Todoist puts "347K+ ★★★★★ reviews" above its plans

The psychology

Why it nudges

A huge review count with stars is social proof right where people decide. "Save 20%" frames yearly as a saving. Letting people pick their currency removes the friction of converting prices in their head. Whether this lifts upgrades for Todoist is not public.

● Strong evidence A German hotel replication found no advantage for the norm message (Bohner & Schlüter, 2014). · More on social proof, with sources →

Context

A to-do app with a free Beginner plan and paid Pro and Business plans.

Honest nudge or dark pattern?

Honest nudge

Honest nudge. "★★★★★" next to a count should reflect the real average, not only five-star reviews.

Steal this, honestly

Put your strongest proof by the plan table, not in the footer.
Let people see prices in their own currency.

What to test: Review count above vs below the plans. Measure plan clicks.

Next: run it on your product

Apply this with your agent

Take the steps above into your own flow. The prompt carries this teardown, the honest-vs-dark line and the steps.

You are helping me apply a behavioural-design pattern ethically.

Pattern: Todoist: Todoist puts "347K+ ★★★★★ reviews" above its plans
Bias: Social proof: When unsure, we look at what people like us do.
Why it nudges: A huge review count with stars is social proof right where people decide. "Save 20%" frames yearly as a saving. Letting people pick their currency removes the friction of converting prices in their head. Whether this lifts upgrades for Todoist is not public.
Our verdict: Honest nudge. Honest nudge. "★★★★★" next to a count should reflect the real average, not only five-star reviews.
Source page: https://nudgeswipe.com/examples/todoist-reviews-count-and-free-forever-start/ (JSON: https://nudgeswipe.com/api/teardowns/todoist-reviews-count-and-free-forever-start.json)

Rules: say a brand "uses" a tactic, never that it "worked"; outcomes are not public unless the company published them; no invented uplift estimates; flag mixed evidence. Honest nudge = true, visible, easy to reverse, and in the user's interest. Dark pattern = hides costs, fakes scarcity or popularity, shames, or makes leaving harder than joining. Quote company-published results as "X reports", with the source link, and don’t generalise them. Don’t cite retracted or failed-to-replicate studies as support (e.g. Ariely & Wertenbroch 2002). Don’t state study figures unless they’re on this page or in a source you can link. If an idea crosses the line, link the matching deceptive.design pattern.

Tasks:
1. Ask me for my product, the flow (URL or screenshots) and the goal.
2. Audit where this pattern already appears, or could, in that flow.
3. Propose 2-3 ethical experiments: hypothesis, variant copy or UI, primary metric, and a guardrail metric (refunds, complaints, cancellations).
4. Flag every dark-pattern risk and say how to stay on the honest side.

Open in ChatGPT Open in Claude Open in Grok Open in Cursor

ChatGPT, Claude, Grok and Cursor open with the prompt filled in (it is also copied, in case the prefill doesn't load). Gemini and Codex don't support prefilled links, so the prompt is copied and the app opens; paste it in.

Sources

Our capture of todoist.com, 16 Oct 2026
Goldstein, Cialdini & Griskevicius (2008), A room with a viewpoint. doi.org/10.1086/586910

Todoist puts "347K+ ★★★★★ reviews" above its plans

Why it nudges

Honest nudge

Apply this with your agent

Related teardowns

The Economist prices a year by the week, and preselects it

Slack shows the full price struck through next to the intro price

Notion labels one plan "Recommended" and leads with logos

5 new nudges, every Friday