Very interesting and timely post for me as I have been exploring the idea of hiring a fractional CMO for my EA-adjacent org to address these very concepts. 

You talk about conversions and growing a marketing list, but I find it difficult to define a framework for applying standard conversion metrics to what ultimately amounts to impact. For example, I run a coaching program that helps people align their financial plans with their giving goals. My aim isn’t to coach as many people as possible, but rather to coach the most impactful people. E.g. those who will donate regularly or make career changes that lead to greater impact.

It’s challenging to design a marketing strategy that optimizes for that kind of outcome, since traditional metrics like leads, clicks, or sign-ups don’t necessarily reflect meaningful impact. I’d be curious if you (or others here) have thoughts on adapting marketing frameworks to measure or predict impact-oriented conversions rather than purely volume-based ones?

P.S. I also made a huge attempt to run ads and found it to be a total failure for same reasons you listed above. 

A vulnerable post like this was well worth sharing. I'm sure it wasn't easy to open up about this, but I bet many others can relate. I like the idea of re-committing vs. trying to make up for years of backfall - which may likely lead to more stress and an "all-or-nothing" mindset that may cause you to circle the drain. 

I think your point about donating monthly and making your giving more of a consistent habit is important. When it comes to planning, have you considered any other resources to keep up the habit? Some simple ideas that could help:

1. Set up your recurring donations in parallel with the timing of your paycheck. This way you can ensure you meet your donation goals before you spend all your income.
2. Put a reminder on your calendar once a month to make the donation, or to check the donation has been made. You could pair this alongside anything else you already do once a month e.g. when review your monthly spend, when you pay your rent, when you change your bedsheets, or whatever it is that you do consistently. That way the habit is tied to a habit you already have.
3. Take a deeper look at your finances to determine whether the 10% pledge is truly feasible for you. If it’s not, that’s perfectly fine, just adjust to a level that feels more reasonable. You may also find that simply getting a better handle on your finances makes donating feel easier and more natural. To help with this, I recommend tracking your spending regularly using a tool like Monarch Money or Lunch Money. This will not only give you a clear view of your overall spending but also help you see your donations each month.

This is a thoughtful answer and I would agree with much of this!

I don't think the answer is binary whether this "works" for EA as a whole or not. I think it can be easy to get caught in our EA bubble where we only look to very select research organizations to decide what the best charities are (to their best knowledge). I think that there is a world where other charity aggregators can act as an entry point to exploring cause areas and charities -- especially those that are too small or that don't have the funds or resources to commit to extensive impact assessments. 

Update: I found this questionnaire from GiveWell to be very helpful
Do-It-Yourself Charity Evaluation Questions
https://www.givewell.org/charity-evaluation-questions?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Thanks for sharing this post. I think it deserves a lot more thought and discussion. When I've asked this question in the past I've been encouraged to not go down this rabbit hole because it's not effective, and I disagree. 

I run a giving pledge and often encounter people who want to give with their heart. I never want to lead with the sentiment  “The causes you care about aren’t an effective use of your resources” That's just polarizing. So I'd rather meet them in the middle.  

It makes me wonder if there’s a “loss leader” effect here: If people are encouraged to explore effectiveness in a cause area they care about (maybe a "normie" area like social justice or supporting victims of abuse), they might discover that either there’s not enough evidence of impact or that real change requires substantial research. That, in turn, could help them understand why effective organizations matter. It seems like an important part of the mindset shift.

I also notice organizations like GiveDirectly sometimes fund very visible causes, like emergency relief for widely publicized disasters (e.g., the LA wildfires). Clearly, that goes against the EA focus on highly-neglected problems. But perhaps it works as a kind of entry point: people who care about these high-profile issues can encounter GiveDirectly and then learn about other, highly effective but less-known opportunities. At least in the emergency relief space, we know GiveDirectly is doing effective work, which might help bridge that gap?

Here's what else I'd want to know more about:

• A list of questions one can ask directly of a charity with examples of what quality effective answers look like -- it should quickly point to whether or not that charity has answers
• Effective organizations that have some sort of focus on more popular issues -- like climate change, emergency relief, women and children, etc -- that way we can at least introduce more organizations than the few listed on GiveWell, The Life You Can Save, etc. 

Wow! I appreciate the vulnerability in this post. It gives me a lot of perspective on what motivates people to give back / do good. Ultimately is it the motivation that matters or the impact? Probably the latter. Recognizing that we can’t do everything, but we can always something. This is why the pledge exists in part. 

Hi Soraya - I find this interesting. As someone who donates from my regular brokerage account via manual form each month, I'd love to streamline this. I think this would be especially appealing to someone who (A) wants to donate appreciated stock with some degree of automation (B) has a number of charities they donate to regularly. For example, being able to create "rules" -- e.g. donate X shares of Y stock each month, draw from lowest cost basis". Perhaps you can receive a reminder of the action before it's completed so you can review. 

Question to clarify - is donating a percentage of profit based on actual sales? Curious how you envision this being beneficial to users. 

First, I want to be clear I'm not an investment advisor. 

But with that out of the way, I almost always lean towards the 3-fund portfolio. It's easy, low-cost, transparent, and leads to the least amount of speculation. My personal strategy is "set it and forget it". I rarely look at fund performance, I'm just playing the long game and investing in as many types of assets as possible that require minimal-to-zero effort on my part. With that said, I do tailor my 3-fund strategy to my specific financial situation - it's minimal tailoring, but I focus on my allocations (stocks vs. bonds broadly speaking) and the types of accounts I'm investing in (e.g. 401k vs. regular investment account). 

If I am to question this strategy, it's in one of the legs of the 3-fund stool. I have no major qualms with investing in the index funds that represent the stock market (maybe some moral ones but generally speaking not really). Where I pause is with Bond Funds. Stocks are meant to support growth in your portfolio (and maybe dividend payouts). Bonds? Well what are they for? To perform well when stocks are down? To provide consistent cash payments? To stabilize your portfolio? Provide inflation protection? Total Bond funds like BND try to do all of this and as a result kind of do none of this.  

So TLDR: I think it's worth considering a more tailored bond strategy that is specific to your financial situation, where as you probably don't need to be doing this with stocks. 

With all that said, the more you tailor the more you speculate!