Birthdays, going away drinks, housewarming… Practical, quick and efficient, digital prize pools have established themselves in all our festive events. Yet, behind the simplicity of the click, a feeling of annoyance grows among the guests. Between financial pressure and loss of meaning, the solidarity tool sometimes turns into a burdensome obligation.
The paradox of the kitty, between practicality and dehumanization
Whether celebrating a housewarming, a retirement or a birth, platforms like Leetchi or Lydia are now part of the landscape. The advantage is undeniable: centralizing funds allows you to offer a gift of great value rather than an accumulation of useless trinkets. Everyone participates according to their means, thus avoiding running to the stores.
However, this time saving comes at a high price: that of personal involvement. For many, the act of choosing a present disappears behind a cold transaction. We delegate the reflection to an organizer, transforming the act of offering into a simple line on a bank statement.
The pressure of numbers: the trap of transparency
One of the main sticking points is the display of amounts. When the list of donors and their contributions are visible, an invisible competition takes place. No one wants to be the one to drop off the smallest coin, for fear of being seen as “stingy.”
This transparency transforms a gesture of free will into a social constraint. We no longer give to please, but to avoid denouncing. For some guests, this constant solicitation looks more and more like a disguised tax, especially since the insistent reminders (“Only 2 days left to participate!”) give the unpleasant impression of having one’s hand forced.
The analysis of Siyana Mincheva, who denounces a loss of meaning
Beyond the financial aspect, these digital rituals question our relationship with the group, particularly in business. According to psychologist Siyana Mincheva, these practices reveal a drift in our modern sociability.
“At first glance, the gesture seems innocuous, almost nice: a few euros per person, a card, a collective gift. A way of celebrating, of creating a bond, of marking the occasion. But through repetition, this ritual ends up losing its meaning and becoming a burdensome social constraint.”
She particularly emphasizes that these requests erase the boundaries between private life and professional life. “Work is not necessarily a place where everyone wants to celebrate their private life. Some prefer to remain discreet about their birthday, or not make it a collective event.
A poisoned gift for the recipient?
If the jackpot annoys those who give, it can also make those who receive uncomfortable. The obligation of public gratitude becomes a social performance. Siyana Mincheva notes that not everyone experiences this attention with joy. “There is a form of exposure: having to thank publicly, display gratitude, sometimes even pretend to be touched. For some, it’s more embarrassing than pleasant.”
By wanting to institutionalize conviviality, we risk emptying the exchange of its substance. The psychologist invites us to think about what these tools replace. “Maybe the real problem is not the prize pool but the fact that it replaces something else. An easy way to check the box ‘we’re a nice team’, without necessarily creating real connections.”
To re-enchant the common gift, a few rules of digital etiquette are essential: hide the amounts, allow the choice to offer an individual gift without judgment, and above all, do not systematize the approach.
Because the real connection is not measured by the amount collected on an interface, but by the quality of the attention paid to the other. As Siyana Mincheva recalls, “offering can be beautiful. But only when it’s chosen, not when it’s expected.”