Background: Despite the growing attention given to the political process of evidence-based policymaking (EBPM), we still know little about how evidence is processed at the early stages of the policymaking process, especially at the agenda-setting stage. Whether and when political elites pay attention to evidence-based information is crucial to the study of EBPM but also essential to the well-functioning of democracy. Aims and objectives: The aim of this paper is to cover this gap, by asking whether evidence increases policymaker attention to policy proposals. The working hypothesis is that everything else being constant, evidence should increase policy-maker attention. Methods: To test this hypothesis, this paper relies on a field experiment embedded in a real-life fundraising campaign of an advocacy organisation targeted at the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). The field experiment is embedded in a real-life fundraising campaign of an advocacy organisation targeted at the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Findings: Results show that information type matters to policy-maker attention, but evidence is not effective in this respect. Findings also suggest that there are no important differences between political groups and, crucially, that previous policy support does not have an impact on policy-maker attention. This paper shows that that while evidence is essential to the policy process, ideas are key to attract policymakers' attention at the individual level in the absence of prior demand. Discussion and conclusion: Overall, findings suggest that empirical information is not a quick pass for policy-maker attention. In this context, other types of information and framing are likely to make a difference. Future studies should analyse how framing may alter political elites' predisposition to attend empirical evidence.