I considered ideas like this, but I’m not sure how much extra promotion in the broad sense accomplishes, especially from an organisation promoting lots of other similar things (my assumption would be that the circles it promotes to are saturated).
As noted, the vast majority of the upside came in (a) flushing out EA-interested people and (b) a few large donations from people we know. New territory, in other words.
Yes, for all of Charity Science’s peer-to-peer fundraisers the promotion done by the people running them (the first peers) is the main source of funds. We’d be happy for you or anyone to use our prettier and easier software in the future of course, and give whatever extra promotion we can to the fundraisers (which might reach some EAs who needed that nudge to donate).
I considered ideas like this, but I’m not sure how much extra promotion in the broad sense accomplishes, especially from an organisation promoting lots of other similar things (my assumption would be that the circles it promotes to are saturated).
As noted, the vast majority of the upside came in (a) flushing out EA-interested people and (b) a few large donations from people we know. New territory, in other words.
Yes, for all of Charity Science’s peer-to-peer fundraisers the promotion done by the people running them (the first peers) is the main source of funds. We’d be happy for you or anyone to use our prettier and easier software in the future of course, and give whatever extra promotion we can to the fundraisers (which might reach some EAs who needed that nudge to donate).