So it’s no surprise normal fundraisers, who are paid to raise money for their single present employer, will have left GWWC’s approach alone, even if it is much more efficient
That strikes me as overconfident. Normal fundraisers ask for regular, life-long giving all the time—just in the form of a small, monthly donation. They could be asking for a monthly donation of 10% of your income, but they don’t.
Though, of course, there are lots of reasons why a good idea might be ignored by the mainstream.
The thing they don’t get you to do is pledge to give for the rest of your life. Because if you’re committed to just one organisation (their employer) almost nobody would say yes. But GWWC has shown people do say yes at a reasonable rate if the recipient is flexible.
“I don’t know any evidence that suggests EAs outperform professional non-EA fundraisers at fundraising.”
GWWC’s experience make me think it’s above a 10:1 ratio, which is apparently typical for commercial fundraisers.
That strikes me as overconfident. Normal fundraisers ask for regular, life-long giving all the time—just in the form of a small, monthly donation. They could be asking for a monthly donation of 10% of your income, but they don’t.
Though, of course, there are lots of reasons why a good idea might be ignored by the mainstream.
The thing they don’t get you to do is pledge to give for the rest of your life. Because if you’re committed to just one organisation (their employer) almost nobody would say yes. But GWWC has shown people do say yes at a reasonable rate if the recipient is flexible.
“I don’t know any evidence that suggests EAs outperform professional non-EA fundraisers at fundraising.”
GWWC’s experience make me think it’s above a 10:1 ratio, which is apparently typical for commercial fundraisers.