Thanks Gemma, and thank you for everything you've done running the London group, your impact as a pledger, and your broader commitment to promoting effective giving.

We're totally aligned that our community is vitally important to our mission. That's actually baked into our Big Hairy Audacious Goal: "a million people donating $3bn to effective charities." The two numbers aren't separable by design. The $3bn reflects our ultimate purpose, which is improving and saving lives, human and animal, now and into the future. But the million people reflects something we hold equally seriously: that this is a movement making effective giving a social norm.

This is relevant to your point about not rushing people into commitments they won't keep, and it's something we're so so so strongly aligned with. To have a million people donating $3bn we need to maintain the expected value that pledgers donate.

Also love your point about the Trial Pledge. It exists precisely because a thoughtful, sustained commitment is worth far more than an impulsive one that lapses. (Sneak preview from our next Impact Evaluation: Trial Pledgers who go on to take a 10% Pledge donate more over the course of their pledge!) This shapes how we think about good onboarding and stewardship, and makes us even more excited about bringing people into effective giving in a considered way.

Where I'd disagree slightly is the framing of community support as a choice between stewarding existing pledgers or inspiring new ones. Ideally we'd do both, and great community engagement should mean the two are mutually reinforced. If someone has an amazing experience they're more likely to recommend it to friends and family. Likewise, a growing community means existing pledgers can feel like early members of a large movement. 

We withdrew from GWWC-branded groups primarily for operational reasons, including not having the capacity to put adequate safeguarding measures in place. The fact we hadn't clearly defined metrics for groups (inspiring new pledgers or supporting existing ones) is symptomatic of not having the capacity to work with leaders like you to co-manage groups at the standard we want.

That said, as our capacity grows, we want to bring this in-person community aspect back! That's why we're hiring for community engagement roles in San Francisco and London. Hopefully this will be the first step in building the capacity we need to support our community to the standard it deserves, reflecting and honouring the seriousness of the commitment.

Thank you again. Really glad you're raising this!

Hi William. James from the Giving What We Can team. Thanks so much for sharing this! 

I think exactly this asymmetry is what makes the pledge so compelling: small adjustments in our own comfort can translate into massive gains in wellbeing, health, and opportunity for others. It's quite starling to have it show like this. 

I also relate with the donation story. I recently told my friends I was approaching £50,000 in donations and their response was pretty much stunned silence. But then I broke it down for them and explained that it was spread over 5 years, (some which I'd be living abroad and had very low living costs) and it prompted a great discussion. I also told them the truth: that I get far more satisfaction from the 10% I give away than I do from any other spending. Two of them went away telling me they'd consider pledging themselves.

Obviously each case is different, but I'd definitely encourage you to keep having these conversations. You're doing an amazing thing! 

For me the 🔸10% pledge is all about social justice and equality. I am in the position of real luxury and ease, mainly by luck of birth. Others around the globe suffer a great deal - equally as a function of their luck (or lack thereof). My 10% pledge is about doing something to balance that unfair inequality.