I appreciate the effort and ambition you’re putting into this and endorse you doing the kind of outreach you’re most excited about. That said, I doubt this is nearly as valuable as it looks on paper, so groups shouldn’t default to replicating it.
So what we have here is a pledge that says that when you enter the workforce and have a steady income, you will donate 1% of your income to charities that you care about.
[emphasis added]
Based on this and the absence absence of meaningful follow up, I’d guess these pledges are worth ~5% of 300 high-touch pledges.
It seems like people are going to get an email from GWWC at some point in the future (maybe not even that?) which may or may not successfully remind them of this brief interaction, which may or may not motivate them to click through to the site, which is quite unlikely to convince anyone to donate to a highly effective charity.
Shifting some portion of your efforts to follow up seems like the right move. Getting one real EA 1% pledger up to 5% would be worth 80 of these pledges for example and seems doable.
Thanks for your comment. I agree with this assessment.
I wanted this post to describe our approach while communicating that the numbers are not what they seem at first. While I estimate that our overall efficacy is more than your estimated 5% (the follow-ups from GWWC are more robust than you describe), I agree that it is quite low—still, even if these efforts yield just a handful of effective givers in the long run, this will have been a worthwhile use of time.
I by no means believe that this is an optimal approach to tabling, but hope that this post will encourage other organizers to try something and continue to iterate on best strategies—because right now, I am under the impression that there is not very much of this work taking place on campuses.
I appreciate the effort and ambition you’re putting into this and endorse you doing the kind of outreach you’re most excited about. That said, I doubt this is nearly as valuable as it looks on paper, so groups shouldn’t default to replicating it.
[emphasis added]
Based on this and the absence absence of meaningful follow up, I’d guess these pledges are worth ~5% of 300 high-touch pledges.
It seems like people are going to get an email from GWWC at some point in the future (maybe not even that?) which may or may not successfully remind them of this brief interaction, which may or may not motivate them to click through to the site, which is quite unlikely to convince anyone to donate to a highly effective charity.
Shifting some portion of your efforts to follow up seems like the right move. Getting one real EA 1% pledger up to 5% would be worth 80 of these pledges for example and seems doable.
Thanks for your comment. I agree with this assessment.
I wanted this post to describe our approach while communicating that the numbers are not what they seem at first. While I estimate that our overall efficacy is more than your estimated 5% (the follow-ups from GWWC are more robust than you describe), I agree that it is quite low—still, even if these efforts yield just a handful of effective givers in the long run, this will have been a worthwhile use of time.
I by no means believe that this is an optimal approach to tabling, but hope that this post will encourage other organizers to try something and continue to iterate on best strategies—because right now, I am under the impression that there is not very much of this work taking place on campuses.