On the commodity issue: the reason that it is hard for firms to get an advantage in the commodity business is because no market actor can offer a better product at a better price than any other market actor. Now imagine, in a commodity space that one market actor was able to produce a more valuable product without incurring additional costs. This market actor would tend to monopolize that commodity market, provided that other market actors could not secure the same advantage. This is the situation that Guiding Companies are in because costs are no higher for them, yet they have an advantage with other market participants, including consumers. I am positing, and believe strongly that research will substantiate this, that consumers will value profit destination at a nonzero level. In the commodity space, this advantage should be decisive. In sectors with more differentiation, it is less likely to be decisive.
Your commodities of scale point definitely makes sense. It will be difficult to compete without hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. This is why research and working on educating the public is critical to satisfy charitable investors that the targeted creation/âacquisition of companies that serve effective charities is best use of their resources.
Your point regarding alignment of practices with charitable shareholders is a good and interesting one that will require a lot of thought regarding how to best organize. One solution would be to pair industries with these issues with charities in different cause areas. Another would simply be to create Guiding Producers in other industries that lack those moral concerns.
The starting place for CPI is likely going to be entry into areas where we can compete without huge economies of scale. We are super interested in input from sharp economic minds like yours to map out this path.
âI am positing, and believe strongly that research will substantiate this, that consumers will value profit destination at a nonzero level.â
I intuitively can see why you say this.
âIn the commodity space, this advantage should be decisive. In sectors with more differentiation, it is less likely to be decisive.â
That said, could it be possible that the higher margins in sectors with more differentiation are worth gaining only a fraction of customer purchases instead of (nearly) all of them? Ie. Do we want to maximise volume sold x profit per unit or volume sold only?
On an individual organisation level, Iâve seen plenty of case studies of nonprofits using cross-subsidisation to reduce reliance on donations/âgrants. One notable example that comes to mind is Me to Weâs model of selling Rafiki bracelets (bracelets being a product with lots of differentiation and very high margins)
âYour commodities of scale point definitely makes sense. It will be difficult to compete without hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. This is why research and working on educating the public is critical to satisfy charitable investors that the targeted creation/âacquisition of companies that serve effective charities is best use of their resources.â
Large companies tend to be very complex to manage and have their own disadvantages to scale.
How would investing in large guiding companies compare to, say, charities investing in a VC fund of startups? Or investing in institutional options like a bond and getting steady returns?
Ie. Some charities already invest in profitable companies via various means. What leads you to conclude that investing in guiding companies is a better alternative to these existing investments?
(I just got my 501(c)(3) letter from the IRS so I am super excited!)
Thank you for the continuation of excellent points and questions!
You may be dead-on regarding the question of dimensions of product differentiation. Even though competitive advantage may be most powerful when there are the fewest dimensions, this may not correspond with the highest profit opportunity for Guiding Companies. Perhaps entering a moderately variegated market sector would allow for sufficient market-share capture such that it would be more profitable to enter such a market sector than it would be to enjoy a (near) monopoly in a lower margin sector with fewer factors of differentiation. The key would be entry of Guiding Companies into sectors where there exists enough product similarity that profit destination would have the potential to be a decisive factor for a significant portion of consumers who are aware of profit destination. I am imagining an area like laundry detergent, where there is substantial similarity between rival brands, even though there are ingredient differences that make for marginal differences in product features. This is why I am interested in engaging very bright, driven, and aligned people to work with the Consumer Power Initiative. We can construct experiments and otherwise come to determinations about what industries profit destination is likeliest to provide the greatest potential for charitable profit.
I think an analogy here would be sports where one participant has an advantage in one dimension, such as running faster. In terms of securing an advantage, such a participant would have a maximal advantageâa perfectly decisive one- in a hundred-meter-dash. In a contest like basketball, where oneâs running speed would confer an advantage, but could be overcome by other factors, the faster runner would have an edge, but perhaps only a probabilistic advantage. However, if the prizes for winning basketball games was sufficiently larger than the prizes for winning running races, it might make sense to invest time in playing basketball despite your running advantage only offering a probabilistic, rather than decisive advantage. Winning the low-margin commodities market with a Guiding Producer here would like be consistently winning the running races with small purses; you might be better off playing basketball games with higher prizes, even though you will lose some games.
The tendency of large companies to have complexity and disadvantages is one shared by traditional firms that work for the benefit of rich shareholders. It is unclear to me why professionals working for charities could not maneuver these complexities just as professionals working for private shareholders do. Indeed, one can imagine a set of charitable investors buying out a firm âFâ and maintaining all factors constant other than some shifting of the advertising budget such that consumers are aware that their purchases 100% benefit worthy charities. In this case, the Guiding Company would have identical tools to managing the problems you reference and any other to traditional company. So, if we define the value of a firm with a normal shareholder set as F(k), I would posit that the relationship between the value of F(c), a firm owned 100% by a popular charity, is that F(c) > F(k). It seems to me that F(c) = F(k) + P, where P is the monetary value of the advantages attaching to the popularity of charities with economic participants vis a vis the popularity of normal investors with market participants. My thought regarding the class of economic participants with whom this popularity would be most important would be consumers. However, Vincent van der Holt, in the course of his dealings in BOAS, has observed BOASâs obtaining of preferential treatment by other economic actors such as advisors, advertisers, and suppliers. One of the most important functions of the Consumer Power Initiative will be to maximize the value of P, in this formulation, by educating and exciting the public, such that they realize their potential to save the world without personal sacrifice . This is why the creation of a social movement , facilitating the success of Guiding Companies is an extraordinarily high-value goal.
The reason that charities (or charitable investors working to benefit charities) should invest in the creation of Guiding Companies over other forms of investment is because this is a form of investment in which they can enjoy a structural advantage, perhaps an almost unimaginable structural advantage. If a charity acquires a marginal portion of a stock in a company or bonds , it occupies the same position as any other investor. If somehow the charitable investor is one of the most skilled investors in the world, it can (in expectation) achieve a percentage or two better than the market, but even being able to identify the Michael Jordans and Lebron Jamesons of investing is extraordinarily difficult even among professional investors and why index funds are often the best bet.
Regarding VC funds for Guiding Companies: I think this idea has a lot of potential! If we had a skilled set of EA venture capitalists and angel investors. Perhaps P in this context would increase the likelihood of the incidence of unicorns, increase the profitability of unicorns even more , increase the profitability of non-unicorns, and decrease the incidence of total duds.
I am very impressed with your engagement with my paper and would very much like to talk via zoom/âcontinue with email (Iâm planning on making a working google doc on Guided Consumption soon as well). I will look at your website and try to learn more about your projects and interests to see room for collaboration with myself and CPI. As stated at the end of my paper, I can be reached at brad@consumerpowerinitiative.org
But please continue with this comment thread, as well, if you have any such inclination!
Iâll continue adding on here, just in case the public discussion helps anyone else too :-)
Glad to see the milestone on the 501(c)(3)! I could imagine that itâs easy to just stick to academia, so good on you for bringing the ideas to more practical/âuncertain grounds.
RE: âWe can construct experiments and otherwise come to determinations about what industries profit destination is likeliest to provide the greatest potential for charitable profit.â
Agreed on your points here. Which metrics do you think are useful to decide which industries guiding companies make sense for?
