Thanks Alasdair; for what itās worth I consider this very close to many variants on the āgiving gamesā idea, in terms of using the money to draw people in while still making sure it goes to a good cause. One plausible issue with donation matching instead here is that it seems fake if the money is going to be donated anyway (giving games of pretty much any variant give a genuine, if perhaps constrained, choice); do you have a sense of how people react to that?
Also, at some point in drafting this the word āboringā was in inverted commas, as it is in your post. Not sure what happened to that...
Well, donation matching schemes are very well known and accepted in the wider charity world.
I agree with you there is some tension thereābut it is a pretty relaxed one, I think people see it more as making a communal shared commitment than as being fake.
With the Bill Gates example I mentioned, they reached their $100,000 donation in 2 days and currently are around $260,000 - obviously $100,00 is a trivial amount of money for Bill Gates, no-one looking at that video can have been like āwell if we donāt reach the target maybe Bill Gates is going to not donate money to charity and spend it on hookers and blowāāBut they donated, in part i guess because they wanted to be part of their community and to show this was something they were thinking about and in alignment with this issue and donation event.
But yes, the framing and structure - how to make it seem genuine (the ultimate way of course would be a precommitment that any unmatched funds be used for some silly or negative purposeābut that seems even more icky), of how to engage that group event feeling and finally of how to make it a sticky thing beyond a one off event people get involved with and forget aboutāall would require some careful thought and planning.
Thanks Alasdair; for what itās worth I consider this very close to many variants on the āgiving gamesā idea, in terms of using the money to draw people in while still making sure it goes to a good cause. One plausible issue with donation matching instead here is that it seems fake if the money is going to be donated anyway (giving games of pretty much any variant give a genuine, if perhaps constrained, choice); do you have a sense of how people react to that?
Also, at some point in drafting this the word āboringā was in inverted commas, as it is in your post. Not sure what happened to that...
Well, donation matching schemes are very well known and accepted in the wider charity world. I agree with you there is some tension thereābut it is a pretty relaxed one, I think people see it more as making a communal shared commitment than as being fake.
With the Bill Gates example I mentioned, they reached their $100,000 donation in 2 days and currently are around $260,000 - obviously $100,00 is a trivial amount of money for Bill Gates, no-one looking at that video can have been like āwell if we donāt reach the target maybe Bill Gates is going to not donate money to charity and spend it on hookers and blowāāBut they donated, in part i guess because they wanted to be part of their community and to show this was something they were thinking about and in alignment with this issue and donation event.
But yes, the framing and structure - how to make it seem genuine (the ultimate way of course would be a precommitment that any unmatched funds be used for some silly or negative purposeābut that seems even more icky), of how to engage that group event feeling and finally of how to make it a sticky thing beyond a one off event people get involved with and forget aboutāall would require some careful thought and planning.
I quoted your post verbatim from FB, and it wasnāt in quotes there. I can add them back if you want.