I really agree with the thesis that EA orgs should make it clear what they are and aren’t doing.
But I think specifically for EA orgs that try to be public facing (e.g., an org focused on high net worth donors like Longview) there’s a way that very publicly clarifying a transparent scope can cut against their branding/ how they sell themselves. These orgs need to sell themselves at some level to be as effective as possible (it’s what their competition is doing), and selling yourself and being radically transparent do seem like they trade off at times (e.g., how much you prioritise certain sections of your website).
Thankfully, we have a lovely EA forum that can probably solve this issue :)
Thanks mike—I understand the argument and I’m sure others will agree with you, but I’m not sure I agree on the selling yourself vs. being radically transparent as necessarily being a good tradeoff to make. Part of what makes EA stuff so great, and a point of difference I think should be clear communication and transparency even it might appear to be an undersell or even slightly jarring to people not familiar with EA.
And yes I completely agree even if orgs do choose to be bit fluffy, vague and shiny on their website, at least they can transparently lay out their scope right here :D.
I really agree with the thesis that EA orgs should make it clear what they are and aren’t doing.
But I think specifically for EA orgs that try to be public facing (e.g., an org focused on high net worth donors like Longview) there’s a way that very publicly clarifying a transparent scope can cut against their branding/ how they sell themselves. These orgs need to sell themselves at some level to be as effective as possible (it’s what their competition is doing), and selling yourself and being radically transparent do seem like they trade off at times (e.g., how much you prioritise certain sections of your website).
Thankfully, we have a lovely EA forum that can probably solve this issue :)
Thanks mike—I understand the argument and I’m sure others will agree with you, but I’m not sure I agree on the selling yourself vs. being radically transparent as necessarily being a good tradeoff to make. Part of what makes EA stuff so great, and a point of difference I think should be clear communication and transparency even it might appear to be an undersell or even slightly jarring to people not familiar with EA.
And yes I completely agree even if orgs do choose to be bit fluffy, vague and shiny on their website, at least they can transparently lay out their scope right here :D.