One idea is that we could research willingness-to-pay-premium on organic or fairtrade products. As a proxy for how much consumers are willing to switch their buying choices based on non-price determinants. Though there are differences (ex: a guiding companyâs product may/âmay not have a premium relative to competitors).
Another idea is price elasticity of demand. My hypothesis is that inelastic products could be seen as a proxy of staples that people wonât go without. Ex: âIf Iâm going to buy baby formula anyways, I might as well buy it from the option that does more good?â
Curious to hear your ideas :-)
RE: âThe tendency of large companies to have complexity and disadvantages is one shared by traditional firms that work for the benefit of rich shareholders.â
Agreed. I was more so comparing guiding companiesâ complexity to nonprofits investing in smaller companies (like with the VC fund).
RE: âOne of the most important functions of the Consumer Power Initiative will be to maximize the value of P, in [value(charity_funded) = value(investor_funded) + P]â
What are your ideas on how to maximise the value of P?
So far, weâve already seen lots of âcertificationsâ for various products (ex: fairtrade, non-GMO, organic, etc.). Theyâve had various challenges in âdoing good.â Though if we focus on just their ability to increase the value of their product compared to traditional profit-making products, what do you think are some lessons to learn from how well fairtrade/âorganic certifications increase the brand value of their products?
In real life, Iâve heard a lot of entrepreneurs talk about how âmixed value propositionsâ actually lead to fewer customers deciding to buy a product than a single, clear value proposition. How have you thought so far about ensuring that product marketing leads to one deciding factor separating a guiding company from competitors, not unclear value propositions that repel customers.
RE: âThe reason that charities (or charitable investors working to benefit charities) should invest in the creation of Guiding Companies over other forms of investment is because this is a form of investment in which they can enjoy a structural advantageâ
If I were managing money at a charity thatâs tight on donations, my priority would be ensuring reliable returns starting in a year or less. Ie. Index funds would seem like a pretty good option :D
How are you thinking about meeting these needs for nonprofits investing in guiding companies?
From my interpretation of what you mean by âstructural advantageââitâs what comes about in a guiding company funded by charities after all else is equal with competitors. Given what we talked about unlocking economies of scale while balancing diseconomies of scale, it would seem reasonable to me that a guiding company wouldnât achieve significant market share for at least 2-3 years.
That said, I can see that some charities (especially in EA) are willing to place funds with longer time horizons on social/âinvestment returns. Maybe choosing which nonprofits invest in guiding companies is very key in the short run? And once the guiding companiesâ market share (and thus returns) are established, it would be a nice move for these larger nonprofits to sell some stakes to smaller nonprofits so they can also get returns.
Curious to hear your thoughts on getting around the initial high investments /â low returns :-)
RE: âIf we had a skilled set of EA venture capitalists and angel investors. Perhaps P in this context would increase the likelihood of the incidence of unicorns, increase the profitability of unicorns even more , increase the profitability of non-unicorns, and decrease the incidence of total duds.â
I donât have any evidence to suggest this is/âisnât possible.
Maybe @--alexâor someone else at EA Angels might have more relevant comments?
One thing that I hope will be a bit clarifying is an outline from a previous call with Vin in which I outlined some of the functions of the Consumer Power Initiative. I have posted it in another comment.
What metrics do you think are useful to decide which industries guiding companies make (most) sense for?
I think research on the willingness-to-pay-premium in contexts in which there is data, such as organic or fairtrade products would be a good place to start. Another way to test willingness-to-pay-premium is by launching low-cost Guiding Producers in a variety of sectors. One idea I have had was to launch a Dropshipping store that sells gaming peripherals, such as headphones that works in conjunction with streamers/âonline influencers. An advantage of this sector is that positive discrimination by another market participant, streamers/âinfluencers, could be extremely powerful in addition to positive discrimination by consumers. Because I have very little ecommerce/âwebsite development experience, I am very eager to find partners that could help launch low-cost Guiding Producers (forgive me if I sometimes refer to them as Producers rather than Companies, the broader category would be Producers), not only to generate money for worthy charities and boost Guided Consumption generally, but also to test what sectors are most responsive to charitable profit destination.
Price inelastic products may be a good sector for GC because of their side benefit of broadly exposing the public to the idea of GC. This is part of what I am going to try to achieve when I launch the Giving Store, offer a wider degree of offerings to the general public so that a wider degree of people can become part of the project: buying stuff they were going to anyway.
Another area to research is one that you referenced earlier, the relationship between market-share and profitability. Determining where expanded market share would translate to high profitability is a big question.
Large companies vs. smaller companies
Yes, considering whether large companies or small ones is best is an open question. One thing that I would note is that the costs of marketing GC (both in its general form and of specific Guiding Producers) decline in cost with scale and being able to exploit huge markets offers a lot of opportunities.
Maximizing P (profitability attributable to the popularity of charitable profit destination)
Firstly, finding sectors that offer the greatest opportunities for GC is a way to maximize P. This is discussed by us already. It is also discussed in subsection 3(A)(i) of my longer paper.
Another critical way to maximize P is not specific to a given Guiding Producer, but will benefit all Guiding Producers, and that is marketing of Guided Consumption generally. That is why one of the functions of the Consumer Power Initiative is to create a mass social movement questioning why the wealthy enjoy the vast majority of producer surplus and not charities and trying to direct the producer surplus from their purchases to worthy charities, when possible. This is an ambitious mission, to be sure, but because of the reasonable ask of consumers (donât be inconvenienced or sacrifice anything, just buy what you would have anyway through Guiding Producers), I believe it will succeed.
Fairtrade/âorganic certifications
I have yet to learn and am interested in learning these lessons. One thing that I would note is that the advantage Guided Consumption has as a species of Conscious Consumption is that popular ownership identity confers an advantage without a corresponding cost. Conversely, most other examples of conscious consumption have a cost corresponding to their advantage of consumer preference in their favor. Commit to ensuring that the coffee farmers involved in supplying your coffee are paid fairly? It will probably cost you a bit more than competitors. Commit to treating the animals that will become the meat product you are selling more humanely? There will likely be a corresponding cost as well. This is not to say the use of conscious consumption in other ways is not noble, important, and may offer competitive advantage in excess of its costs. I simply note that Guided Consumption seems to be unique in that popular shareholder identity does not have an attendant cost (vis a vis other investors).
Single vs. Mixed Value Propositions
The value proposition that CPI and Guiding Producers offer consumers and other economic participants is pretty singular and clear: significantly further worthy causes by going through me. This value proposition, though singular, can be directed at many actors in the economic field, though my focus has been on consumers. To consumers: do good by buying from me. To employees: do good by working for me. To consultants: do good by providing me free or discounted consultation. To advertisers: do good by providing me free or discounted advertising.
One way that a value proposition could get mixed would be through the complexity of charitable profit destination. It is an open question as to whether consumers would be more inclined to discriminate in favor of a charitable trust that directed funds to a variety of charities, or if they would prefer fewer charities. I am inclined to think that few, or even one, charitable profit destination would be appealing to consumers.
Who is investing in Guiding Companies?
I was not contemplating charities themselves investing in the capitalization of Guiding Firms themselves (although perhaps it would make sense for them in some contexts). I was more contemplating charitable investors who wanted to use charities as a means to do good.
So, for a simple example to illustrate what I would be thinking of doing-
Letâs say that there are 4 global ketchup producers that each occupy 25% of the market: Heinz (H), Americaâs Choice (A), Del Monte (D), and 365 (T). Letâs say consumers do not differentiate between them very much. The value of all outstanding shares are $300 million.
