Probably not as we were unfunded and unwilling to self fund to any great extent. What would have helped would be a source of work we could reliably outsource to for free or for a 90% subsidy. I could imagine that we might self-fund up to 1000aud say, for a website/work valued at 10,000 Aud. But that’s just speculation. It’s hard to say what we might have done as we didn’t even consider paying for a website/tech support in the current landscape.
Why didn’t you apply for funding from EA meta or similar to hire an agency to fund the website?
Can you please clarify?
The most common pushback I got when writing this is that in a simple counterfactual, a low-bono and donor-funded agency are nearly equivalent, feedback mechanisms aside. In one case, you apply to EA meta or somesuch fund for funding to pay the agency, in the other, in the other the agency applies to a similar fund for operations costs, and then you apply to the agency for ‘free’ work—approx the same amount of money gets spent either way.
In which case, suppose a low bono agency is available. In a case like this you’d still need to apply for funding for the former and, based on the estimations in part 2, it would be 50-66% cheaper than existing for-profit agencies at most—so if that discount wouldn’t have made you a) feel the project was worth paying for out of your own pocket or b) make you optimistic enough about the prospects of getting funding to apply to eg EA meta, then the argument would be that the work you wanted done was low enough value that it wouldn’t have been a good use of the movement’s money to subsidise an agency to work do pro bono work for you.
Having made a very theoretical argument, I want to hear from someone who’s actually been in that position whether you think that counterfactual is valid, and if not, why not.
Why didn’t you apply for funding from EA meta or similar to hire an agency to fund the website?
This didn’t seem like a live opportunity (I have never heard of it happening). I don’t think we would have received any funding if we had applied. We would also have needed to cost the project, find an agency first etc.
suppose a low bono agency is available. In a case like this you’d still need to apply for funding for the former and, based on the estimations in part 2, it would be 50-66% cheaper than existing for-profit agencies at most—so if that discount wouldn’t have made you a) feel the project was worth paying for out of your own pocket or b) make you optimistic enough about the prospects of getting funding to apply to eg EA meta, then the argument would be that the work you wanted done was low enough value that it wouldn’t have been a good use of the movement’s money to subsidise an agency to work do pro bono work for you.
This model has lots of frictions, uncertainties and double handling—we need to explain the issue to the org to price the work, then apply for the funding by explaining what we want, then get back to the agency to start the work if we are approved. We probably also need to report back to the funder later on. Seems better to have have more certainty and do things more quickly.
I think we would consider paying a low-bono agency if we knew they would do a good job. Speed and certainty of outcome are very important.
Having made a very theoretical argument, I want to hear from someone who’s actually been in that position whether you think that counterfactual is valid, and if not, why not.
The free/donor funded agency option appears to be much easier and less effortful overall. I imagine that READI would be more likely to apply for that than seeking funding for a low bono org to do the work. To be clear, I am imagining that we apply for help with problem x, the funded agency reviews that request, prioritises it, and then rejects us or informs us they can help us at x time.
The free/donor funded agency approach seems to distribute responsibility more effectively as they invest time with funding and resource rather than the more time poor startup/EA org.
The challenges of nontechnical EAs are pretty trivial. Today, I could probably have saved a few hours of my time if I could get help to get analytics working on our github page (it may not be working yet either!). I don’t want to have to explain my issue to a third party and apply for funding every time I have an issue like that!
Why didn’t you apply for funding from EA meta or similar to hire an agency to fund the website?
The most common pushback I got when writing this is that in a simple counterfactual, a low-bono and donor-funded agency are nearly equivalent, feedback mechanisms aside. In one case, you apply to EA meta or somesuch fund for funding to pay the agency, in the other, in the other the agency applies to a similar fund for operations costs, and then you apply to the agency for ‘free’ work—approx the same amount of money gets spent either way.
In which case, suppose a low bono agency is available. In a case like this you’d still need to apply for funding for the former and, based on the estimations in part 2, it would be 50-66% cheaper than existing for-profit agencies at most—so if that discount wouldn’t have made you a) feel the project was worth paying for out of your own pocket or b) make you optimistic enough about the prospects of getting funding to apply to eg EA meta, then the argument would be that the work you wanted done was low enough value that it wouldn’t have been a good use of the movement’s money to subsidise an agency to work do pro bono work for you.
Having made a very theoretical argument, I want to hear from someone who’s actually been in that position whether you think that counterfactual is valid, and if not, why not.
Some quick responses, sorry if unclear:
This didn’t seem like a live opportunity (I have never heard of it happening). I don’t think we would have received any funding if we had applied. We would also have needed to cost the project, find an agency first etc.
This model has lots of frictions, uncertainties and double handling—we need to explain the issue to the org to price the work, then apply for the funding by explaining what we want, then get back to the agency to start the work if we are approved. We probably also need to report back to the funder later on. Seems better to have have more certainty and do things more quickly.
I think we would consider paying a low-bono agency if we knew they would do a good job. Speed and certainty of outcome are very important.
The free/donor funded agency option appears to be much easier and less effortful overall. I imagine that READI would be more likely to apply for that than seeking funding for a low bono org to do the work. To be clear, I am imagining that we apply for help with problem x, the funded agency reviews that request, prioritises it, and then rejects us or informs us they can help us at x time.
The free/donor funded agency approach seems to distribute responsibility more effectively as they invest time with funding and resource rather than the more time poor startup/EA org.
The challenges of nontechnical EAs are pretty trivial. Today, I could probably have saved a few hours of my time if I could get help to get analytics working on our github page (it may not be working yet either!). I don’t want to have to explain my issue to a third party and apply for funding every time I have an issue like that!
Appreciate the insight. I imagine I will be directing people to this a lot!
Great, glad it was helpful!