I like the superdonor expression, it reminds me of a strategy from Cialdini’s “Influence” where you give people an identity to become rather than just an action to do.
I have some (somewhat speculative) thoughts on which fruits hang the lowest. EA outreach has been markedly successful so far, mostly because EA has discovered some ideas that are VERY appealing to the head. If we want to be as successful for emotionally-oriented people I suppose we’d have to spread ideas in a way that’s VERY emotionally appealing. At the same time, we’d be competing with the strategies used by other charities which are already putting large efforts into crafting emotionally appealing messages. Do we have any evidence that our marketing could beat that of typical fundraisers and by how much? Our head-focused outreach so far has been much more successful than a typical fundraising strategy, with e.g. GWWC getting some impressive ratios. It’s a very neglected area after all. That sets the bar pretty high.
I’m not saying that bar can’t be met of course. We could utilize some of the best of both worlds and our own techniques: Effectiveness still somewhat appeals to less analytical types and a commitment device like the pledge along with the GWWC community is a pretty nice fundraising strategy.
An alternative strategy could be to capitalize on the success of our current strategy first and then become really influential so that we can change norms. We’d be picking the low-hanging fruit (at least if you believe it’s the most low-hanging) first. In the start-up world, it’s often advised to first focus on on being very appealing to a narrow market. Once we have e.g. influential authority figures on board and frequent media attention (and exhausted the lowest-hanging fruit), it may become easier to reach emotionally focused people.
At our current speed of growth, getting to that level should only take 2-4 years.
My thought is that we have huge low-hanging fruit to pick in reaching out to people who are somewhat more emotionally-oriented than the typical EA person, so reaching farther on the analytical/emotional spectrum.
The Lean Startup approach suggests experimenting and seeing what works. I think we as EAs need to experiment with a more emotionally-oriented approach and see if it works. Then, we can make a judgment based on evidence :-)
Thanks for putting so much thought into this!
I like the superdonor expression, it reminds me of a strategy from Cialdini’s “Influence” where you give people an identity to become rather than just an action to do.
I have some (somewhat speculative) thoughts on which fruits hang the lowest. EA outreach has been markedly successful so far, mostly because EA has discovered some ideas that are VERY appealing to the head. If we want to be as successful for emotionally-oriented people I suppose we’d have to spread ideas in a way that’s VERY emotionally appealing. At the same time, we’d be competing with the strategies used by other charities which are already putting large efforts into crafting emotionally appealing messages. Do we have any evidence that our marketing could beat that of typical fundraisers and by how much? Our head-focused outreach so far has been much more successful than a typical fundraising strategy, with e.g. GWWC getting some impressive ratios. It’s a very neglected area after all. That sets the bar pretty high.
I’m not saying that bar can’t be met of course. We could utilize some of the best of both worlds and our own techniques: Effectiveness still somewhat appeals to less analytical types and a commitment device like the pledge along with the GWWC community is a pretty nice fundraising strategy.
An alternative strategy could be to capitalize on the success of our current strategy first and then become really influential so that we can change norms. We’d be picking the low-hanging fruit (at least if you believe it’s the most low-hanging) first. In the start-up world, it’s often advised to first focus on on being very appealing to a narrow market. Once we have e.g. influential authority figures on board and frequent media attention (and exhausted the lowest-hanging fruit), it may become easier to reach emotionally focused people.
At our current speed of growth, getting to that level should only take 2-4 years.
Which order looks better?
My thought is that we have huge low-hanging fruit to pick in reaching out to people who are somewhat more emotionally-oriented than the typical EA person, so reaching farther on the analytical/emotional spectrum.
The Lean Startup approach suggests experimenting and seeing what works. I think we as EAs need to experiment with a more emotionally-oriented approach and see if it works. Then, we can make a judgment based on evidence :-)