A bonus idea: I would love to see any of the listed organizations A/B test this button. Websites frequently run A/B tests—really, a fancy rebranding of RCTs—where half of viewers (control) see the default version of the page, while the other half (treatment) see a modified version (in this case, with the button). Then they can observe whether the treatment viewers are more likely to click on the “donate” button. This can tell us whether the availability of donation matching improves donation rates, and by how much.
This matters because donation matching is a big part of how charities raise money, and it’s an important decision whether to allocate money to donation matching or not. I understand if these are small teams that can’t allocate resources to this, but I think it’s a pretty important opportunity that is also quite low hanging fruit.
A bonus idea: I would love to see any of the listed organizations A/B test this button. Websites frequently run A/B tests—really, a fancy rebranding of RCTs—where half of viewers (control) see the default version of the page, while the other half (treatment) see a modified version (in this case, with the button). Then they can observe whether the treatment viewers are more likely to click on the “donate” button. This can tell us whether the availability of donation matching improves donation rates, and by how much.
This matters because donation matching is a big part of how charities raise money, and it’s an important decision whether to allocate money to donation matching or not. I understand if these are small teams that can’t allocate resources to this, but I think it’s a pretty important opportunity that is also quite low hanging fruit.
An especially good idea for EA orgs, because doublethedonation seems vaguely untrustworthy (see Jack Lewars’ comment). Thanks for the comment!