In come a number of charitable investors who are interested in reducing global poverty and believe GiveDirectly is a great way to fight global poverty. So, they pool together $50 million to do a leveraged buyout of one of the ketchup producers. They go to H, and given that H realizes that he has a buyer interested in buying out the company, H demands a premium valuing the company at $350 million. However, the set of investors leak this information to A, D, and T, who are each worried that a Guiding Producer in their sector, given the lower differentiation in their sector, could dramatically reduce their value, thus starting a reverse bidding war, ending in the investors being able to acquire D for $200 mil.
Thus, the investors do a leveraged buyout supplying 25% of the funds for the acquisition, with a debt of $150 million. Post-acquisition, they advertise heavily that when you buy ketchup from D instead of H, A, or T, you help lift the extreme poor out of poverty. Given that the other competitors cannot favorably differentiated themselves, D comes to occupy 90% of the ketchup sector within 1.5 years, and the outstanding shares are valued at $1.2 billion. The investors borrow $480 million (40%) to pay off the $150 million from the leveraged buyout and direct $330 million to GiveDirectly. Over the next decade, they direct a portion of Dâs profits to paying off the $480 million debt. So, within 1.5 years, from $50 mil in charitable investment, they were able to get $330 million to GiveDirectly (over 6x investment). Furthermore, they have continuing income to support GiveDirectly, and an enormous asset they can use to support GiveDirectly. Furthermore, given the Efficient Market Hypothesis, once this has happened a few times, the market will be able to more quickly identify the value of the company, allowing for even faster valuation increase, shortening the time that charity funding would have to wait. Ideally, what we need to establish is that G(d) > d, where d is a quantity of direct donation to a charity and G(d) is funding which proceeds from the capitalization of a Guiding Producer with the quantity of investment d. Once we show that, in a given context, G(d) > d, billions should be available from the philanthropic sector.
Structural advantage
Structural advantage isnât contingent on the construction of the âno-brainerâ; the âno-brainerâ is simply a context in which structural advantage is most likely to translate into a decisive advantage, as discussed above. In a super low-differentiation context, charitable profit destination is more like running faster in a 100-meter dash. However, even with a many dimensioned product area, charitable profit destination would still offer some advantage. One of the functions of the Consumer Power Initiatives is identifying where the structural advantage is most powerful. However, I would imagine as Guided Consumption becomes a more prevalent feature of our world, Guiding Producers will tend to occupy a wider variety of sectors, because they will still have some advantage.
Time Horizon
As illustrated above, as Guided Consumption becomes more prevalent, I do not think that the time horizon issue will be as big. The Efficient Market Hypothesis should allow for asset value to be identifiable at sooner points, allowing for acceleration of charitable funding through mechanisms like securitized debt and fractional sale.
Getting around high initial investments and (not?) low returns
As you can see from above, I do not think that Guided Consumption would necessarily imply low returns. As for high initial investments, this is where we find a quite vexing catch-22: funding is needed (or at least helpful) in creating the proof of concepts and the broad marketing that would increase P, yet philanthropists often require demonstrated proof of effectiveness to fund projects.
One way that I am looking to get around this is, as mentioned above, looking for low-cost opportunities for the creation and/âor partnership with existing Guiding Producers, such as Misercordia, BOAS, the Giving Store Iâm working on, and possibly Newmanâs Own and Humanitix.
Also, given the degree to which EA values cause area exploration, it would be eminently sensible to fund the exploration costs associated with Guided Consumption, so I will be applying for grants and otherwise trying to obtain funding for the Consumer Power Initiative.
Would Charitable Profit Destination Advantage Startups?
I donât see why being a GC would not advantage a startup in some ways. If other economic actors privilege charities over normal investors, this could be potentially powerful. The issue is that having equity stakes often incentivizes and aligns early actors in the early stages of a startup. One potential solution would be to have buyout options by charities available at amounts that would still allow for extreme enrichment of founders and other actors in unicorns, but would facilitate transition to becoming a Guiding Producer.
EA Angels
I will reach out to them. Although they typically do not deal with nonprofits, the Consumer Power Initiative is obviously intimately involved in a certain kind of for-profit entity, Guiding Producers/âCompanies. I think their insight could be great.
I really enjoyed reading your dialogue and wanted to jump in with some more thoughts.
If you look at companies ranked by market cap (an easy way to estimate the overall profitability potential of companies). Youâll find commodities/âmonopolies (oil, Google) and more differentiated companies (apple), so it seems that for overall profit potential both avenues could work.
âWhat leads you to conclude that investing in guiding companies is a better alternative to these existing investments?â
I agree that the main factor is what Brad has already mentioned: itâs a structural advantage and it cannot be replicated by competitors who are for-profit (investors love companies that have something that canât be replicated!). In addition, I think that funding guiding companies are a more direct and impactful path to impact. If you invest in guiding companies, youâre investing in a company that donates directly, and you can influence the path of that company to more impact (rather than profit) and the founders and employees might be persuaded to become EAâs and sign the founders pledge. Additionally, showing that guiding companies can work might slowly start to shift the broader economy to guided consumption, and with the economy having trillions and trillions of dollars in profit each year this could make more than just a dent in some very important problems.
âAgreed on your points here. Which metrics do you think are useful to decide which industries guiding companies make sense for? â
In addition to your metrics I would look at the competitiveness of markets. Itâs very hard to enter monopolized markets such as search engines. Is it a market where we can build a competitive offering?
If we believe that it will be continue to be hard to get funding for guiding companies, it might make sense to start with businesses that are easy and cheap to start, thus requiring less capital. Dropshipping is a good example.
I believe that price is a more important factor for consumers than donating profits to charities, so I would start with a business that can offer similar prices to the competition. I run an online marketplace that has the same prices as competition. That also makes it easier to test the extent to which people value guided consumption. We actually ran 2 ads on Google where one was the add of the competition, and the other was the same ad including the profit destination. The profit destination ad was clicked on 50% more often, a very encouraging stat.
Another category of products would be one where people donât care much about the price (or buy even more if the prices are higher): luxury. Thomas, Brad and I were brainstorming if we could not create the worldâs most expensive products and sell those to the rich (e.g. a 10 million USD T-Shirt where all profits go to charities). Just a thought.
âIn real life, Iâve heard a lot of entrepreneurs talk about how âmixed value propositionsâ actually lead to fewer customers deciding to buy a product than a single, clear value proposition. How have you thought so far about ensuring that product marketing leads to one deciding factor separating a guiding company from competitors, not unclear value propositions that repel customers.â
Great point, and one that Iâve seen in my work as a marketeer a lot. We run a sustainable marketplace that donates all profits to charities, so we have 2 important USPâs: weâre sustainable and we donate all profits. We have already found that people care more about the second USP (encouraging) and weâre now thinking if we need to only focus on the non-profit part. Itâs something that we need to test though, but thatâs very simple. Profit destination should murk the offering.
âCurious to hear your thoughts on getting around the initial high investments /â low returns :-)â
I think we would tackle this exactly how the for-profit sector has done it: VCâs who are okay waiting 2-10 year for an ROI. I donât think this will be an issue, because many HNWI already work with these time horizons for their for-profit investements, billionaires grant money across their lifetime in smaller tranches and EA is already being patient with their funding.
