Or is it we are the main group of smallish donors that really care about the amount the charities receive
In short, I think that’s basically the reason. In particular, EAs got donations matched to at least 66 different nonprofits. Many EAs participating in this match donated to 10+ different nonprofits. I’m not aware of any other groups of people who are that excited to support that wide a range of different nonprofits. So the $100 per donor per nonprofit limit really helped EAs direct a disproportionate amount of the matching funds due to our disproportionate willingness to donate to several different charities.
Regarding your other ‘early scoop’ hypothesis: Every.org reached out to me about this #FallGivingChallenge in mid-October (because they liked my post promoting their #25DaysOfGiving initiative last year), but I don’t think this is what led to the EA community directing such a large portion of the matching funds to effective charities. This can most apparently be seen from the facts that:
(1) I waited until after the match began to publish this post and promote the match to others in EA ;
(2) Every.org published their announcement post more than a week before the match, so presumably others had early notice of it;
(3) Most significantly, the matching funds still have not run out yet after more than a week of being available, meaning speed wasn’t a significant factor.
Point 3 above also suggests that the number of people interested in the match is clearly limited. In fact, even within EA the number of people interested is limited. This Forum post has not dropped off the front page of the EA Forum as of November 8th and yet the number of new EAs participating in the match has continually decreased each day since November 2nd and is now quite low. At this point, the number of people getting their donations matched each day is low enough that the initial $475k of matching funds will not be used up for weeks—perhaps not even by the end of the match (November 30th)--unless something accelerates the pace at which people start getting their donations matched again.
Regarding the Facebook Giving Tuesday match, note that EAs direct a highly disproportional amount of the available matching funds (probably way more disproportional than in this Every.org match). The difference is just that the Facebook match is far more competitive (approximately a million people make a donation of Facebook on Giving Tuesday each year), such that it’s impossible for any one group—including EAs—to direct a large fraction of the matching funds.
The difference is just that the Facebook match is far more competitive (approximately a million people make a donation of Facebook on Giving Tuesday each year)
Why do you think the FB GT match is so much more popular. Is it just more prominent? That sort of goes with my proposed HA1.
Facebook just has a massive audience. In years past they’ve promoted the match via a mention of it in people’s Facebook newsfeed. Presumably many millions of people saw that. They’ve also prompted donating to nonprofits on Facebook via prompting users to create a birthday fundraiser for their favorite nonprofit and matching some small amount of donations (like $2-$5 IIRC). Every.org is a fairly new nonprofit with a small team and clearly doesn’t have that kind of reach.
Point 3 above also suggests that the number of people interested in the match is clearly limited.
If it’s this, and not lack of awareness, it’s bizarre. Millions of Americans donate small-ish amounts to eligible charities each year. They could increase the amounts the charities receive, or reduce their out-of-pocket donations ‘for free’.
If Amazon.com was having a ‘spend $100 on each store, get $100 more for free’, this would be used up in a sneeze. Can it be that people really only care about the amount they sacrifice and not the amount the charities get?
Alternative hypothesis HA1: Most relevant people are not aware of this match
HA2: People don’t trust it, it seems ‘too good to be true’
HA3: People think “it’s not really getting free money/free charity, because if I don’t take advantage, an equally good charity/donor will do
Of these, only HA1 seems plausible to me.
In fact, even within EA the number of people interested is limited. This Forum post has not dropped off the front page of the EA Forum as of November 8th and yet the number of new EAs participating in the match has continually decreased each day since November 2nd and is now quite low.
How is this possible? Isn’t it an easy gain for GWWC and other pledgers? Do we all have such high value of time that the small effort involved here doesn’t merit the $400-$4000 (oom) gain from giving to an overlapping set of charities we care about?
Increased awareness would certainly lead to increased participation I think, but I think your HA3 is true for most people (especially non-EAs). So many charities have used donation “matches” in their fundraising campaigns that most people might not even realize how this one is different or the significance of that difference if they were to take a quick look at some short marketing copy from Every.org about it, and so I wouldn’t expect them to be so interested in it like EAs often are.
