Sounds like churn is much lower with men. Unless it is much more expensive (in terms of advertising etc.) to get new men, which looking at the ‘1+’ row doesn’t seem to be the case, or women are more productive, this suggests you have a higher Customer-Lifetime-Value / Customer-Acquisition-Cost ratio with men. If this is the case then, to the extent you can, you should re-allocate your efforts at the relevant margin towards attracting more men.
Several previous forum posts have suggested that it’s useful to try to have a balance of men and women because:
-In the longer term, only focusing on white, middle-class men who want to do good using evidence will mean we lose out on a large amount of talent and resources. source
-The focus on men might not be reversible: unbalanced events now could put off “highly productive” women, who might continue to view EA unfavourably years later. source
-Diversity will likely make conversations and viewpoints less predictable and more useful. source
Interesting data!
Sounds like churn is much lower with men. Unless it is much more expensive (in terms of advertising etc.) to get new men, which looking at the ‘1+’ row doesn’t seem to be the case, or women are more productive, this suggests you have a higher Customer-Lifetime-Value / Customer-Acquisition-Cost ratio with men. If this is the case then, to the extent you can, you should re-allocate your efforts at the relevant margin towards attracting more men.
https://www.klipfolio.com/resources/kpi-examples/saas-metrics/customer-lifetime-value-to-customer-acquisition-ratio
Several previous forum posts have suggested that it’s useful to try to have a balance of men and women because:
-In the longer term, only focusing on white, middle-class men who want to do good using evidence will mean we lose out on a large amount of talent and resources. source
-The focus on men might not be reversible: unbalanced events now could put off “highly productive” women, who might continue to view EA unfavourably years later. source
-Diversity will likely make conversations and viewpoints less predictable and more useful. source
It may be a bit short sighted to try and grow in a way that leads to 0.1% of people being interested in effective altruism rather than 5%.
It seems to be a mistake that both the atheist and skeptic communities have made in the past.