Brad: âI am inclined to think that few, or even one, charitable profit destination would be appealing to consumers.â
I think the opposite. The most important factors considering where people donate are proximity (favoring local donations) and how close it is to their heart (e.g. I lost a nephew to cancer so I donate to childrenâs cancer charities). I think choice is really important for consumers and based proximity that will be many charities. Thatâs a problem because local and close to heart charities are usually not that effective, so if we want to provide choice and try to give as much as possible to EA charities, we might want to try and nudge people to the best options.
âThe most important factors considering where people donate are proximity (favoring local donations) and how close it is to their heartâ
I agree these are important factors in how people like me often chose a charity but an equal or greater factor is having a sense of confidence that the Guiding Company and the charities itâs owned by are not only legit but also effective. In these days where so many people have reduced trust in just about everything, I think itâs critical for some trusted means for âcertificationâ of effectiveness and integrity to be in place, much as Brad describes in his full length post (i.e. âNCCOsâ). Itâs sad but there is a lot of skepticism out there today which keeps some people on the sidelines especially with lesser known charities.
Yeah. People in EA are confident in the effectiveness of charities such as those endorsed by Givewell, but the general public is likely to be more skeptical. Especially with declining public confidence in institutions that has been prevalent...
This is why I think negative advertising could be effective⊠Maybe the public doesnât know whether The Malaria Consortium spends their money well, but they probably donât want to make rich elites even richer.
Although that would be great, from all of the research I read about donations, it doesnât seem that effectiveness is a big factor for consumers. I do think a certification for effectiveness could help, but based on the data Iâm pessimistic how much it would add compared to marketing your charity effectively.
Useful perspectives! If you were inclined to write a followup post with some of the data youâve seen thus far at BOAS, I think itâd help with establishing credibility for CPI :-)
RE: âI am inclined to think that few, or even one, charitable profit destination would be appealing to consumers.â I can see how both of you reached your conclusions. Empirical data would be the best solution :-)
Yeah we can definitely do that. We have a research paper coming out on Monday with loads of references and data and the research is independent (but sponsored by BOAS). Will post it here once it comes out.
You can already look at our pitch for investors/âphilanthropists which has some data points from ads and talking to more than 100 user and 50 brands. We always encourage feedback so feel free to reply.
The Giving Store allows for a natural experiment contra BOAS. Of course, there will be a lot of potentially confounding factors, but still good information.
RE: Making a Dropshipping site I have web development experience. If you have clear goals/âa âwhyâ behind making the site, I can get it done for you for free. Feel free to message when you get to that stage :-)
RE: Inelastic Products + general customer exposure Good point, I hadnât thought of this :-)
RE: âOne of the functions of the Consumer Power Initiative is to create a mass social movement questioning why...â Iâd be eager to hear your marketing plans when you have more specific information.
RE: âGuided Consumption seems to be unique in that popular shareholder identity does not have an attendant cost (vis a vis other investors).â Lots of social justice charities have tried to market black owned businesses /â businesses started by former felons. Ex: Inmates to Entrepreneurs.
Have you looked into how scalable /â effective their âP-valueâ is? Do you think itâd help to talk to them to learn what has/âhasnât worked well for them?
RE: âThe value proposition that CPI and Guiding Producers offer consumers and other economic participants is pretty singular and clear: significantly further worthy causes by going through me. â This may be true when customers choose you from a directory with exactly the right information. Itâs less true on a Google Search page. Less true still on an industrial product datasheet. Less true still on a supermarket aisle.
What Iâm saying is that the context (channel) by which consumers buy the products of guiding companies will influence the value proposition(s) they see for those products vs. competitorsâ products. And given how much information is sometimes thrown at consumers, the decisions they make on average might be surpising to you or me.
Thatâs awesome! I will get back to you shortly, probably in a week or so, with a more fully-fledged value proposal and details regarding The Giving Store. But The Giving Store will serve many purposes:
(1) it will be a concrete example of Guided Consumption in the United States, with a wider variety of products that will enable a broad range of people to be able to do good by buying cool and helpful items, this I think will help market the idea of Guided Consumption to the general public more accessibly than an essay for many.
(2) It will provide data regarding Guided Consumption for the Consumer Power Initiative- and potentially a proof-of-concept for others
(3) It will generate funds for an effective charity- I have one in mind now, but I am still thinking it over.
Marketing Plans:
I am still developing marketing plans, and the resources that you mentioned of Development Media International and Inmates to Entrepreneurs are definitely two groups that may have some very valuable input. Some ideas that I have had on marketing:
(1) Developing the Consumer Power Initiative website as a hub where people can be directed to a variety of affiliated Guiding Producers and learn more about Guided Consumption.
(2) Coming up with a simple, fun video for YouTube that goes into the microeconomics of consumer/âproducer surplus and presents the possibility of using consumer power through Guided Consumption to benefit charities instead of rich people. I had thought of a video similar in style and humor to this .
(3) Trying to engage influencers/âstreamers to potentially become ambassadors for Guided Consumption and let their audiences know about it, as well as some cool Guiding Producers that they can buy from.
(4) Potentially engaging a variety of musician Guiding Producers who can release musical albums online where 100% of the money generated will go to an effective charity.
(5) Vin and EA Forum user Tomer_Goloboy, who founded Misercordia had thought of a kind of publicity stunt like a million-dollar t-shirt where all the profits would go to a charity.
Clear Value Proposition/â Channels and Contexts of Buying through Guiding Producers
In Section III(B)(ii) of my longer paper discusses the need to eliminate the frictions in transactions and make the path of least resistance for the consumer lead to a Guiding Producer.
The Consumer Power Initiative, by having a marketing GC function and a function of supporting Guiding Producers will solve some key problems that individual Guiding Producers would have by themselves. An individual GC may have difficulty justifying a degree of marketing sufficient to broadly inform consumers of charitable profit destination. However, CPI, advancing many GCs, is cost-justified in broadly marketing Guided Consumption and allowing Guiding Producers to easily signal that they are a part of the project. The Consumer Power Initiative can also assist Guiding Producers in functions such as search-engine optimization, providing transparency mechanisms, and otherwise endeavoring to make Guiding Producers the most easy and attractive choice if a consumer is looking to buy in a sector where a Guiding Producer is available.
Please note that there are many steps to take before such a robust role could be played by the CPI and I am merely noting the possibilities opened up by economies of scale and a robust organization with the mission of promoting Guided Consumption.
Traditional companies are also scrutinized for their strategies, investments and donations by their shareholders, which I believe to be a good thing because it improves business and holds people and companies accountable.
Personally I wouldnât start a guiding company that isnât ethical (e.g. bad for the environment, known for underpaying, prohibiting unions, sweatshops, etc.) because I believe the profit has to be made in a good way, but thatâs my personal view. Rationally, it would be better for oil companies to be guiding companies, where the profits would offset some of the harm they cause.
I believe that guiding companies need a similar investment infrastructure as traditional companies and I agree that more than one philanthropist would invest. These guiding VCâs would invest in the guiding companies who have the best shot at generating a large return on donation (ROD). In principle itâs exactly the same as traditional VC, who also invest in whatever they believe to have the highest ROI.
Hi Madhav,
Thank you for your thoughts.
