Because if he advertises this fact to prospective customers, this will give him an advantage. So he IS trying to earn more money… But for effective charities. And if prospective customers know this, they will be more likely to buy and/or buy more.
For instance, I am going to look for artwork and buy something because I want to support him and the charities he supports.
If he does not advertise the destination of the profit, he is leaving money on the table because buyers like the fact that charities benefit from their purchases.
Hmm I guess that goes into a broader discussion, but I don’t think that the EA community profits itself by not including artists and those with skills that aren’t squarely in the conventional Earning to Give purview.
In any case, I think more efforts like this to further impact within the art commerce space is an important contribution. Oftentimes, people will not be able to radically change their vocation and its important to look for opportunities for impact within a framework that someone is able to do in a given time.
Further, I don’t buy the premise that this is not high EV through a combination of direct impact and promoting a model that is potentially high EV.
I don’t think that the EA community profits itself by not including artists and those with skills that aren’t squarely in the conventional Earning to Give purview.
I certainly wouldn’t claim this. Obviously art, in general, is ex ante a very unpromising earning to give path. My suggestion is that we should encourage artists to use their skills in high impact ways.
I don’t buy the premise that this is not high EV through a combination of direct impact and promoting a model that is potentially high EV.
This implies a very weird model. Why would you think this is high EV? Presumably things are neutral to low EV unless proven otherwise via research? Nothing about “a combination of direct impact (??) and promoting a model” innately suggest high EV-which recall is a very high bar for career paths.
I’m really glad OP is excited to help out, but we should encourage them to consider whether they could do more good given their skill set. That is, after all, the point of EA. Many EA orgs need help with brand and aesthetics for example. Maybe their skills would be a good fit.
I don’t get it. Why don’t you try to earn more money if you are going to give it away?
Because if he advertises this fact to prospective customers, this will give him an advantage. So he IS trying to earn more money… But for effective charities. And if prospective customers know this, they will be more likely to buy and/or buy more.
For instance, I am going to look for artwork and buy something because I want to support him and the charities he supports.
If he does not advertise the destination of the profit, he is leaving money on the table because buyers like the fact that charities benefit from their purchases.
I’m not suggesting he shouldn’t advertise that he will donate profits. I’m suggesting he could do something more lucrative.
Hmm I guess that goes into a broader discussion, but I don’t think that the EA community profits itself by not including artists and those with skills that aren’t squarely in the conventional Earning to Give purview.
In any case, I think more efforts like this to further impact within the art commerce space is an important contribution. Oftentimes, people will not be able to radically change their vocation and its important to look for opportunities for impact within a framework that someone is able to do in a given time.
Further, I don’t buy the premise that this is not high EV through a combination of direct impact and promoting a model that is potentially high EV.
I certainly wouldn’t claim this. Obviously art, in general, is ex ante a very unpromising earning to give path. My suggestion is that we should encourage artists to use their skills in high impact ways.
This implies a very weird model. Why would you think this is high EV? Presumably things are neutral to low EV unless proven otherwise via research? Nothing about “a combination of direct impact (??) and promoting a model” innately suggest high EV-which recall is a very high bar for career paths.
I’m really glad OP is excited to help out, but we should encourage them to consider whether they could do more good given their skill set. That is, after all, the point of EA. Many EA orgs need help with brand and aesthetics for example. Maybe their skills would be a good fit.
I was going to answer, burner, but Brad West pretty much explained it very well...
Advertising to prospective buyers that the shop will donate 51% of profits is in fact one strategy to earn more money.