3 ms·

2:1 by who? That is not written. These types of schemes ring very poorly in my head for charity. If someone has the ability to give 2$ for every 1$ I give, wh

2:1 by who? That is not written. These types of schemes ring very poorly in my head for charity. If someone has the ability to give 2$ for every 1$ I give, why are they only giving on contingence? Just give the money!

conformist 27d ago
Value judgment aside: Probably because it works well empirically. If you’re a larger scale donor and you’re interested in maximising impact, you may agree to a matching program type setup to crowd in more donors. Also you feel smart because you crowded in more donors and the donors feel like they got a good deal. So several people feel they can attribute the same counterfactual impact to themselves ;)
- miki123211 26d ago
  If you're a charity, you aren't optimizing for max(value_generated) in an immediate way. If your mission is to help children with cancer, you don't want to spend 100% of your funding on chemotherapy and drug development, because that way, you eventually run out of money (donors die and their cards expire, and you aren't spending on marketing to bring in new ones). You may spend some of it on buying a fancy yacht and organizing a ball for the rich, which will bring in 4x as much in donations as you spend on getting it to happen, and that's the money you spend on chemo and new drugs. If you care about as much money being spend on cancer research as possible, that's potentially a better way to make it happen than spending your donations on cancer research. Imagine a donor is willing to give you $1m, but you believe you can get up to $500k in extra donations from strangers on the internet if you do donation matching (it's essentially a free marketing campaign). So you ask them for $500k in hard cash and $500k in matched funds. Even if you overestimate and only get $400k in donations, you're still getting an extra $200k of free money.
  - conformist 26d ago
    Yeah, iterating that a bit further is why paying for political lobbying can be worth it compared to direct donations. However, the less direct your theory of change, the harder to quantify impact and the wider the posterior distribution tends to get. Some of the most impactful things I’ve donated to (imo) have a chance of moving some large scale donations (think Gates) into a marginally more impactful direction.
oefrha 27d ago
> That is not written. Probably to avoid being shamed for not "just give the money". Exhibit A.
fizzbuzzbarbazz 27d ago
Also, it allows the matching party to directly gauge and give along the lines of true public interest, and not waste their money on something nobody cares about.
- hkpack 27d ago
  Yes, I wonder why this is not the most obvious reason. There are infinite ways to give away money, this scheme allows to align better with what causes other people are ready to support with their own money.
minraws 27d ago
Normal People get to think they are helping 3$'s worth, and Rich people get to think they are helping 3$'s worth... Both side get to feel like they got more out of the initial investment. 1:3 2:3 Everyone wins inside their heads and its nice to live life where everyone wins... Also easier to justify charity when you think you are winning.. I feel like it's pretty good for what it is.
- jeltz 27d ago
  Actually rich people think they re helping more than that. If we assume the average length of a recurring donation is 6 months they feel they help 8 dollars for every 2 they donate. But otherwise you are right, this is done because it makes everyone donating feel like a winner other than few cynics like me. :D But that said I do not mind these drives.
- deleted 25d ago
  [deleted]
bawolff 27d ago
> These types of schemes ring very poorly in my head for charity. These types of schemes are so common as to basically be universal. You'd probably be hard pressed to find a major charity that hasn't participated in something like this.
zikduruqe 27d ago
Just like my local grocery store. They'll ask me to round up my purchase to help feed the hungry. Why can't they not invest in all the infrastructure and systems to support this, and just donate a few nickels and quarters themselves. Plus they have the food to give.
- devilbunny 26d ago
  Big, successful grocery stores operate on a 3% margin. It’s mostly a commodities business. Doing all that alone could entirely wipe their profit.
  - zikduruqe 26d ago
    And my local grocery store sponsors Indycar racing and has a track they sponsor. They also throw away produce that looks bad, although it is perfectly edible. I am not going to cry because the CEO cannot afford a yacht payment next month.
    - devilbunny 26d ago
      Yes, they advertise. And they discard things that will not sell. That is what businesses do. Most of them try to sell it for a lower price first.
- wolvoleo 26d ago
  Yeah but just don't do it at all then. If I want to sponsor a good cause I'll do so when I want to. I'm also annoyed with having to decline that shit. Besides, I live in Europe. If something is important enough the government should subsidize them, that's what they're there for. We don't do this capitalist small government stuff. PayPal and Stripe are doing it too now.
itake 26d ago
In another charity, I offered the 1:1 match. My reasoning was 0/ marketing 1/ credibility. Someone wealthy thinks the charity is important If you publicly give $2m, people might think, that’s probably enough… no need to give more. If you quietly give $2m usd and a tree falls in a forest…
DrewADesign 26d ago
The idea is that if I have $200,000 to give to a charity and I give $200,000, my $200,000 yields $200,000 for the charity. If I say I’m going to match other people’s money 2:1 and that convinces people donate $90,000, my $180,000 yields $270,000 for the charity. I’d probably have written off the 200k anyway and just toss in the rest after, or throw it at another good cause.
Sweepi 26d ago
|If someone has the ability to give 2$ for every 1$ I give, why are they only giving on contingence? |Just give the money! Why? If i had the money, I would do the same.
vova_hn2 26d ago
I've read a theory somewhere (too lazy to find the source, sorry), that people tend to care more about a cause that they have already donated to. Possible explanation is trying to avoid wasting money: "if I already spent money on this, it better be successful, or else my money will be wasted". If it is true, there is a value in getting people to donate something, however small, because it makes them more likely to donate or help in other ways in the future.
olejorgenb 26d ago
Because it amplifies how much is given in total? If after the campaign they still have more to give they could always give the remaining?
deleted 26d ago
[deleted]

