Hey @Maxtandy, thanks for the kind words and for your insightful questions! You’re right, it’s important to be transparent about the data.
To answer your questions: Participants: The 70,000 engagements refer to the total number of interactions (likes, comments, shares) across all our platforms. The 600+ daily check-ins are from our WeChat Mini Program, which is a separate platform used for tracking individual participation.
Reach: The 7 million people reached refers to the estimated number of individuals who saw our campaign materials across various platforms. This includes social media posts, ads, and media coverage.
Follow-through: You’re right, the follow-through rate is lower than we’d like, but it’s still a significant number of people making changes to their diet.
Non-binary: It’s great to see such a high representation of non-binary individuals in our campaign. It’s possible that there’s a selection effect, as you mentioned, and individuals who are open to plant-based diets are also more likely to be open to diverse identities.
Tree planting: We partnered with the Alashan SEE Ecology Association because we believe that addressing climate change is vital.
Thanks again for your interest and for engaging in this vital conversation!
Can I ask how many responses to the survey you got? That is still unclear to me and seems like one of the most important numbers for determining impact, and I dont have a good sense on how seriously to take any of these numbers without it.
I’m not sure about the effectiveness of lumping in climate change. I agree addressing it is important, but many issues are important—why not also donate to Against Malaria Foundation? Climate change is different in that people do associate it with diet more strongly, and I think that anything that leads to less animal suffering is good, regardless of the reasons people make that choice, but I worry about things like people choosing to eat fish instead of cows. I’m also not convinced that the org selected is most efficient in terms of actually taking carbon out of the atmosphere in comparison to lobbying efforts or something.
I’m not an expert, so I may be well wrong, but I think an org thats primarily concerned with impact would make different decisions to those made here. If they are, I’d be interested to hear the rationale or theory of change. If they’re not, then I don’t think that these numbers actually speak for themselves as claimed, and there’s still lots we don’t know, and it raises my belief that people looking to fund opportunities in this area would find higher impact orgs elsewhere.
You’re under no obligation to respond to this rather pointed line of questioning/​comments, but I thought it was important that I express these doubts. I do sincerely hope that this runs again in the future and the results are shared again.
Hey @Maxtandy, thanks for the kind words and for your insightful questions!
You’re right, it’s important to be transparent about the data.
To answer your questions:
Participants: The 70,000 engagements refer to the total number of interactions (likes, comments, shares) across all our platforms. The 600+ daily check-ins are from our WeChat Mini Program, which is a separate platform used for tracking individual participation.
Reach: The 7 million people reached refers to the estimated number of individuals who saw our campaign materials across various platforms. This includes social media posts, ads, and media coverage.
Follow-through: You’re right, the follow-through rate is lower than we’d like, but it’s still a significant number of people making changes to their diet.
Non-binary: It’s great to see such a high representation of non-binary individuals in our campaign. It’s possible that there’s a selection effect, as you mentioned, and individuals who are open to plant-based diets are also more likely to be open to diverse identities.
Tree planting: We partnered with the Alashan SEE Ecology Association because we believe that addressing climate change is vital.
Thanks again for your interest and for engaging in this vital conversation!
Thanks for the response Rakefet!
Can I ask how many responses to the survey you got? That is still unclear to me and seems like one of the most important numbers for determining impact, and I dont have a good sense on how seriously to take any of these numbers without it.
I’m not sure about the effectiveness of lumping in climate change. I agree addressing it is important, but many issues are important—why not also donate to Against Malaria Foundation? Climate change is different in that people do associate it with diet more strongly, and I think that anything that leads to less animal suffering is good, regardless of the reasons people make that choice, but I worry about things like people choosing to eat fish instead of cows. I’m also not convinced that the org selected is most efficient in terms of actually taking carbon out of the atmosphere in comparison to lobbying efforts or something.
I’m not an expert, so I may be well wrong, but I think an org thats primarily concerned with impact would make different decisions to those made here. If they are, I’d be interested to hear the rationale or theory of change. If they’re not, then I don’t think that these numbers actually speak for themselves as claimed, and there’s still lots we don’t know, and it raises my belief that people looking to fund opportunities in this area would find higher impact orgs elsewhere.
You’re under no obligation to respond to this rather pointed line of questioning/​comments, but I thought it was important that I express these doubts. I do sincerely hope that this runs again in the future and the results are shared again.