Fwiw, I also think the name is a bit complicated, and less memorable than Open Philanthropy. Here the reasoning from the Vox interview:
> Why “coefficient”? As CEO, Alexander Berger, puts it in my conversation with him, “coefficient is a multiplier”: the “co-” nods to collaboration with other givers; the “efficient” is a reminder of the north star of effectiveness.
While we still prioritize openness and sharing our reasoning, these are now part of a broader set of values rather than the centerpiece of our identity.
A coefficient multiplies the value of whatever it’s paired with, just as we aim to amplify impact through our research, grantmaking, and partnerships. “Co” nods to our collaboration with donors and grantees, while “efficient” reflects our unusual focus on cost-effectiveness.
yes i think the name is clever and i like the reasoning that led to it, but the end product “coefficient giving” feels a bit nerdy and clunky and I’m not sure it will have broad appeal.
I don’t think broad appeal is the most important thing, but i think multi millionaire donors would be more likely to join up if public branding and appreciation is good.
As someone who just participated in a name change recently I can assure you the pros and cons of this name with other contenders was probably discussed ad nauseam by the team involved, and they decided on this name despite the nerdy and clunky vibe.
Fwiw, I also think the name is a bit complicated, and less memorable than Open Philanthropy. Here the reasoning from the Vox interview:
There are some more details from cG here (also linked in Aaron’s post):
yes i think the name is clever and i like the reasoning that led to it, but the end product “coefficient giving” feels a bit nerdy and clunky and I’m not sure it will have broad appeal.
Do you think CoGi need broad appeal if they’re mainly looking for multi millionaire donors?
The broad appeal applies to multi-millionaires as well. Most multi-millionaires are not into clunky nerd stuff.
I don’t think broad appeal is the most important thing, but i think multi millionaire donors would be more likely to join up if public branding and appreciation is good.
I would think it’s more peer appreciation than public appreciation that matters.
Expecting “cogi ergo multiply” merch now...
I like CoGi...
As someone who just participated in a name change recently I can assure you the pros and cons of this name with other contenders was probably discussed ad nauseam by the team involved, and they decided on this name despite the nerdy and clunky vibe.
Agreed!