On the commodity issue: the reason that it is hard for firms to get an advantage in the commodity business is because no market actor can offer a better product at a better price than any other market actor. Now imagine, in a commodity space that one market actor was able to produce a more valuable product without incurring additional costs. This market actor would tend to monopolize that commodity market, provided that other market actors could not secure the same advantage. This is the situation that Guiding Companies are in because costs are no higher for them, yet they have an advantage with other market participants, including consumers. I am positing, and believe strongly that research will substantiate this, that consumers will value profit destination at a nonzero level. In the commodity space, this advantage should be decisive. In sectors with more differentiation, it is less likely to be decisive.
Your commodities of scale point definitely makes sense. It will be difficult to compete without hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. This is why research and working on educating the public is critical to satisfy charitable investors that the targeted creation/âacquisition of companies that serve effective charities is best use of their resources.
Your point regarding alignment of practices with charitable shareholders is a good and interesting one that will require a lot of thought regarding how to best organize. One solution would be to pair industries with these issues with charities in different cause areas. Another would simply be to create Guiding Producers in other industries that lack those moral concerns.
The starting place for CPI is likely going to be entry into areas where we can compete without huge economies of scale. We are super interested in input from sharp economic minds like yours to map out this path.
I appreciate your detailed followup!
âI am positing, and believe strongly that research will substantiate this, that consumers will value profit destination at a nonzero level.â
I intuitively can see why you say this.
âIn the commodity space, this advantage should be decisive. In sectors with more differentiation, it is less likely to be decisive.â
That said, could it be possible that the higher margins in sectors with more differentiation are worth gaining only a fraction of customer purchases instead of (nearly) all of them? Ie. Do we want to maximise volume sold x profit per unit or volume sold only?
On an individual organisation level, Iâve seen plenty of case studies of nonprofits using cross-subsidisation to reduce reliance on donations/âgrants. One notable example that comes to mind is Me to Weâs model of selling Rafiki bracelets (bracelets being a product with lots of differentiation and very high margins)
âYour commodities of scale point definitely makes sense. It will be difficult to compete without hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. This is why research and working on educating the public is critical to satisfy charitable investors that the targeted creation/âacquisition of companies that serve effective charities is best use of their resources.â
Large companies tend to be very complex to manage and have their own disadvantages to scale.
How would investing in large guiding companies compare to, say, charities investing in a VC fund of startups? Or investing in institutional options like a bond and getting steady returns?
Ie. Some charities already invest in profitable companies via various means. What leads you to conclude that investing in guiding companies is a better alternative to these existing investments?
(I just got my 501(c)(3) letter from the IRS so I am super excited!)
Thank you for the continuation of excellent points and questions!
You may be dead-on regarding the question of dimensions of product differentiation. Even though competitive advantage may be most powerful when there are the fewest dimensions, this may not correspond with the highest profit opportunity for Guiding Companies. Perhaps entering a moderately variegated market sector would allow for sufficient market-share capture such that it would be more profitable to enter such a market sector than it would be to enjoy a (near) monopoly in a lower margin sector with fewer factors of differentiation. The key would be entry of Guiding Companies into sectors where there exists enough product similarity that profit destination would have the potential to be a decisive factor for a significant portion of consumers who are aware of profit destination. I am imagining an area like laundry detergent, where there is substantial similarity between rival brands, even though there are ingredient differences that make for marginal differences in product features. This is why I am interested in engaging very bright, driven, and aligned people to work with the Consumer Power Initiative. We can construct experiments and otherwise come to determinations about what industries profit destination is likeliest to provide the greatest potential for charitable profit.
I think an analogy here would be sports where one participant has an advantage in one dimension, such as running faster. In terms of securing an advantage, such a participant would have a maximal advantageâa perfectly decisive one- in a hundred-meter-dash. In a contest like basketball, where oneâs running speed would confer an advantage, but could be overcome by other factors, the faster runner would have an edge, but perhaps only a probabilistic advantage. However, if the prizes for winning basketball games was sufficiently larger than the prizes for winning running races, it might make sense to invest time in playing basketball despite your running advantage only offering a probabilistic, rather than decisive advantage. Winning the low-margin commodities market with a Guiding Producer here would like be consistently winning the running races with small purses; you might be better off playing basketball games with higher prizes, even though you will lose some games.
The tendency of large companies to have complexity and disadvantages is one shared by traditional firms that work for the benefit of rich shareholders. It is unclear to me why professionals working for charities could not maneuver these complexities just as professionals working for private shareholders do. Indeed, one can imagine a set of charitable investors buying out a firm âFâ and maintaining all factors constant other than some shifting of the advertising budget such that consumers are aware that their purchases 100% benefit worthy charities. In this case, the Guiding Company would have identical tools to managing the problems you reference and any other to traditional company. So, if we define the value of a firm with a normal shareholder set as F(k), I would posit that the relationship between the value of F(c), a firm owned 100% by a popular charity, is that F(c) > F(k). It seems to me that F(c) = F(k) + P, where P is the monetary value of the advantages attaching to the popularity of charities with economic participants vis a vis the popularity of normal investors with market participants. My thought regarding the class of economic participants with whom this popularity would be most important would be consumers. However, Vincent van der Holt, in the course of his dealings in BOAS, has observed BOASâs obtaining of preferential treatment by other economic actors such as advisors, advertisers, and suppliers. One of the most important functions of the Consumer Power Initiative will be to maximize the value of P, in this formulation, by educating and exciting the public, such that they realize their potential to save the world without personal sacrifice . This is why the creation of a social movement , facilitating the success of Guiding Companies is an extraordinarily high-value goal.
The reason that charities (or charitable investors working to benefit charities) should invest in the creation of Guiding Companies over other forms of investment is because this is a form of investment in which they can enjoy a structural advantage, perhaps an almost unimaginable structural advantage. If a charity acquires a marginal portion of a stock in a company or bonds , it occupies the same position as any other investor. If somehow the charitable investor is one of the most skilled investors in the world, it can (in expectation) achieve a percentage or two better than the market, but even being able to identify the Michael Jordans and Lebron Jamesons of investing is extraordinarily difficult even among professional investors and why index funds are often the best bet.
Regarding VC funds for Guiding Companies: I think this idea has a lot of potential! If we had a skilled set of EA venture capitalists and angel investors. Perhaps P in this context would increase the likelihood of the incidence of unicorns, increase the profitability of unicorns even more , increase the profitability of non-unicorns, and decrease the incidence of total duds.
I am very impressed with your engagement with my paper and would very much like to talk via zoom/âcontinue with email (Iâm planning on making a working google doc on Guided Consumption soon as well). I will look at your website and try to learn more about your projects and interests to see room for collaboration with myself and CPI. As stated at the end of my paper, I can be reached at brad@consumerpowerinitiative.org
But please continue with this comment thread, as well, if you have any such inclination!
Iâll continue adding on here, just in case the public discussion helps anyone else too :-)
Glad to see the milestone on the 501(c)(3)! I could imagine that itâs easy to just stick to academia, so good on you for bringing the ideas to more practical/âuncertain grounds.
RE: âWe can construct experiments and otherwise come to determinations about what industries profit destination is likeliest to provide the greatest potential for charitable profit.â
Agreed on your points here. Which metrics do you think are useful to decide which industries guiding companies make sense for?
One idea is that we could research willingness-to-pay-premium on organic or fairtrade products. As a proxy for how much consumers are willing to switch their buying choices based on non-price determinants. Though there are differences (ex: a guiding companyâs product may/âmay not have a premium relative to competitors).
