I would argue that most people reading the website are very wealthy—living in a western country almost inevitably qualifies you as very wealthy. For the main target audience—successful professional athletes—a 10% pledge would not change quality of life one whit.
This is a huge discussion, so sorry for the very quick comment. Very happy about the idea of the project in general!
I’m pretty unsure that pledges around 1% are a good idea, especially among people who are already wealthy. In the US, people donate 2% of their income on average (and more altruistic people presumably start higher), and so getting someone to pledge 1% could easily reduce how much they give in total. (Since after they take the pledge, they might feel they’ve done their bit, and reduce informal donations.)
I think it’s important to set the default to be significantly ahead of where people are already likely to be at, so at least 5%. (This approach in the charity sector is also less neglected. People are used to be asking to make small commitments. What’s new about EA is that we’re really serious about giving; and this is a big part of how we appeal to people . And I so I think you can raise more money with the big giving approach e.g. GWWC has raised a lot more than TLYCS.)
Among a wealthy group, I’d make 10% the default, and then clarify that people can give less as an alternative. (Added: I also wouldn’t want to anchor people on the 3.7% average figure—better to have some case studies of people giving 10% and make that the anchor.)
Based on my experience of getting people to take the GWWC 10% pledge – and through 80k I’ve helped to convince 300+ people to do that – you’ll raise a lot more money by starting by making a bigger ask and then reducing if they don’t want to do it.
I’d also suggest having a ‘stretch’ option that’s well above 10% to help expanding the notion of seem possible. This is the role played by GWWC’s further pledge – even though not many people take it, it’s still useful to have because it makes the 10% pledge seem comparatively easy (this is a classic sales technique).
Many wealthy people have already heard of Bill Gates’ giving pledge, which is 50%, so I don’t think much higher figures even sound that off putting to people these days.
That said, if you don’t have any initial members who have made the higher commitments, you might not be able to add it at the start.
Relatedly, I wouldn’t call 10% ‘saintly’, because as you say, you don’t think it involves any sacrifice at all among this group, and therefore is not especially saintly.
In sum, I’d go for a schema more like GWWC (which has one of the best track records for raising money via this kind of means):
10% is the default
Something like 5% for one year ‘try out giving’
Some kind of higher stretch option (maybe 30%, 50% or all above a cap)
(Added: or copying Founder’s Pledge more could also work—more detail below.)
Do you think this approach works across the board? In my personal experience athletes are quite self-centred and asking for anything for free is a shock to them. So far, bringing up a percentage pledge has scared the vast majority of the athletes I’ve spoken to, despite giving myself as an example of someone for whom it works and feels good. Most have shied away from a percentage, asking to donate a discreet amount and maybe come in at a 1% pledge next year or the year after.
Perhaps this response is only typical for tennis players who have to earn their livings through winning matches, which is never a certainty, rather than being paid a salary like in most team sports. I haven’t yet spoken to any team athletes about HIA.
Also, I see the point about ‘saintly’ and have changed it. Thanks!
I don’t have any experience with athletes, though I’d be surprised if they were unusually self-centred compared to other rich people.
Donating a % of winnings above a threshold might be better if income volatility is the worry. That’s the approach Founder’s Pledge and REG both use, which are also very relevant examples. (Note that FP started out with IIRC 2% as their default but now they don’t have a specific percentage and try to suggest the idea of donating much more initially.) I could imagine a pitch like “if you win X big competition, how about giving 30% of that?”
We do know that the EA pitch has worked best on finance, quanty and techy people so far, and it might be hard to extend.
One other thing I’d say is that when we’ve done outreach for GWWC, we’re always letting interested people come to us, rather than going out and pitching to people. I expect if I tried to pitch giving 10% to a randomly selected friend I wouldn’t get far. Instead we’d do something like host a talk about charity, or have a media article, or get introductions to people—so we were always working with a group who have preselected themselves into being pitched.
Though, I think David Golberg has had a lot of success with a more proactive approach at FP among tech entrepreneurs, so it’s possible, though I think even there he’d mostly screen people for interest in charity, or get warm introductions.
I think we should keep in mind that if someone (an athlete in this example) was donating 5% to an average charity, and then was prompted by the pledge to merely give 2%, the difference in impact between charities might be enough to offset that. Edit: I also endorse the option of giving more than 10%, it doesn’t seem to have many downsides, and the benefits were highlighted by Benjamin.
I would argue that most people reading the website are very wealthy—living in a western country almost inevitably qualifies you as very wealthy. For the main target audience—successful professional athletes—a 10% pledge would not change quality of life one whit.
This is a huge discussion, so sorry for the very quick comment. Very happy about the idea of the project in general!
