Both. I do not have reasons to believe organisations are under or overspending on fundraising. Some organisations say they have a hard time finding people who are a good fit for fundraising (being “talent-constrained”), but I think this only means there are steep diminishing returns on spending more on fundraising by increasing the earnings of possible fundraising roles. It does not mean they are underspending on fundraising. In general, I think it is sensible to at least have a prior expectation that the various activities on which an impact-focussed organisation can spend more money on have similar marginal cost-effectiveness. Otherwise, they would be leaving impact on the table by not moving money from the least to the most cost-effective activities at the margin. At the same time, I expect to find inefficiencies after learning more.
Do you think in real life that’s a sensible expectation, or are you saying that’s how you wish it worked?
Both. I do not have reasons to believe organisations are under or overspending on fundraising. Some organisations say they have a hard time finding people who are a good fit for fundraising (being “talent-constrained”), but I think this only means there are steep diminishing returns on spending more on fundraising by increasing the earnings of possible fundraising roles. It does not mean they are underspending on fundraising. In general, I think it is sensible to at least have a prior expectation that the various activities on which an impact-focussed organisation can spend more money on have similar marginal cost-effectiveness. Otherwise, they would be leaving impact on the table by not moving money from the least to the most cost-effective activities at the margin. At the same time, I expect to find inefficiencies after learning more.