Another idea is price elasticity of demand. My hypothesis is that inelastic products could be seen as a proxy of staples that people wonât go without. Ex: âIf Iâm going to buy baby formula anyways, I might as well buy it from the option that does more good?â
Curious to hear your ideas :-)
RE: âThe tendency of large companies to have complexity and disadvantages is one shared by traditional firms that work for the benefit of rich shareholders.â
Agreed. I was more so comparing guiding companiesâ complexity to nonprofits investing in smaller companies (like with the VC fund).
RE: âOne of the most important functions of the Consumer Power Initiative will be to maximize the value of P, in [value(charity_funded) = value(investor_funded) + P]â
What are your ideas on how to maximise the value of P?
So far, weâve already seen lots of âcertificationsâ for various products (ex: fairtrade, non-GMO, organic, etc.). Theyâve had various challenges in âdoing good.â Though if we focus on just their ability to increase the value of their product compared to traditional profit-making products, what do you think are some lessons to learn from how well fairtrade/âorganic certifications increase the brand value of their products?
In real life, Iâve heard a lot of entrepreneurs talk about how âmixed value propositionsâ actually lead to fewer customers deciding to buy a product than a single, clear value proposition. How have you thought so far about ensuring that product marketing leads to one deciding factor separating a guiding company from competitors, not unclear value propositions that repel customers.
RE: âThe reason that charities (or charitable investors working to benefit charities) should invest in the creation of Guiding Companies over other forms of investment is because this is a form of investment in which they can enjoy a structural advantageâ
If I were managing money at a charity thatâs tight on donations, my priority would be ensuring reliable returns starting in a year or less. Ie. Index funds would seem like a pretty good option :D
How are you thinking about meeting these needs for nonprofits investing in guiding companies?
From my interpretation of what you mean by âstructural advantageââitâs what comes about in a guiding company funded by charities after all else is equal with competitors. Given what we talked about unlocking economies of scale while balancing diseconomies of scale, it would seem reasonable to me that a guiding company wouldnât achieve significant market share for at least 2-3 years.
That said, I can see that some charities (especially in EA) are willing to place funds with longer time horizons on social/âinvestment returns. Maybe choosing which nonprofits invest in guiding companies is very key in the short run? And once the guiding companiesâ market share (and thus returns) are established, it would be a nice move for these larger nonprofits to sell some stakes to smaller nonprofits so they can also get returns.
Curious to hear your thoughts on getting around the initial high investments /â low returns :-)
RE: âIf we had a skilled set of EA venture capitalists and angel investors. Perhaps P in this context would increase the likelihood of the incidence of unicorns, increase the profitability of unicorns even more , increase the profitability of non-unicorns, and decrease the incidence of total duds.â
I donât have any evidence to suggest this is/âisnât possible.
Maybe @--alexâor someone else at EA Angels might have more relevant comments?
One thing that I hope will be a bit clarifying is an outline from a previous call with Vin in which I outlined some of the functions of the Consumer Power Initiative. I have posted it in another comment.
What metrics do you think are useful to decide which industries guiding companies make (most) sense for?
I think research on the willingness-to-pay-premium in contexts in which there is data, such as organic or fairtrade products would be a good place to start. Another way to test willingness-to-pay-premium is by launching low-cost Guiding Producers in a variety of sectors. One idea I have had was to launch a Dropshipping store that sells gaming peripherals, such as headphones that works in conjunction with streamers/âonline influencers. An advantage of this sector is that positive discrimination by another market participant, streamers/âinfluencers, could be extremely powerful in addition to positive discrimination by consumers. Because I have very little ecommerce/âwebsite development experience, I am very eager to find partners that could help launch low-cost Guiding Producers (forgive me if I sometimes refer to them as Producers rather than Companies, the broader category would be Producers), not only to generate money for worthy charities and boost Guided Consumption generally, but also to test what sectors are most responsive to charitable profit destination.
Price inelastic products may be a good sector for GC because of their side benefit of broadly exposing the public to the idea of GC. This is part of what I am going to try to achieve when I launch the Giving Store, offer a wider degree of offerings to the general public so that a wider degree of people can become part of the project: buying stuff they were going to anyway.
Another area to research is one that you referenced earlier, the relationship between market-share and profitability. Determining where expanded market share would translate to high profitability is a big question.
Large companies vs. smaller companies
Yes, considering whether large companies or small ones is best is an open question. One thing that I would note is that the costs of marketing GC (both in its general form and of specific Guiding Producers) decline in cost with scale and being able to exploit huge markets offers a lot of opportunities.
Maximizing P (profitability attributable to the popularity of charitable profit destination)
Firstly, finding sectors that offer the greatest opportunities for GC is a way to maximize P. This is discussed by us already. It is also discussed in subsection 3(A)(i) of my longer paper.
Another critical way to maximize P is not specific to a given Guiding Producer, but will benefit all Guiding Producers, and that is marketing of Guided Consumption generally. That is why one of the functions of the Consumer Power Initiative is to create a mass social movement questioning why the wealthy enjoy the vast majority of producer surplus and not charities and trying to direct the producer surplus from their purchases to worthy charities, when possible. This is an ambitious mission, to be sure, but because of the reasonable ask of consumers (donât be inconvenienced or sacrifice anything, just buy what you would have anyway through Guiding Producers), I believe it will succeed.
Fairtrade/âorganic certifications
I have yet to learn and am interested in learning these lessons. One thing that I would note is that the advantage Guided Consumption has as a species of Conscious Consumption is that popular ownership identity confers an advantage without a corresponding cost. Conversely, most other examples of conscious consumption have a cost corresponding to their advantage of consumer preference in their favor. Commit to ensuring that the coffee farmers involved in supplying your coffee are paid fairly? It will probably cost you a bit more than competitors. Commit to treating the animals that will become the meat product you are selling more humanely? There will likely be a corresponding cost as well. This is not to say the use of conscious consumption in other ways is not noble, important, and may offer competitive advantage in excess of its costs. I simply note that Guided Consumption seems to be unique in that popular shareholder identity does not have an attendant cost (vis a vis other investors).
Single vs. Mixed Value Propositions
The value proposition that CPI and Guiding Producers offer consumers and other economic participants is pretty singular and clear: significantly further worthy causes by going through me. This value proposition, though singular, can be directed at many actors in the economic field, though my focus has been on consumers. To consumers: do good by buying from me. To employees: do good by working for me. To consultants: do good by providing me free or discounted consultation. To advertisers: do good by providing me free or discounted advertising.
One way that a value proposition could get mixed would be through the complexity of charitable profit destination. It is an open question as to whether consumers would be more inclined to discriminate in favor of a charitable trust that directed funds to a variety of charities, or if they would prefer fewer charities. I am inclined to think that few, or even one, charitable profit destination would be appealing to consumers.
Who is investing in Guiding Companies?
I was not contemplating charities themselves investing in the capitalization of Guiding Firms themselves (although perhaps it would make sense for them in some contexts). I was more contemplating charitable investors who wanted to use charities as a means to do good.
So, for a simple example to illustrate what I would be thinking of doing-
Letâs say that there are 4 global ketchup producers that each occupy 25% of the market: Heinz (H), Americaâs Choice (A), Del Monte (D), and 365 (T). Letâs say consumers do not differentiate between them very much. The value of all outstanding shares are $300 million.
