Fundraising strategy: ask for publicity from public people
Other than the fact that you can easily copy/paste your request and that it’s super easy, the picture and title tell you all you need to know.
I couldn’t find a quote for this.
-Me, 2024
Epistemic status (Optional):
This is not based on other people’s experience doing this. If you have (or haven’t), please let me know how I can improve this article! (people keep downvoting my posts without telling me why, and it’s a mild inconvenience for me, and my content isn’t as good because of it.)
In addition, the extent to which this article has been peer-reviewed so far is:
It was edited in accordance with Robert Cousineau’s comment.
Nothing else.
Notably, the message of this article is a concept, something that is less research-based and, therefore, is less prone to research errors.
I checked the grammar of this article with Grammarly.
So what’s the idea?
The idea is to reach out to public entities[1], asking said public entity to ask [the people who view their content] to donate to your thing. The effect of a mention is roughly proportional to how many people view their content[2], so it makes sense to aim for more popular entities in your requests.
Pros:
You can easily copy/paste your request since the outcome is largely independent of who you’re requesting a mention from, and the format for contacting a public entity is much less case-specific and is usually done by sending a simple email. (Of course, you can personalize the request, and it might increase your odds, but it also might take longer.)
Even if viewers don’t donate, at the very least, they will know about your cause.
The process of asking entities for a mention might be more enjoyable and easier than applying for funding.
It likely doesn’t require the entity to spend any money on it, meaning a mention would likely have little to no cost for them. This makes it more likely to work than doing unsolicited grant proposals, which are costly for donor institutions.
In addition, this way, the money donated would have otherwise just gone to the people viewing the content, whereas when applying for funding, the money would have otherwise gone to a different institution.[3]
In addition, since you are not competing with others for a mention, they are more likely to say yes to you, since they don’t have to choose between you and 200 other people.
It might help said entity’s PR.[4] (This also could be a bad thing, but don’t mention that to them!)
Money would go to your cause.[4]
Other pros that I am not currently aware of. (If you are aware of any more, please let me know!)
Cons:
It might be less professional to have a source of funding be a [YouTube video or something along those lines.]. It also might associate your thing with their thing.
This could (at least partially) be mitigated by only reaching out to more professional entities that you would be okay with being associated with your thing.
It could potentially harm their public brand, as well as yours, as your email might come across as spam-like[5], and their mentioning you might come across as out of place and weird to be in their content.
This could (at least partially) be mitigated by trying to come across as less spam-like and by only reaching out to entities whom you think [them mentioning you wouldn’t harm their brand].
It might actually be positive to ask entities to mention your thing if it would harm their brand, if their brand is bad. (Note: if their brand is bad, they probably would be less willing to mention your thing.) (e.g., if FakeEvilCorpNews mentioned Non-EvilThing, it would harm their brand as an evil news channel, making some evil people not listen to them.)
Similar to how it could harm your brand, it could harm the brands of things associated with what you want funding for. (e.g., Veganism, Effective Altruism, GMOs, AI safety regulation)
Other cons that I am not currently aware of. (If you are aware of any more, please let me know!)
One last thing:
I suggest providing some evidence that [what you’re requesting funding for] is legitimate in your “request text,” since it would likely otherwise be seen as spam mail.
- ^
(e.g., media personalities, podcasts, comedy news channels, etc.)
- ^
This is because, for each additional person who views the content, there is some expected amount of money they donate to your cause. In addition, that expected amount changes depending on how many [people who view their content.]
- ^
This also means that making an emotional appeal is more morally acceptable, since it doesn’t [give you an unfair advantage in a procedure to determine which institution should have the funds], since there are no other institutions.
- ^
I would suggest pointing this out in your “request text.” (The thing you copy/paste and maybe customize a little from entity to entity.)
- ^
In addition, they might make content painting you in a negative light for doing so. This could (at least partially) be mitigated by only reaching out to entities that seem less likely to do this.
Overall, I think the idea makes sense. EA has a valuable message that likely could do well with more airtime.
On the object level of this post, I am concerned that you have neither thought through how to get the message across effectively in the long term, nor what you are actually asking of the people you message.
Your tone in the example message seems off; who are you to tell them what doing so will cost them, financially or reputationally? You want to piggy back off of their brand because they have done a better job than your non-profit at building one—respect that! Give information, not conclusions (or, show, don’t tell).
In the body of this post, you insinuate you are copy pasting the same or a very similar message between a bunch of channels/groups. This seems unlikely to lead to reaching the best conversions effectively. The channels that are likely to actually add a note are also likely mission aligned with your nonprofit but don’t know that yet. You should explain why this is true, in a curated fashion.
Again in the body you devote two bullet points as to how this is low cost to them, and probably helps their brand. Again, this is not your decision to make. They know how to build their brand better than you know how to build their brand. Further, you seem to be underestimating the reputational costs to them of shilling what are random charities in their viewers/readers eyes (both in annoyance factor and in terms of their relationship is now linked to yours).
Vibes wise, from this post I get the impression you are in good faith trying to get more people to spam popular people with their EA charity, and that does not seem well suited to good long term outcomes for EA.
I edited the post in accordance with your comment; thanks for commenting on how I can improve! It genuinely helped and pointed out things I didn’t know until you mentioned them.
1. Do you think I should do any more editing in accordance with your comment?
2. Do you have any other feedback?
3. Generally, anything else?
Unrelated to this post, but FYI I think some of the downvotes you’ve received on other posts are because generic productivity advice at least usually isn’t a category of post which this forum is intended for. (Also, most EAs are the types of people who are probably familiar with most e genetic productivity tips already).
Exceptions may be if it is a long list, or something that has been extremely novel or life-changing for you.
Your productivity tips may be better off being posted as Shortform instead of as Posts.
thanks for the suggestion! Agreed; If I understand correctly, you’re suggesting I change them into a quick take?
Executive summary: Asking public entities to publicize your non-profit or cause to their audience is a potentially effective fundraising strategy with several pros and cons to consider.
Key points:
Requesting publicity from public entities like media personalities or podcasts can be done easily by copying/pasting a request email.
The potential impact is proportional to the size of the entity’s audience, so targeting popular entities makes sense.
Pros include increased awareness even without donations, potentially being easier and more enjoyable than grant writing, and not competing with other causes for limited funds.
Cons include potentially seeming less professional, harming the public brand of the entity or your cause if seen as spammy or out-of-place, and reflecting negatively on associated movements.
Providing evidence of your cause’s legitimacy in the request is suggested to avoid being seen as spam.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.