> The "a little money goes a ridiculously long way" meme needs to stop. I think people tend to jump straight to debating whether we should pursue charity by co

> The "a little money goes a ridiculously long way" meme needs to stop. I think people tend to jump straight to debating whether we should pursue charity by cost-effectiveness. That seems unproductive to me unless people have some idea what those costs actually are. Advertising like this seriously undermines any hope of that. We could imagine, and UNICEF might argue, that these ads just motivate people to give money and don't set their expectations long-term. But when this is actually surveyed[1], we find that the median person thinks you can save a life for <$50. That's concerning on two levels. First, it means any charity that honestly advertises how much it spends to help people will look terrible. Second, the worrying question of what people would do if they knew the real number. Would people slash their donations if they thought the money would go 1% as far? Increase them to do equal good? Or is the amount we give to charity just not meaningfully correlated with how much it helps? I wish charities in general would stop doing this sort of advertising. But I especially wish the most reputable charities would stop. UNICEF and the Red Cross are highly trusted sources for journalists and the public alike, so it's particularly alarming when they publicize claims like 7¢ to "save" a child, or "up to" 3 lives saved per blood donation[2]. [1] https://80000hours.org/2017/05/most-people-report-believing-its-incredibly-cheap-to-save-lives-in-the-developing-world/ https://80000hours.org/2017/05/most-people-report-believing-... [2] This stat is common, but extremely dubious. Beyond the obvious "up to" trick, the best case number still appears to be <1. https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/1289/how-many-lives-are-saved-from-one-donation-of-blood https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/1289/how...