On that note my uncertain guess is that some significant fraction of the interest in the Facebook match comes from nonprofits promoting the match to their supporters. Given Facebook’s limits of $20k/donor being much higher than Every.org’s limit here ($100 per donor per nonprofit), nonprofits may be much more motivated to bother marketing the Facebook opportunity to their supporters than the Every.org match.
In short, I think that’s basically the reason. In particular, EAs got donations matched to at least 66 different nonprofits. Many EAs participating in this match donated to 10+ different nonprofits. I’m not aware of any other groups of people who are that excited to support that wide a range of different nonprofits. So the $100 per donor per nonprofit limit really helped EAs direct a disproportionate amount of the matching funds due to our disproportionate willingness to donate to several different charities.
Regarding your other ‘early scoop’ hypothesis: Every.org reached out to me about this #FallGivingChallenge in mid-October (because they liked my post promoting their #25DaysOfGiving initiative last year), but I don’t think this is what led to the EA community directing such a large portion of the matching funds to effective charities. This can most apparently be seen from the facts that: (1) I waited until after the match began to publish this post and promote the match to others in EA ; (2) Every.org published their announcement post more than a week before the match, so presumably others had early notice of it; (3) Most significantly, the matching funds still have not run out yet after more than a week of being available, meaning speed wasn’t a significant factor.
Point 3 above also suggests that the number of people interested in the match is clearly limited. In fact, even within EA the number of people interested is limited. This Forum post has not dropped off the front page of the EA Forum as of November 8th and yet the number of new EAs participating in the match has continually decreased each day since November 2nd and is now quite low. At this point, the number of people getting their donations matched each day is low enough that the initial $475k of matching funds will not be used up for weeks—perhaps not even by the end of the match (November 30th)--unless something accelerates the pace at which people start getting their donations matched again.
Regarding the Facebook Giving Tuesday match, note that EAs direct a highly disproportional amount of the available matching funds (probably way more disproportional than in this Every.org match). The difference is just that the Facebook match is far more competitive (approximately a million people make a donation of Facebook on Giving Tuesday each year), such that it’s impossible for any one group—including EAs—to direct a large fraction of the matching funds.
Why do you think the FB GT match is so much more popular. Is it just more prominent? That sort of goes with my proposed HA1.
Facebook just has a massive audience. In years past they’ve promoted the match via a mention of it in people’s Facebook newsfeed. Presumably many millions of people saw that. They’ve also prompted donating to nonprofits on Facebook via prompting users to create a birthday fundraiser for their favorite nonprofit and matching some small amount of donations (like $2-$5 IIRC). Every.org is a fairly new nonprofit with a small team and clearly doesn’t have that kind of reach.
FB promo: Wasn’t it something like “we will donate the first $1”?
If it’s this, and not lack of awareness, it’s bizarre. Millions of Americans donate small-ish amounts to eligible charities each year. They could increase the amounts the charities receive, or reduce their out-of-pocket donations ‘for free’.
If Amazon.com was having a ‘spend $100 on each store, get $100 more for free’, this would be used up in a sneeze. Can it be that people really only care about the amount they sacrifice and not the amount the charities get?
Alternative hypothesis HA1: Most relevant people are not aware of this match HA2: People don’t trust it, it seems ‘too good to be true’ HA3: People think “it’s not really getting free money/free charity, because if I don’t take advantage, an equally good charity/donor will do
Of these, only HA1 seems plausible to me.
How is this possible? Isn’t it an easy gain for GWWC and other pledgers? Do we all have such high value of time that the small effort involved here doesn’t merit the $400-$4000 (oom) gain from giving to an overlapping set of charities we care about?
Increased awareness would certainly lead to increased participation I think, but I think your HA3 is true for most people (especially non-EAs). So many charities have used donation “matches” in their fundraising campaigns that most people might not even realize how this one is different or the significance of that difference if they were to take a quick look at some short marketing copy from Every.org about it, and so I wouldn’t expect them to be so interested in it like EAs often are.
On that note my uncertain guess is that some significant fraction of the interest in the Facebook match comes from nonprofits promoting the match to their supporters. Given Facebook’s limits of $20k/donor being much higher than Every.org’s limit here ($100 per donor per nonprofit), nonprofits may be much more motivated to bother marketing the Facebook opportunity to their supporters than the Every.org match.