Thanks for the post, Jeff. Sharing lots of relevant information would take time, and I think applying to EA Funds and Open Philanthropy would raise funds more cost-effectively. However, orgs can simply share their applications to larger funders on EA Forum, and then add info about what they would do with marginal funding on top of funds received from the larger funders.
As someone who has raised funds from larger funders and is currently considering participating in marginal funding week, I don’t think that would work very well:
Our main funders have a lot of context on our work, and so our grant applications are missing a lot of information that a typical Forum reader would need. This includes basic stuff like ” what problem are you trying to solve?”
Because we have engaged with these funders previously, portions of a funding requests can be discussion of specific issues they have previously raised, which might be pretty in the weeds for a Forum reader and require extra context.
There is a lot of information you can share in a private grant request that you can’t make public. For example, specific quotes you’ve received from potential partners on pricing, some kinds of strategic planning, potential partnership opportunities, or frank assessments of the capabilities of other organizations.
Writing for public consumption requires more attention to how a wide range of potential readers, including both low context Forum readers and potential partners, would interpret things.
I think a good part of the appeal is that it is low cost strategy (relative to one where lots of context is provided).
Our main funders have a lot of context on our work, and so our grant applications are missing a lot of information that a typical Forum reader would need. This includes basic stuff like ” what problem are you trying to solve?”
Note the target audience will be more familiar with the work than a random EA Forum reader. For example, if you were raising funds for the Nucleic Acid Observatory (NAO), your target audience would be more familiar with bio and more likely to have read other posts about NAO.
There is a lot of information you can share in a private grant request that you can’t make public.
Thanks for the post, Jeff. Sharing lots of relevant information would take time, and I think applying to EA Funds and Open Philanthropy would raise funds more cost-effectively. However, orgs can simply share their applications to larger funders on EA Forum, and then add info about what they would do with marginal funding on top of funds received from the larger funders.
As someone who has raised funds from larger funders and is currently considering participating in marginal funding week, I don’t think that would work very well:
Our main funders have a lot of context on our work, and so our grant applications are missing a lot of information that a typical Forum reader would need. This includes basic stuff like ” what problem are you trying to solve?”
Because we have engaged with these funders previously, portions of a funding requests can be discussion of specific issues they have previously raised, which might be pretty in the weeds for a Forum reader and require extra context.
There is a lot of information you can share in a private grant request that you can’t make public. For example, specific quotes you’ve received from potential partners on pricing, some kinds of strategic planning, potential partnership opportunities, or frank assessments of the capabilities of other organizations.
Writing for public consumption requires more attention to how a wide range of potential readers, including both low context Forum readers and potential partners, would interpret things.
Thanks for the good context, Jeff.
I think a good part of the appeal is that it is low cost strategy (relative to one where lots of context is provided).
Note the target audience will be more familiar with the work than a random EA Forum reader. For example, if you were raising funds for the Nucleic Acid Observatory (NAO), your target audience would be more familiar with bio and more likely to have read other posts about NAO.
Fair! Some information would have to be removed.