I’d argue for using TLYCS’s pledge for the high ask for three reasons, two of which seem pretty compelling:
1) I work for TLYCS
2) TLYCS has a lower minimum pledge than GWWC, so it’ll give a richer, more informative, data set. Our baseline assumption is presumably that cold-emailing people doesn’t get a lot of pledges. If we get that result with a high minimum pledge, we won’t know if a lower minimum would do better. Conversely, if we use TLYCS’s pledge and see a bunch of people pledging 3%, that’s valuable info. (If we see a lot of pledges, we can/should test TLYCS vs. GWWC pledges directly against each other.)
3) This would directly inform TLYCS strategy. Our working assumption is that pledging is too big an initial ask. We’d be very interested in this data point.
I’d argue for using TLYCS’s pledge for the high ask for three reasons, two of which seem pretty compelling:
1) I work for TLYCS 2) TLYCS has a lower minimum pledge than GWWC, so it’ll give a richer, more informative, data set. Our baseline assumption is presumably that cold-emailing people doesn’t get a lot of pledges. If we get that result with a high minimum pledge, we won’t know if a lower minimum would do better. Conversely, if we use TLYCS’s pledge and see a bunch of people pledging 3%, that’s valuable info. (If we see a lot of pledges, we can/should test TLYCS vs. GWWC pledges directly against each other.) 3) This would directly inform TLYCS strategy. Our working assumption is that pledging is too big an initial ask. We’d be very interested in this data point.
Seems sensible to me. What do you think tyleralterman, if you’re reading this?