There is a French charity I’ve been trying to convince of EA. I don’t know in how far I’ve succeeded so far because their plan is to first fundraise for (a tiny part of) a guide dog in order to build rapport with their audience (many of whom will have never thought about donating), convert them into donors, and win their trust. Then they want to switch to effective projects and use the momentum they think they otherwise wouldn’t be able to build up. So sort of the strategy Hoffman proposes. I think that’s risky to say the least:
It comes at a great cost.
If donors get attached to cause areas as easily as I fear they do, then they’ll have knowingly misinformed their donors in a way they can’t correct anymore.
In cases where they can still correct it, they jeopardize their donors trust.
If donors get more attached to the cause than the charity, they’ll lose them.
If they try to avoid that by focusing their marketing on their own brand rather than the cause, they’re missing out on the educational benefits that are easily more valuable as the cumulate over time.
The charity’s team might get attached to the cause and the guide dog trainers they’ve gotten to know, so the switch might not happen. (Or “not yet,” which will be easy to rationalize.)
Since they try to address an audience that has been “drying up” since 2012, any postswitch donations will be far less than the preswitch donations.
Since the organization is small, volunteer run, and has a lot of staff fluctuation, it’ll probably never get to any switch point or the current agenda will be forgotten by then.
Item 7 doesn’t apply generally, but I think 8 is a fairly common risk.
There is a French charity I’ve been trying to convince of EA. I don’t know in how far I’ve succeeded so far because their plan is to first fundraise for (a tiny part of) a guide dog in order to build rapport with their audience (many of whom will have never thought about donating), convert them into donors, and win their trust. Then they want to switch to effective projects and use the momentum they think they otherwise wouldn’t be able to build up. So sort of the strategy Hoffman proposes. I think that’s risky to say the least:
It comes at a great cost.
If donors get attached to cause areas as easily as I fear they do, then they’ll have knowingly misinformed their donors in a way they can’t correct anymore.
In cases where they can still correct it, they jeopardize their donors trust.
If donors get more attached to the cause than the charity, they’ll lose them.
If they try to avoid that by focusing their marketing on their own brand rather than the cause, they’re missing out on the educational benefits that are easily more valuable as the cumulate over time.
The charity’s team might get attached to the cause and the guide dog trainers they’ve gotten to know, so the switch might not happen. (Or “not yet,” which will be easy to rationalize.)
Since they try to address an audience that has been “drying up” since 2012, any postswitch donations will be far less than the preswitch donations.
Since the organization is small, volunteer run, and has a lot of staff fluctuation, it’ll probably never get to any switch point or the current agenda will be forgotten by then.
Item 7 doesn’t apply generally, but I think 8 is a fairly common risk.