conformist 27d ago

Value judgment aside: Probably because it works well empirically. If you’re a larger scale donor and you’re interested in maximising impact, you may agree to a matching program type setup to crowd in more donors. Also you feel smart because you crowded in more donors and the donors feel like they got a good deal. So several people feel they can attribute the same counterfactual impact to themselves ;)

miki123211 26d ago
If you're a charity, you aren't optimizing for max(value_generated) in an immediate way. If your mission is to help children with cancer, you don't want to spend 100% of your funding on chemotherapy and drug development, because that way, you eventually run out of money (donors die and their cards expire, and you aren't spending on marketing to bring in new ones). You may spend some of it on buying a fancy yacht and organizing a ball for the rich, which will bring in 4x as much in donations as you spend on getting it to happen, and that's the money you spend on chemo and new drugs. If you care about as much money being spend on cancer research as possible, that's potentially a better way to make it happen than spending your donations on cancer research. Imagine a donor is willing to give you $1m, but you believe you can get up to $500k in extra donations from strangers on the internet if you do donation matching (it's essentially a free marketing campaign). So you ask them for $500k in hard cash and $500k in matched funds. Even if you overestimate and only get $400k in donations, you're still getting an extra $200k of free money.
- conformist 26d ago
  Yeah, iterating that a bit further is why paying for political lobbying can be worth it compared to direct donations. However, the less direct your theory of change, the harder to quantify impact and the wider the posterior distribution tends to get. Some of the most impactful things I’ve donated to (imo) have a chance of moving some large scale donations (think Gates) into a marginally more impactful direction.

oefrha 27d ago

> That is not written. Probably to avoid being shamed for not "just give the money". Exhibit A.

fizzbuzzbarbazz 27d ago

Also, it allows the matching party to directly gauge and give along the lines of true public interest, and not waste their money on something nobody cares about.

hkpack 27d ago
Yes, I wonder why this is not the most obvious reason. There are infinite ways to give away money, this scheme allows to align better with what causes other people are ready to support with their own money.

minraws 27d ago

Normal People get to think they are helping 3$'s worth, and Rich people get to think they are helping 3$'s worth... Both side get to feel like they got more out of the initial investment. 1:3 2:3 Everyone wins inside their heads and its nice to live life where everyone wins... Also easier to justify charity when you think you are winning.. I feel like it's pretty good for what it is.

jeltz 27d ago
Actually rich people think they re helping more than that. If we assume the average length of a recurring donation is 6 months they feel they help 8 dollars for every 2 they donate. But otherwise you are right, this is done because it makes everyone donating feel like a winner other than few cynics like me. :D But that said I do not mind these drives.
deleted 25d ago
[deleted]

bawolff 27d ago

> These types of schemes ring very poorly in my head for charity. These types of schemes are so common as to basically be universal. You'd probably be hard pressed to find a major charity that hasn't participated in something like this.

zikduruqe 27d ago

Just like my local grocery store. They'll ask me to round up my purchase to help feed the hungry. Why can't they not invest in all the infrastructure and systems to support this, and just donate a few nickels and quarters themselves. Plus they have the food to give.

devilbunny 26d ago
Big, successful grocery stores operate on a 3% margin. It’s mostly a commodities business. Doing all that alone could entirely wipe their profit.
- zikduruqe 26d ago
  And my local grocery store sponsors Indycar racing and has a track they sponsor. They also throw away produce that looks bad, although it is perfectly edible. I am not going to cry because the CEO cannot afford a yacht payment next month.
  - devilbunny 26d ago
    Yes, they advertise. And they discard things that will not sell. That is what businesses do. Most of them try to sell it for a lower price first.
wolvoleo 26d ago
Yeah but just don't do it at all then. If I want to sponsor a good cause I'll do so when I want to. I'm also annoyed with having to decline that shit. Besides, I live in Europe. If something is important enough the government should subsidize them, that's what they're there for. We don't do this capitalist small government stuff. PayPal and Stripe are doing it too now.

itake 26d ago

In another charity, I offered the 1:1 match. My reasoning was 0/ marketing 1/ credibility. Someone wealthy thinks the charity is important If you publicly give $2m, people might think, that’s probably enough… no need to give more. If you quietly give $2m usd and a tree falls in a forest…

DrewADesign 26d ago

The idea is that if I have $200,000 to give to a charity and I give $200,000, my $200,000 yields $200,000 for the charity. If I say I’m going to match other people’s money 2:1 and that convinces people donate $90,000, my $180,000 yields $270,000 for the charity. I’d probably have written off the 200k anyway and just toss in the rest after, or throw it at another good cause.

Sweepi 26d ago

|If someone has the ability to give 2$ for every 1$ I give, why are they only giving on contingence? |Just give the money! Why? If i had the money, I would do the same.

vova_hn2 26d ago

I've read a theory somewhere (too lazy to find the source, sorry), that people tend to care more about a cause that they have already donated to. Possible explanation is trying to avoid wasting money: "if I already spent money on this, it better be successful, or else my money will be wasted". If it is true, there is a value in getting people to donate something, however small, because it makes them more likely to donate or help in other ways in the future.

olejorgenb 26d ago

Because it amplifies how much is given in total? If after the campaign they still have more to give they could always give the remaining?

deleted 26d ago

[deleted]