Thank you Gergő for initiating this! On EA Finland's part we are just happy if we can save other group organisers' time.

Thank you for sharing your outreach strategy at ET with such detail! I bookmarked this post earlier and finally found a good moment to read it :)

For EA Finland my main takeaways from the post are:
- We should take some time to develop/unify the branding of EA Finland further and especially our tone of voice. 
- Identify more broadly which our most promising target audiences could be and organise discussions/ 1-1s with people from the reference groups to get insights to qhat kind of communication appeals to them and if they are interested in EA in the first place. Now founder effect and existing networks are impacting our community building efforts quite a lot.
- Create Google Analytics for altruismi.fi so we can develop our website based on more detailed data.
- I believe your results from the messaging strategy are interesting and we could try to emphasise the inspirational part as well in our communications. (I acknowledge you also had a section on diversifying outreach strategies between EA groups but this is quite a general approach) 
- I had some initial ideas about creating an influencer-focused effective giving campaign. It was good to get some more information on how time consuming it can be and your experience updated me against its cost-effectiveness.

Impressive work you have done and clearly written report! Looking forward to follow how you scale it up/duplicate your effort to other countries :)

Could you tell more about the engagement metric? What was the questions asked to the respondents? Wondering if it about engagement with other EAs or local groups or generally with EA ideas and how the different levels are defined

My blockers for donating more: 
1) Not being confident that I give to the very best program(s). I feel dissatisfied about my current donation behavior. I’d like to have a stronger personal hierarchy of the charity recommendations by GWWC. Now I give roughly 1/3 of my pot to GiveWell (because of their strong evidence base), 1/3 to either ACE’s recommended charities fund or Humane League (because of neglectedness in animal welfare funding), and 1/3 to Founders Pledge Climate change fund (as a relatively safe longtermist bet). These also seem highly cost effective to me, but the true reason I’m dividing my donations equally between them is not because I think all charities could have an equally big impact on the margin, but because I haven’t put enough effort into thinking what my values are, how I’d prioritize across cause areas, and how strongly I believe the recommended charities within the fields can effectively solve the problems they are focusing on. If I was more confident that the expected value of my donations is as I high as it could be with the information I have available, I would likely feel motivated to donate even more. I’d be happy to hear how other people who might have put more thought into it donate and why - so any resources are welcome!

2) Uncertainties about the trade-offs of donating. Should I increase my donations or are there potential self-development or volunteer opportunities that increase my impact long-term? 
Example: I’m currently in Tanzania for 2 months volunteering for an EA-minded company. I’ve only been here for 2 weeks, so I don’t know if it is an effectively altruistic use of my money, and it is hard to quantify in advance. When deciding to go on this trip months ago, I was quite sure that donating the cost of the plane ticket would’ve been more virtuous, but my curiosity drove me to go anyway. Now I’m not as sure anymore what would've been more virtuous, but in general I would bet more on donating to evidence-based charities than investing in myself.

I believe answering to 2 is easier if I get clarity to 1

I've been thinking along the same lines but wouldn't have verbalised it as well as you. Thank you for writing this up!

I assume that especially in countries with less EA presence of direct impact orgs, the local EA communities can play an vital role in supporting people to get more engaged with EA ideas and potentially become leaders of their own high-impact projects.

I thought having many different forms of engagement at each stage was implicit to the funnel model as well, but having it explicit as "action, ideas, and diverse connections" seems like a useful framework. I'll think more about what this could mean in practice for us in my group

Thank you for your kind words! 

It would indeed be interesting to see impact assessments across groups and projects to get a rough idea of the expected value of different projects and improve intuitions on community building.

I found this a bit hard to read maybe because my biology literacy isn't strong enough. I also skipped the details...

I didn't quite understand why iron deficiencies are "very bad". Here's how I understood it. Is this what op refers to as very bad? 1)

Successful iron supplementation led to improvements averaging >0.5 standard deviations in attention, learning, and memory Iron supplementation

2. Iron supplementation increases endurance.

Do you mean bad on a society scale or is it pointed at the reader?

Thanks for the update! It would be interesting to get more statistics on CEA. Like

• by how many people CEA has grown with. (I guess it's something between 15 and 35 but there's quite a big difference)
• how big a budget do you have?
• how do you allocate employees/budget/hours between the projects/areas and how has this changed?

(Maybe these exist elsewhere?)

The last four paragraphs are well said👌