In come a number of charitable investors who are interested in reducing global poverty and believe GiveDirectly is a great way to fight global poverty. So, they pool together $50 million to do a leveraged buyout of one of the ketchup producers. They go to H, and given that H realizes that he has a buyer interested in buying out the company, H demands a premium valuing the company at $350 million. However, the set of investors leak this information to A, D, and T, who are each worried that a Guiding Producer in their sector, given the lower differentiation in their sector, could dramatically reduce their value, thus starting a reverse bidding war, ending in the investors being able to acquire D for $200 mil.
Thus, the investors do a leveraged buyout supplying 25% of the funds for the acquisition, with a debt of $150 million. Post-acquisition, they advertise heavily that when you buy ketchup from D instead of H, A, or T, you help lift the extreme poor out of poverty. Given that the other competitors cannot favorably differentiated themselves, D comes to occupy 90% of the ketchup sector within 1.5 years, and the outstanding shares are valued at $1.2 billion. The investors borrow $480 million (40%) to pay off the $150 million from the leveraged buyout and direct $330 million to GiveDirectly. Over the next decade, they direct a portion of Dâs profits to paying off the $480 million debt. So, within 1.5 years, from $50 mil in charitable investment, they were able to get $330 million to GiveDirectly (over 6x investment). Furthermore, they have continuing income to support GiveDirectly, and an enormous asset they can use to support GiveDirectly. Furthermore, given the Efficient Market Hypothesis, once this has happened a few times, the market will be able to more quickly identify the value of the company, allowing for even faster valuation increase, shortening the time that charity funding would have to wait. Ideally, what we need to establish is that G(d) > d, where d is a quantity of direct donation to a charity and G(d) is funding which proceeds from the capitalization of a Guiding Producer with the quantity of investment d. Once we show that, in a given context, G(d) > d, billions should be available from the philanthropic sector.
Structural advantage
Structural advantage isnât contingent on the construction of the âno-brainerâ; the âno-brainerâ is simply a context in which structural advantage is most likely to translate into a decisive advantage, as discussed above. In a super low-differentiation context, charitable profit destination is more like running faster in a 100-meter dash. However, even with a many dimensioned product area, charitable profit destination would still offer some advantage. One of the functions of the Consumer Power Initiatives is identifying where the structural advantage is most powerful. However, I would imagine as Guided Consumption becomes a more prevalent feature of our world, Guiding Producers will tend to occupy a wider variety of sectors, because they will still have some advantage.
Time Horizon
As illustrated above, as Guided Consumption becomes more prevalent, I do not think that the time horizon issue will be as big. The Efficient Market Hypothesis should allow for asset value to be identifiable at sooner points, allowing for acceleration of charitable funding through mechanisms like securitized debt and fractional sale.
Getting around high initial investments and (not?) low returns
As you can see from above, I do not think that Guided Consumption would necessarily imply low returns. As for high initial investments, this is where we find a quite vexing catch-22: funding is needed (or at least helpful) in creating the proof of concepts and the broad marketing that would increase P, yet philanthropists often require demonstrated proof of effectiveness to fund projects.
One way that I am looking to get around this is, as mentioned above, looking for low-cost opportunities for the creation and/âor partnership with existing Guiding Producers, such as Misercordia, BOAS, the Giving Store Iâm working on, and possibly Newmanâs Own and Humanitix.
Also, given the degree to which EA values cause area exploration, it would be eminently sensible to fund the exploration costs associated with Guided Consumption, so I will be applying for grants and otherwise trying to obtain funding for the Consumer Power Initiative.
Would Charitable Profit Destination Advantage Startups?
I donât see why being a GC would not advantage a startup in some ways. If other economic actors privilege charities over normal investors, this could be potentially powerful. The issue is that having equity stakes often incentivizes and aligns early actors in the early stages of a startup. One potential solution would be to have buyout options by charities available at amounts that would still allow for extreme enrichment of founders and other actors in unicorns, but would facilitate transition to becoming a Guiding Producer.
EA Angels
I will reach out to them. Although they typically do not deal with nonprofits, the Consumer Power Initiative is obviously intimately involved in a certain kind of for-profit entity, Guiding Producers/âCompanies. I think their insight could be great.
I really enjoyed reading your dialogue and wanted to jump in with some more thoughts.
If you look at companies ranked by market cap (an easy way to estimate the overall profitability potential of companies). Youâll find commodities/âmonopolies (oil, Google) and more differentiated companies (apple), so it seems that for overall profit potential both avenues could work.
âWhat leads you to conclude that investing in guiding companies is a better alternative to these existing investments?â
I agree that the main factor is what Brad has already mentioned: itâs a structural advantage and it cannot be replicated by competitors who are for-profit (investors love companies that have something that canât be replicated!). In addition, I think that funding guiding companies are a more direct and impactful path to impact. If you invest in guiding companies, youâre investing in a company that donates directly, and you can influence the path of that company to more impact (rather than profit) and the founders and employees might be persuaded to become EAâs and sign the founders pledge. Additionally, showing that guiding companies can work might slowly start to shift the broader economy to guided consumption, and with the economy having trillions and trillions of dollars in profit each year this could make more than just a dent in some very important problems.
âAgreed on your points here. Which metrics do you think are useful to decide which industries guiding companies make sense for? â
In addition to your metrics I would look at the competitiveness of markets. Itâs very hard to enter monopolized markets such as search engines. Is it a market where we can build a competitive offering?
If we believe that it will be continue to be hard to get funding for guiding companies, it might make sense to start with businesses that are easy and cheap to start, thus requiring less capital. Dropshipping is a good example.
I believe that price is a more important factor for consumers than donating profits to charities, so I would start with a business that can offer similar prices to the competition. I run an online marketplace that has the same prices as competition. That also makes it easier to test the extent to which people value guided consumption. We actually ran 2 ads on Google where one was the add of the competition, and the other was the same ad including the profit destination. The profit destination ad was clicked on 50% more often, a very encouraging stat.
Another category of products would be one where people donât care much about the price (or buy even more if the prices are higher): luxury. Thomas, Brad and I were brainstorming if we could not create the worldâs most expensive products and sell those to the rich (e.g. a 10 million USD T-Shirt where all profits go to charities). Just a thought.
âIn real life, Iâve heard a lot of entrepreneurs talk about how âmixed value propositionsâ actually lead to fewer customers deciding to buy a product than a single, clear value proposition. How have you thought so far about ensuring that product marketing leads to one deciding factor separating a guiding company from competitors, not unclear value propositions that repel customers.â
Great point, and one that Iâve seen in my work as a marketeer a lot. We run a sustainable marketplace that donates all profits to charities, so we have 2 important USPâs: weâre sustainable and we donate all profits. We have already found that people care more about the second USP (encouraging) and weâre now thinking if we need to only focus on the non-profit part. Itâs something that we need to test though, but thatâs very simple. Profit destination should murk the offering.
âCurious to hear your thoughts on getting around the initial high investments /â low returns :-)â
I think we would tackle this exactly how the for-profit sector has done it: VCâs who are okay waiting 2-10 year for an ROI. I donât think this will be an issue, because many HNWI already work with these time horizons for their for-profit investements, billionaires grant money across their lifetime in smaller tranches and EA is already being patient with their funding.
