at giveffektivt.dk we cover transaction costs of donating. Similar to donation matching, itās likely the money we spend on transactions would be donated anyways.
I think itās fine to do this, but iām unsure where the line should be drawn. We find that many people who donate worry far too much about transaction and overhead costs. By alleviating one of those we make it much more attractive to donate (though I donāt think weāve A/āB tested this actually).
But following this logic should we say that ā5 dollars could save a lifeā if we thought this would increase total donations? Despite this sentence being literally true, it feels highly misleading and I would have mixed feelings about such a message. (In practice I donāt think stating this would increase donationsāif anything the opposite)
My own belief is that this type of messaging often brings its benefits in the short term, but incurs its costs in the long term, if a donor feels deceived and becomes less inclined to donate going forward.
This ultimately is the heuristic I go by. If someone were to read up on a claim after donating, would they feel deceived? If yes, then donāt make the claim.
I donāt personally think I would feel deceived about donor matching, so my intutition is that its fine, but maybe others feel different.
people who donate worry far too much about transaction and overhead costs
Thereās balance where itās also possible to worry too little about transaction costs. 2.9% + 30Ā¢ are common transaction processing costs for American credit cards. Encouraging debit card usage and less frequently billed subscriptions eliminate most transaction costs while avoiding the friction of switching from card processing to back account withdrawals.
Annual credit card billing saves over $15/āyr over weekly credit card billing
Debit card billing saves on the fixed fee, percentage, and chargeback costs
at giveffektivt.dk we cover transaction costs of donating. Similar to donation matching, itās likely the money we spend on transactions would be donated anyways.
I think itās fine to do this, but iām unsure where the line should be drawn. We find that many people who donate worry far too much about transaction and overhead costs. By alleviating one of those we make it much more attractive to donate (though I donāt think weāve A/āB tested this actually).
But following this logic should we say that ā5 dollars could save a lifeā if we thought this would increase total donations? Despite this sentence being literally true, it feels highly misleading and I would have mixed feelings about such a message. (In practice I donāt think stating this would increase donationsāif anything the opposite)
My own belief is that this type of messaging often brings its benefits in the short term, but incurs its costs in the long term, if a donor feels deceived and becomes less inclined to donate going forward.
This ultimately is the heuristic I go by. If someone were to read up on a claim after donating, would they feel deceived? If yes, then donāt make the claim.
I donāt personally think I would feel deceived about donor matching, so my intutition is that its fine, but maybe others feel different.
Thereās balance where itās also possible to worry too little about transaction costs. 2.9% + 30Ā¢ are common transaction processing costs for American credit cards. Encouraging debit card usage and less frequently billed subscriptions eliminate most transaction costs while avoiding the friction of switching from card processing to back account withdrawals.
Annual credit card billing saves over $15/āyr over weekly credit card billing
Debit card billing saves on the fixed fee, percentage, and chargeback costs