I’m pretty unsure that pledges around 1% are a good idea, especially among people who are already wealthy. In the US, people donate 2% of their income on average (and more altruistic people presumably start higher), and so getting someone to pledge 1% could easily reduce how much they give in total. (Since after they take the pledge, they might feel they’ve done their bit, and reduce informal donations.)
I think it’s important to set the default to be significantly ahead of where people are already likely to be at, so at least 5%. (This approach in the charity sector is also less neglected. People are used to be asking to make small commitments. What’s new about EA is that we’re really serious about giving; and this is a big part of how we appeal to people . And I so I think you can raise more money with the big giving approach e.g. GWWC has raised a lot more than TLYCS.)
Among a wealthy group, I’d make 10% the default, and then clarify that people can give less as an alternative. (Added: I also wouldn’t want to anchor people on the 3.7% average figure—better to have some case studies of people giving 10% and make that the anchor.)
Based on my experience of getting people to take the GWWC 10% pledge – and through 80k I’ve helped to convince 300+ people to do that – you’ll raise a lot more money by starting by making a bigger ask and then reducing if they don’t want to do it.
I’d also suggest having a ‘stretch’ option that’s well above 10% to help expanding the notion of seem possible. This is the role played by GWWC’s further pledge – even though not many people take it, it’s still useful to have because it makes the 10% pledge seem comparatively easy (this is a classic sales technique).
Many wealthy people have already heard of Bill Gates’ giving pledge, which is 50%, so I don’t think much higher figures even sound that off putting to people these days.
That said, if you don’t have any initial members who have made the higher commitments, you might not be able to add it at the start.
Relatedly, I wouldn’t call 10% ‘saintly’, because as you say, you don’t think it involves any sacrifice at all among this group, and therefore is not especially saintly.
In sum, I’d go for a schema more like GWWC (which has one of the best track records for raising money via this kind of means):
10% is the default
Something like 5% for one year ‘try out giving’
Some kind of higher stretch option (maybe 30%, 50% or all above a cap)
(Added: or copying Founder’s Pledge more could also work—more detail below.)
Thanks Ben, great comment.
Do you think this approach works across the board? In my personal experience athletes are quite self-centred and asking for anything for free is a shock to them. So far, bringing up a percentage pledge has scared the vast majority of the athletes I’ve spoken to, despite giving myself as an example of someone for whom it works and feels good. Most have shied away from a percentage, asking to donate a discreet amount and maybe come in at a 1% pledge next year or the year after.
Perhaps this response is only typical for tennis players who have to earn their livings through winning matches, which is never a certainty, rather than being paid a salary like in most team sports. I haven’t yet spoken to any team athletes about HIA.
Also, I see the point about ‘saintly’ and have changed it. Thanks!
Hi Marcus,
I don’t have any experience with athletes, though I’d be surprised if they were unusually self-centred compared to other rich people.
Donating a % of winnings above a threshold might be better if income volatility is the worry. That’s the approach Founder’s Pledge and REG both use, which are also very relevant examples. (Note that FP started out with IIRC 2% as their default but now they don’t have a specific percentage and try to suggest the idea of donating much more initially.) I could imagine a pitch like “if you win X big competition, how about giving 30% of that?”
We do know that the EA pitch has worked best on finance, quanty and techy people so far, and it might be hard to extend.
One other thing I’d say is that when we’ve done outreach for GWWC, we’re always letting interested people come to us, rather than going out and pitching to people. I expect if I tried to pitch giving 10% to a randomly selected friend I wouldn’t get far. Instead we’d do something like host a talk about charity, or have a media article, or get introductions to people—so we were always working with a group who have preselected themselves into being pitched.
Though, I think David Golberg has had a lot of success with a more proactive approach at FP among tech entrepreneurs, so it’s possible, though I think even there he’d mostly screen people for interest in charity, or get warm introductions.
I am imagining this conversation:
Marcus: you should donate 1% of your income
Athlete: I don’t want to commit to a percentage. How about a fixed dollar value for this year, and maybe a percentage later?
Marcus: Sounds good. How much you you make?
Athlete: I make $500k a year.
Marcus: How about donating 10k then? That’s a nice round number.
Agreed, and actually Americans donate closer to 4% of pretax income.
Hey Marcus, good job on taking the initiative!
I think we should keep in mind that if someone (an athlete in this example) was donating 5% to an average charity, and then was prompted by the pledge to merely give 2%, the difference in impact between charities might be enough to offset that.
Edit: I also endorse the option of giving more than 10%, it doesn’t seem to have many downsides, and the benefits were highlighted by Benjamin.