Brad: âI am inclined to think that few, or even one, charitable profit destination would be appealing to consumers.â
I think the opposite. The most important factors considering where people donate are proximity (favoring local donations) and how close it is to their heart (e.g. I lost a nephew to cancer so I donate to childrenâs cancer charities). I think choice is really important for consumers and based proximity that will be many charities. Thatâs a problem because local and close to heart charities are usually not that effective, so if we want to provide choice and try to give as much as possible to EA charities, we might want to try and nudge people to the best options.
âThe most important factors considering where people donate are proximity (favoring local donations) and how close it is to their heartâ
I agree these are important factors in how people like me often chose a charity but an equal or greater factor is having a sense of confidence that the Guiding Company and the charities itâs owned by are not only legit but also effective. In these days where so many people have reduced trust in just about everything, I think itâs critical for some trusted means for âcertificationâ of effectiveness and integrity to be in place, much as Brad describes in his full length post (i.e. âNCCOsâ). Itâs sad but there is a lot of skepticism out there today which keeps some people on the sidelines especially with lesser known charities.
Yeah. People in EA are confident in the effectiveness of charities such as those endorsed by Givewell, but the general public is likely to be more skeptical. Especially with declining public confidence in institutions that has been prevalent...
This is why I think negative advertising could be effective⊠Maybe the public doesnât know whether The Malaria Consortium spends their money well, but they probably donât want to make rich elites even richer.
Although that would be great, from all of the research I read about donations, it doesnât seem that effectiveness is a big factor for consumers. I do think a certification for effectiveness could help, but based on the data Iâm pessimistic how much it would add compared to marketing your charity effectively.
Useful perspectives! If you were inclined to write a followup post with some of the data youâve seen thus far at BOAS, I think itâd help with establishing credibility for CPI :-)
RE: âI am inclined to think that few, or even one, charitable profit destination would be appealing to consumers.â
I can see how both of you reached your conclusions. Empirical data would be the best solution :-)
Yeah we can definitely do that. We have a research paper coming out on Monday with loads of references and data and the research is independent (but sponsored by BOAS). Will post it here once it comes out.
You can already look at our pitch for investors/âphilanthropists which has some data points from ads and talking to more than 100 user and 50 brands. We always encourage feedback so feel free to reply.
Please note that my latest comment includes the research paper with additional data. Looking forward to receiving more feedback.
The Giving Store allows for a natural experiment contra BOAS. Of course, there will be a lot of potentially confounding factors, but still good information.
RE: Making a Dropshipping site
I have web development experience. If you have clear goals/âa âwhyâ behind making the site, I can get it done for you for free. Feel free to message when you get to that stage :-)
RE: Inelastic Products + general customer exposure
Good point, I hadnât thought of this :-)
RE: âOne of the functions of the Consumer Power Initiative is to create a mass social movement questioning why...â
Iâd be eager to hear your marketing plans when you have more specific information.
Maybe Development Media International would know EA-aligned marketers whoâd be willing to help out?
RE: âGuided Consumption seems to be unique in that popular shareholder identity does not have an attendant cost (vis a vis other investors).â
Lots of social justice charities have tried to market black owned businesses /â businesses started by former felons. Ex: Inmates to Entrepreneurs.
Have you looked into how scalable /â effective their âP-valueâ is? Do you think itâd help to talk to them to learn what has/âhasnât worked well for them?
RE: âThe value proposition that CPI and Guiding Producers offer consumers and other economic participants is pretty singular and clear: significantly further worthy causes by going through me. â
This may be true when customers choose you from a directory with exactly the right information. Itâs less true on a Google Search page. Less true still on an industrial product datasheet. Less true still on a supermarket aisle.
What Iâm saying is that the context (channel) by which consumers buy the products of guiding companies will influence the value proposition(s) they see for those products vs. competitorsâ products. And given how much information is sometimes thrown at consumers, the decisions they make on average might be surpising to you or me.
Dropshipping Site:
Thatâs awesome! I will get back to you shortly, probably in a week or so, with a more fully-fledged value proposal and details regarding The Giving Store. But The Giving Store will serve many purposes:
(1) it will be a concrete example of Guided Consumption in the United States, with a wider variety of products that will enable a broad range of people to be able to do good by buying cool and helpful items, this I think will help market the idea of Guided Consumption to the general public more accessibly than an essay for many.
(2) It will provide data regarding Guided Consumption for the Consumer Power Initiative- and potentially a proof-of-concept for others
(3) It will generate funds for an effective charity- I have one in mind now, but I am still thinking it over.
Marketing Plans:
I am still developing marketing plans, and the resources that you mentioned of Development Media International and Inmates to Entrepreneurs are definitely two groups that may have some very valuable input. Some ideas that I have had on marketing:
(1) Developing the Consumer Power Initiative website as a hub where people can be directed to a variety of affiliated Guiding Producers and learn more about Guided Consumption.
(2) Coming up with a simple, fun video for YouTube that goes into the microeconomics of consumer/âproducer surplus and presents the possibility of using consumer power through Guided Consumption to benefit charities instead of rich people. I had thought of a video similar in style and humor to this .
(3) Trying to engage influencers/âstreamers to potentially become ambassadors for Guided Consumption and let their audiences know about it, as well as some cool Guiding Producers that they can buy from.
(4) Potentially engaging a variety of musician Guiding Producers who can release musical albums online where 100% of the money generated will go to an effective charity.
(5) Vin and EA Forum user Tomer_Goloboy, who founded Misercordia had thought of a kind of publicity stunt like a million-dollar t-shirt where all the profits would go to a charity.
Clear Value Proposition/â Channels and Contexts of Buying through Guiding Producers
In Section III(B)(ii) of my longer paper discusses the need to eliminate the frictions in transactions and make the path of least resistance for the consumer lead to a Guiding Producer.
The Consumer Power Initiative, by having a marketing GC function and a function of supporting Guiding Producers will solve some key problems that individual Guiding Producers would have by themselves. An individual GC may have difficulty justifying a degree of marketing sufficient to broadly inform consumers of charitable profit destination. However, CPI, advancing many GCs, is cost-justified in broadly marketing Guided Consumption and allowing Guiding Producers to easily signal that they are a part of the project. The Consumer Power Initiative can also assist Guiding Producers in functions such as search-engine optimization, providing transparency mechanisms, and otherwise endeavoring to make Guiding Producers the most easy and attractive choice if a consumer is looking to buy in a sector where a Guiding Producer is available.
Please note that there are many steps to take before such a robust role could be played by the CPI and I am merely noting the possibilities opened up by economies of scale and a robust organization with the mission of promoting Guided Consumption.
Traditional companies are also scrutinized for their strategies, investments and donations by their shareholders, which I believe to be a good thing because it improves business and holds people and companies accountable.
Personally I wouldnât start a guiding company that isnât ethical (e.g. bad for the environment, known for underpaying, prohibiting unions, sweatshops, etc.) because I believe the profit has to be made in a good way, but thatâs my personal view. Rationally, it would be better for oil companies to be guiding companies, where the profits would offset some of the harm they cause.
I believe that guiding companies need a similar investment infrastructure as traditional companies and I agree that more than one philanthropist would invest. These guiding VCâs would invest in the guiding companies who have the best shot at generating a large return on donation (ROD). In principle itâs exactly the same as traditional VC, who also invest in whatever they believe to have the highest ROI.