> Wouldn't you rather the $1 you donate generate leverage in new donations? No, because donations are a zero-sum game. They're not "generating" leverage, they'

> Wouldn't you rather the $1 you donate generate leverage in new donations? No, because donations are a zero-sum game. They're not "generating" leverage, they're convincing people to give money to them as opposed to giving money to other causes and/or spending it for themselves. I've heard that people tended to give a fixed amount every year and charities just competed for that amount; I've never seen any evidence that aggressive marketing leads people/organizations to donate a higher percentage of their income overall. And even if it did, I think the principled thing to do would be to convince people to donate more money overall, ideally to high-effectiveness charities, not for specific causes to compete for getting people's money. Overall I think 99% of marketing is a blight upon humanity, a disgusting morass of callousness and amorality, and a huge waste of resources. Any money given for charity that ends up going into it should be considered overhead.