“If Guided Consumption directs 1% of Global Economy Profits”—I’m not quite sure I understand the mechanism to get to this state of the world. Would this essentially require the EA community to buy 1% of the global market? Or are you suggesting we build a whole load of new companies? That is almost impossible in most mature markets unless there is some sort of disruption.
I am suggesting that strategic investment by EA or other philanthropic investors to create Guiding Companies/other Guiding Producers will allow for a huge profitable return.
For instance, in life insurance sales, there is little to differentiate salespeople within an agency (they are all selling the same products at the same costs), but they could make millions of dollars and capture a huge portion of the market for life insurance sales if they advertised that their commission would go 100% to charity. Paying 400 life insurance salespeople $120k/year, distributing them across states and agencies, would cost $75mil/year, but they could potentially capture a significant portion of the market with a viral campaign (why not save the world while protecting your family?). And compensation of $200k/year is sufficient that we could capture talented salespeople and pay them more than what they had otherwise made. So if they generate $2 .5 billion in sales, that is 33x ROI.
The reason that this could be so effective in sales commissions contexts is that there is almost nothing to differentiate salespeople (they are all selling the same stuff) and there are people that already want the product, so it makes sense for those consumers to buy the exact same stuff in a way that benefits a charity.
So, I am suggesting that strategically deployed charitable investment in conjunction with a broad-based marketing campaign could enable outsize market capture from a small investment.
Also see my response here under the heading “So, for a simple example to illustrate what I would be thinking of doing- ”
“If Guided Consumption directs 1% of Global Economy Profits”—I’m not quite sure I understand the mechanism to get to this state of the world. Would this essentially require the EA community to buy 1% of the global market? Or are you suggesting we build a whole load of new companies? That is almost impossible in most mature markets unless there is some sort of disruption.
I am suggesting that strategic investment by EA or other philanthropic investors to create Guiding Companies/other Guiding Producers will allow for a huge profitable return.
For instance, in life insurance sales, there is little to differentiate salespeople within an agency (they are all selling the same products at the same costs), but they could make millions of dollars and capture a huge portion of the market for life insurance sales if they advertised that their commission would go 100% to charity. Paying 400 life insurance salespeople $120k/year, distributing them across states and agencies, would cost $75mil/year, but they could potentially capture a significant portion of the market with a viral campaign (why not save the world while protecting your family?). And compensation of $200k/year is sufficient that we could capture talented salespeople and pay them more than what they had otherwise made. So if they generate $2 .5 billion in sales, that is 33x ROI.
The reason that this could be so effective in sales commissions contexts is that there is almost nothing to differentiate salespeople (they are all selling the same stuff) and there are people that already want the product, so it makes sense for those consumers to buy the exact same stuff in a way that benefits a charity.
So, I am suggesting that strategically deployed charitable investment in conjunction with a broad-based marketing campaign could enable outsize market capture from a small investment.
Also see my response here under the heading “So, for a simple example to illustrate what I would be thinking of doing- ”