The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

Re:The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad? by joindpp on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @11:53PM (#33619024)

In defense of marketing and admin budgets. What would you prefer, a nonprofit where $100 of your donation goes to "providing help" (I don't really know what that means, since money alone can't do anything) or a nonprofit where $30 of your $100 is invested in "marketing and admin" which results in: - the charity has $500 - there are admin humans around to "provide help" (and you're paying them a decent or even above-average salary because you want them to do an amazing job, right?) What if they took $60 out of your $100 and turned it into $5,000 (not unheard of if they invest in digital ads to a warm list, for example)

It's counterproductive to insist that nonprofits operate without operations budgets.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad? by xyzzy123 on Wednesday November 16, 2022 @12:26AM (#33619270)

Yes, I think this is reasonable. I would also like to take a moment to reiterate why so many people are bitter about the marketing / admin angle:

I pay them money. Charity pays consultants to turn that into more money (plus admins to manage the consultants). Consultants determine that a fraction of that money should be used to solicit more donations. Research indicates best source of new donations is in fact existing donors.

At this point charity is spending money I gave them to extract further donations from me. The ice-cream cone is now licking itself :/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad? by wizofaus on Wednesday November 16, 2022 @12:13AM (#33619198)

I wouldn't consider 30% unreasonable or an example of money being swallowed - but there are known instances of non-profits where over 60% of donations go towards covering such costs (the Law Enforcement Legal Defense fund supposedly is one of the worst offenders).

[ Parent | on HN ]