Another speculative argument in favor of big asks: most charity seems to focus on making small asks, because people think getting people on the first step towards making a difference is the crucial bottleneck (e.g. see this guy), so the space of ‘making big asks’ is neglected. This means it’s unusually effective to work in this space, even if you appeal to many fewer people.
This seems to be one of the main reasons GWWC has been much more effective than ordinary fundraising techniques.
The downside is that we’re concerned with total scale as well as cost-effectiveness, and a ‘big ask’ approach probably has less total growth potential in the long-run.
The GWWC pledge isn’t really an ‘ask’ - people may make particular donations because they’re asked to, but no one commits to donating 10% of their income every year until they retire because someone asked them to. Instead they make this commitment because they want to do it anyway, and the pledge provides a way for them to declare this publicly to influence others. So it would be interesting to find examples of more typical big asks working—eg. fundraising teams which highball potential donors. Does anyone know of these?
This would, if true, imply that GWWC does not actually result in any initial donations on the behalf of its members. It might still result in more donations on behalf of non-members.
Ah sure, but I’m saying that no one gives this sort of money just because they’ve been asked to—it’s too large and long-lasting a commitment, and being asked is not a powerful enough reason or prompt. Asking them to sign the GWWC pledge may prompt them to make this public declaration, but only if they were already happy to give that sort of money.
In my experience, some of the people I’ve asked to take the pledge would have donated 10% “eventually”, but the pledge actually made them follow through for at least that year in particular where I’m confident they otherwise would not.
Some would have done so anyway, but I think the example set by hundreds of others, including some they know personally, normalises giving a large amount and makes them more likely to copy. Also making a public declaration makes people more likely to follow through.
We also obviously make arguments in favour of doing so. It rarely convinces people immediately but it contributes to moving them in that direction.
Another speculative argument in favor of big asks: most charity seems to focus on making small asks, because people think getting people on the first step towards making a difference is the crucial bottleneck (e.g. see this guy), so the space of ‘making big asks’ is neglected. This means it’s unusually effective to work in this space, even if you appeal to many fewer people.
This seems to be one of the main reasons GWWC has been much more effective than ordinary fundraising techniques.
The downside is that we’re concerned with total scale as well as cost-effectiveness, and a ‘big ask’ approach probably has less total growth potential in the long-run.
The GWWC pledge isn’t really an ‘ask’ - people may make particular donations because they’re asked to, but no one commits to donating 10% of their income every year until they retire because someone asked them to. Instead they make this commitment because they want to do it anyway, and the pledge provides a way for them to declare this publicly to influence others. So it would be interesting to find examples of more typical big asks working—eg. fundraising teams which highball potential donors. Does anyone know of these?
This would, if true, imply that GWWC does not actually result in any initial donations on the behalf of its members. It might still result in more donations on behalf of non-members.
“but no one commits to donating 10% of their income every year until they retire because someone asked them to”
We do in our outreach efforts!
Ah sure, but I’m saying that no one gives this sort of money just because they’ve been asked to—it’s too large and long-lasting a commitment, and being asked is not a powerful enough reason or prompt. Asking them to sign the GWWC pledge may prompt them to make this public declaration, but only if they were already happy to give that sort of money.
In my experience, some of the people I’ve asked to take the pledge would have donated 10% “eventually”, but the pledge actually made them follow through for at least that year in particular where I’m confident they otherwise would not.
Some would have done so anyway, but I think the example set by hundreds of others, including some they know personally, normalises giving a large amount and makes them more likely to copy. Also making a public declaration makes people more likely to follow through.
We also obviously make arguments in favour of doing so. It rarely convinces people immediately but it contributes to moving them in that direction.