” in the headline is consistent with business-press hype. Recall that “nudge” is a subfield whose proponents are well connected in the media and routinely make exaggerated claims.

So, yeah, an observational comparison with no documentation, in an article that’s more like an advertisement, that’s kinda sus. Not that the claim is definitely wrong, there’s just no good reason for us to take it seriously.