Hide table of contents

Recently I was listening to the Freakonomics Podcast entitled "How to Raise Money Without Killing a Kitten”.  They interviewed economist John List about fundraising.  There were a fair bit of interesting tips about fundraising, so I took some notes in case anyone was interested.  This is essentially a "brief summary of a brief summary" as List was already summarizing his research.

 

Why People Give

 

  • Altruism is not as a big of a deal as people think when it comes to motivating donations -- instead people are frequently driven by self-interest.  It’s important to play into this.  Your fundraising should be somewhat about giving the donor the ability to brag about how good of a person they are at the Thanksgiving table, though it won’t work if you’re explicit about it.  The point is to create a “warm glow”.
  • A lot of giving is due to social pressure.  For example, people will donate when confronted by a Brownie Scout, but will go out of their way to avoid a Brownie Scout in the first place so they don’t “have to” donate.
  • A lot of giving is also due to herding.  People give where their friends give.

 

How to Raise More Money

 

  • There’s a culture of tradition when it comes to fundraising advice, and not many people fundraise based on statistics.
  • List believes a typical response rate for a good campaign to cold call people to ask for money is 1%.  Americans already give 2-2.5% of their income on average.
  • People will give more if it’s convenient.  If there were a button to donate during the podcast, a decent amount of people would do it, but virtually no-one will remember to go on their computer and donate after the podcast is over.
  • Attractiveness of the fundraiser is important in door-to-door fundraising.  Men give more to good-looking women, but women do not give more to good-looking men or women, nor do men give more to good-looking men (though I don’t know if this study looked into gay men).  This effect is rather large —- a woman rated a “9” in attractiveness raises twice as much on average as a woman rated a “6”.
  • The best way List found to motivate donations was to offer a lottery with a chance of winning something that is really desirable.  Every dollar someone gives or raises for the cause should give them one more shot to win.  This outperforms offering prizes for meeting certain donation levels, though it’s unclear what the effect is of doing both.  Also, to offer a lottery one should check gambling laws.  Typically, an exception of no donation being necessary to enter will be legally required.
  • Matching funds are very useful at motivating donations.  Though keep in mind a 3:1 match offers the same benefit as a 1:1 match, so use those extra matching funds for something else.
  • If possible, emphasize what the donor will lose if fundraising isn’t met, as loss aversion is powerful.  Though, this works better for local art museums than for donating to the third world.  On the flip-side, though, donations to the third world can more easily create warm glows than art museums, so the advantage is pretty even.  Also, keep in mind that loss aversion advertising can appear overly desparate if not done carefully.

 

 

...Now go out there and raise more money. :) 

(Next, I use these techniques and raise $5010.32...)

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

This a great post. After 6 months being involved with effective altruism and discussing it with many people I feel confident that there is enormous potential for outreach and growth for the EA movement in the mainstream once it's understood that altruism isn't at the outset a strong motivator for most people when it comes to turning fine words into meaningful action. As the marketing industry understands parting people from their cash is most effectively achieved by focussing on subtle messaging around fear, status and happiness dependent on the particular target market. It is likely that people can be moved to a genuinely more alruistic mindset through time, but leading with this with ever increased persistence is akin to shouting at a Frenchman in English because he didn't understand you the first time around.

From conversations with my peer group I think the mainstream will be most attracted by charities around existential risk (broadening this out into sustainability related issues), playing on well placed worries about the future, and extreme poverty alleviation given a rarely voiced unease that extreme global inequality is creating fertile ground for extremism, as well as getting involved in a strong community full of inspirational people where greater giving leads to higher status. The interest around a vegetarian lifestyle is probably most easily generated from the unsustainability of our current meat eating habits. My peer group seem to easily understand and be attracted to Givewell etc,, as "Gocompare for charities" as a way of ensuring their money goes the farthest but will not be so interested in getting into a highly academic debate around it - being more interested in more general discussions around a happier lifestyle. These initial thoughts (and others from whoever else is interested) requires a proper piece of market research to a properly representative group to validate and prioritise them - outreach can be conducted with as much evidence and reason as cause selection - which can be used to define market segmentation and definition of the marketing mix to the respective segments. As I have some knowledge in this area I am keen to create a project team on this and would love to hear from anybody who is interested in being involved.

Thanks for the response!

As I have some knowledge in this area I am keen to create a project team on this and would love to hear from anybody who is interested in being involved.

This could potentially make a good .impact project. Also, you should talk to Charity Science, which is an EA organization working full-time to fundraise for GiveWell top charities. They just recently had an event that raised $11.6K for Deworm the World.

