Thanks for commenting. I have just taken a look at your essay and associated entities as well as the unfairly condescending but informative comments it received.
It looks like our ideas are aligned. Some initial thoughts from me:
To make an scalable impact and safeguard or contribute favourably to the reputation of effective charities, I think our product offering should be at least as good as the current market. Drawing on success stories like Patagonia, and the rationale that consumers of premium products are more interested in brand differentiation—I think we should focus on offering premium products only, whatever the category of good.
From the sample I saw, the problem I see with CPI associated entities is they look frankly like white labelled low cost products sold online on less than slick websites—that likely will not be found unless people are really looking for them in order to donate—and those people likely already donate to effective charities—so contractually it might be marginally harmful but would be very skeptical about dollars moved to date.
I think there’s a point to be made that the comparative advantage of people in our movement is effective charity rather than effective business, so I see the case for CPI. Perhaps a good change in strategy for CPI is to focus on partnering with existing companies in need of differentiation, rather than spawning businesses from within the EA ecosystem?
That being said, our movement doesn’t necessarily lack the capacity for or to develop in house profit for good entrepreneurship—just as charity entrepreneurship capabilities have been built. However, from the lack of hands up to cofound in this comments section, it looks like further ‘field building’ is required to construct a coherent direction with this strategy. Otherwise, I expect my idea here will languish the way the other entities in your ecosystem appear to. Please do correct me if I’m mistaken—if funding has been forthcoming, committed volunteers coming forward or revenues healthy for instance
Thanks for commenting. I have just taken a look at your essay and associated entities as well as the unfairly condescending but informative comments it received.
It looks like our ideas are aligned. Some initial thoughts from me:
To make an scalable impact and safeguard or contribute favourably to the reputation of effective charities, I think our product offering should be at least as good as the current market. Drawing on success stories like Patagonia, and the rationale that consumers of premium products are more interested in brand differentiation—I think we should focus on offering premium products only, whatever the category of good.
From the sample I saw, the problem I see with CPI associated entities is they look frankly like white labelled low cost products sold online on less than slick websites—that likely will not be found unless people are really looking for them in order to donate—and those people likely already donate to effective charities—so contractually it might be marginally harmful but would be very skeptical about dollars moved to date.
I think there’s a point to be made that the comparative advantage of people in our movement is effective charity rather than effective business, so I see the case for CPI. Perhaps a good change in strategy for CPI is to focus on partnering with existing companies in need of differentiation, rather than spawning businesses from within the EA ecosystem?
That being said, our movement doesn’t necessarily lack the capacity for or to develop in house profit for good entrepreneurship—just as charity entrepreneurship capabilities have been built. However, from the lack of hands up to cofound in this comments section, it looks like further ‘field building’ is required to construct a coherent direction with this strategy. Otherwise, I expect my idea here will languish the way the other entities in your ecosystem appear to. Please do correct me if I’m mistaken—if funding has been forthcoming, committed volunteers coming forward or revenues healthy for instance