I agree with most of the points in this post and have advocated for some of them within my organisation. I am particularly sympathetic to costly signals (like paying for services) providing a much stronger anchor for a service’s value than feedback forms.
That said, the EA marketplace doesn’t seem to be particularly efficient. I worry that many projects are under or over-funded, making the willingness to pay signal much more costly for some people than others (independent of the value the service would create through them) and making it hard for sellers to price their goods when they are primarily operating within the EA market.
Also, offering free services helps decrease organisations’ dependence on funders, which I think is pretty desirable for grantees on the current margin.
I agree that the EA marketplace seems particularly inefficient, and agree that this is an argument against my key point above. My guess is that many people are still undervaluing the importance of willingness-to-pay signals, although there are probably some who don’t appreciate the inefficiencies of the market. I’m not really sure what to do with that.
Re: “offering free services helps decrease organisations’ dependence on funders, which I think is pretty desirable for grantees on the current margin.”
I think overdependence on specific funders (or on a small number of funders) can be bad, but my preferred solution is “diversify funding more” not “get free services” — to the extent that the first is an option. (I think I might be missing some reason for why it’s bad for organizations to depend on varied funders, though, if you in fact meant that.) So I think here I’m more sympathetic to approaches like: if you’re considering offering a free service or donating the proceeds, consider asking your potential service recipients whether they’d prefer to just get a donation, or consider donating to a donor lottery or to a smaller fund you appreciate, etc. I tried to outline something like this in point 1 here, but I might have communicated it poorly (or I might be misunderstanding you now).
I agree with most of the points in this post and have advocated for some of them within my organisation. I am particularly sympathetic to costly signals (like paying for services) providing a much stronger anchor for a service’s value than feedback forms.
That said, the EA marketplace doesn’t seem to be particularly efficient. I worry that many projects are under or over-funded, making the willingness to pay signal much more costly for some people than others (independent of the value the service would create through them) and making it hard for sellers to price their goods when they are primarily operating within the EA market.
Also, offering free services helps decrease organisations’ dependence on funders, which I think is pretty desirable for grantees on the current margin.
I agree that the EA marketplace seems particularly inefficient, and agree that this is an argument against my key point above. My guess is that many people are still undervaluing the importance of willingness-to-pay signals, although there are probably some who don’t appreciate the inefficiencies of the market. I’m not really sure what to do with that.
Re: “offering free services helps decrease organisations’ dependence on funders, which I think is pretty desirable for grantees on the current margin.”
I think overdependence on specific funders (or on a small number of funders) can be bad, but my preferred solution is “diversify funding more” not “get free services” — to the extent that the first is an option. (I think I might be missing some reason for why it’s bad for organizations to depend on varied funders, though, if you in fact meant that.) So I think here I’m more sympathetic to approaches like: if you’re considering offering a free service or donating the proceeds, consider asking your potential service recipients whether they’d prefer to just get a donation, or consider donating to a donor lottery or to a smaller fund you appreciate, etc. I tried to outline something like this in point 1 here, but I might have communicated it poorly (or I might be misunderstanding you now).