David, I'm just curious, but who exactly is in your peer group?

Curated and popular this week
TL;DR * Screwworm Free Future is a new group seeking support to advance work on eradicating the New World Screwworm in South America. * The New World Screwworm (C. hominivorax - literally "man-eater") causes extreme suffering to hundreds of millions of wild and domestic animals every year. * To date we’ve held private meetings with government officials, experts from the private sector, academics, and animal advocates. We believe that work on the NWS is valuable and we want to continue our research and begin lobbying. * Our analysis suggests we could prevent about 100 animals from experiencing an excruciating death per dollar donated, though this estimate has extreme uncertainty. * The screwworm “wall” in Panama has recently been breached, creating both an urgent need and an opportunity to address this problem. * We are seeking $15,000 to fund a part-time lead and could absorb up to $100,000 to build a full-time team, which would include a team lead and another full-time equivalent (FTE) role * We're also excited to speak to people who have a background in veterinary science/medicine, entomology, gene drives, as well as policy experts in Latin America. - please reach out if you know someone who fits this description!   Cochliomyia hominivorax delenda est Screwworm Free Future is a new group of volunteers who connected through Hive investigating the political and scientific barriers stopping South American governments from eradicating the New World Screwworm. In our shallow investigation, we have identified key bottlenecks, but we now need funding and people to take this investigation further, and begin lobbying. In this post, we will cover the following: * The current status of screwworms * Things that we have learnt in our research * What we want to do next * How you can help by funding or supporting or project   What’s the deal with the New World Screwworm? The New World Screwworm[1] is the leading cause of myiasis in Latin America. Myiasis “
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Does a food carbon tax increase animal deaths and/or the total time of suffering of cows, pigs, chickens, and fish? Theoretically, this is possible, as a carbon tax could lead consumers to substitute, for example, beef with chicken. However, this is not per se the case, as animal products are not perfect substitutes.  I'm presenting the results of my master's thesis in Environmental Economics, which I re-worked and published on SSRN as a pre-print. My thesis develops a model of animal product substitution after a carbon tax, slaughter tax, and a meat tax. When I calibrate[1] this model for the U.S., there is a decrease in animal deaths and duration of suffering following a carbon tax. This suggests that a carbon tax can reduce animal suffering. Key points * Some animal products are carbon-intensive, like beef, but causes relatively few animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are large. Other animal products, like chicken, causes relatively many animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are small, but cause relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. * A carbon tax will make some animal products, like beef, much more expensive. As a result, people may buy more chicken. This would increase animal suffering, assuming that farm animals suffer. However, this is not per se the case. It is also possible that the direct negative effect of a carbon tax on chicken consumption is stronger than the indirect (positive) substitution effect from carbon-intensive products to chicken. * I developed a non-linear market model to predict the consumption of different animal products after a tax, based on own-price and cross-price elasticities. * When calibrated for the United States, this model predicts a decrease in the consumption of all animal products considered (beef, chicken, pork, and farmed fish). Therefore, the modelled carbon tax is actually good for animal welfare, assuming that animals live net-negative lives. * A slaughter tax (a
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
As 2024 draws to a close, I’m reflecting on the work and stories that inspired me this year: those from the effective altruism community, those I found out about through EA-related channels, and those otherwise related to EA. I’ve appreciated the celebration of wins and successes over the past few years from @Shakeel Hashim's posts in 2022 and 2023. As @Lizka and @MaxDalton put very well in a post in 2022: > We often have high standards in effective altruism. This seems absolutely right: our work matters, so we must constantly strive to do better. > > But we think that it's really important that the effective altruism community celebrate successes: > > * If we focus too much on failures, we incentivize others/ourselves to minimize the risk of failure, and we will probably be too risk averse. > * We're humans: we're more motivated if we celebrate things that have gone well. Rather than attempting to write a comprehensive review of this year's successes and wins related to EA, I want to share what has personally moved me this year—progress that gave me hope, individual stories and acts of altruism, and work that I found thought-provoking or valuable. I’ve structured the sections below as prompts to invite your own reflection on the year, as I’d love to hear your responses in the comments. We all have different relationships with EA ideas and the community surrounding them, and I find it valuable that we can bring different perspectives and responses to questions like these. What progress in the world did you find exciting? * The launch of the Lead Exposure Elimination Fund this year was exciting to see, and the launch of the Partnership for a Lead-Free Future. The fund jointly committed over $100 million to combat lead exposure, compared to the $15 million in private funding that went toward lead exposure reduction in 2023. It’s encouraging to see lead poisoning receiving attention and funding after being relatively neglected. * The Open Wing Alliance repor