Disclaimer: I notified 80,000 Hours about this post before posting. Once it reached those in the organization with relevant knowledge, I received no reply. I'm not sure why, but I hold no negative feelings about it.
I currently think 80,000 Hours (80k for short) should consider putting one ad on each of its newsletters; it seems quite likely the benefits outweigh the costs.
TLDR: This might reduce people’s trust in 80k. That could be very bad. However, I think this outcome is quite unlikely.
Since some people are skeptical of information served with ads and nonprofits that generate revenue, people might become more skeptical and distrusting of 80k’s information. This could have quite severe consequences.
I would worry about ads on the main website; the risk of people brushing off 80k’s key ideas and advice because they’re served right alongside ads seems too high.
Likewise, it seems the podcast wouldn’t make enough money to offset this risk: I crudely estimate that, if 80k podcasts ran a 60-second ad every hour in 2022, it would’ve generated roughly $12,000 that year:
The newsletter is a special case, though: it would likely make more revenue than podcast ads (six figures per year), and distrust coming from newsletter ads seems less likely than distrust coming from website ads (by my intuition). After all, could one ad in each newsletter meaningfully alter people’s views? Even if it’s tastefully sized and placed at the end? It seems newsletter subscribers trust 80k enough that one ad per newsletter won’t significantly disillusion them—they’re intrigued enough to have subscribed.
I’m not saying newsletter ads are a sure-fire success. Even if the probability of increased skepticism is small, its harms might be significant enough to offset ~six figures of increased effective philanthropy every year.
However, I think 80k should consider it. Ideally, someone should estimate the probability it undermines people’s trust in 80k. I would have done this myself if I could, but I couldn’t find any helpful research or surveys—relevant research tends to focus on viewers’ trust in advertisers, not the platform that serves ads (here’s an example). Perhaps surveying 80k’s newsletter subscribers could be informative, although survey respondents might be less likely than the average person to eschew 80k because of ads. It’s uncertain, but ads might be an unconventional path to meaningful impact.
I don't know UK tax law, but IIRC in the US selling unrelated ads in a program is a classic example of revenue usually subject to Unrelated Business Income Tax. If there is an analogous tax provision, that would affect the financial benefits.
In the UK, doing this would probably be counted as 'trading' and be subject to corporation tax, there is a common workaround, though, by creating a trading subsidiary that donates to the charity (allowing them to reduce their corporate tax burden). This setup might or might not be suitable for this specific occasion, and there are of course additional efforts involved in creating such a setup that might or might not be worth it.