💡
EA market testing (public)
  • Introduction/overview
    • Introduction & explanation
    • 👋Meet the team
    • 📕Content overview
    • Progress/goals (early 2023)
      • EAMT progress & results
      • Goals, trajectory, FAQs
  • 🤝Partners, contexts, trials
    • Introduction
    • Giving What We Can
      • Pledge page (options trial)
      • Giving guides - Facebook
      • Message Test (Feb 2022)
      • YouTube Remarketing
    • One For the World (OftW)
      • Pre-giving-tues. email A/B
        • Preregistration: OftW pre-GT
    • The Life You Can Save (TLYCS)
      • Advisor signup (Portland)
    • Fundraisers & impact info.
      • ICRC - quick overview
      • CRS/DV: overview
      • 📖Posts and writings
    • University/city groups
    • Workplaces/orgs
    • Other partners
    • Related/relevant projects/orgs
  • 🪧Marketing & testing: opportunities, tools, tips
    • Testing Contexts: Overview
    • Implementing ads, messages, designs
      • Doing and funding ads
      • Video ads/Best-practice guidelines
      • Facebook
      • Targeted ad on FB, with variations: setup
    • Collecting outcome data
      • Facebook ads interface
        • Pivot tables
      • Google analytics interface
      • Google A/B, optimize interface
      • Reconciling FB/GA reports
      • Survey/marketing platforms
    • Trial reporting template
  • 🎨Research Design, methodology
    • Methods: Overview, resources
    • "Qualitative" design issues
    • Real-world assignment & inference
      • Geographic segmentation/blocked randomization
      • Difference in difference/'Time-based methods'
      • Facebook split-testing issues
    • Simple quant design issues
    • Adaptive design/sampling, reinforcement learning
    • 'Observational' studies: issues
    • Analysis: Statistical approaches
  • 🧮Profiling and segmentation project
    • Introduction, scoping work
    • Existing work/data
      • Surveys/Predicting EA interest
      • Awareness: RP, etc.
      • Kagan and Fitz survey
      • Longtermism attitudes/profiling
      • Animal welfare attitudes: profiling/surveying
      • Other data
    • Fehr/SOEP analysis... followup
      • Followup with Thomas Ptashnik
    • Further approaches in progress
      • Profiling 'existing traffic'
  • 📋(In)effective Altruistic choices: Review of theory and evidence
    • Introduction...
    • The challenge: drivers of effective/ineffective giving
      • How little we know...
    • Models, theories, psych. norms
    • Tools and trials: overview
      • Tools/interventions: principles
      • Outcomes: Effective gift/consider impact)
        • (Effectiveness information and its presentation)
        • (Outcome: Pledge, give substantially (& effectively))
          • (Moral duty (of well-off))
        • Give if you win/ conditional pledge
      • Academic Paper Ideas
  • Appendix
    • How this 'gitbook' works
      • Other tech
    • Literature: animal advocacy messaging
    • Charity ratings, rankings, messages
    • "A large-scale online experiment" (participants-aware)
  • Innovationsinfundraising.org
Powered by GitBook
On this page

Was this helpful?

Edit on GitHub
Export as PDF
  1. Partners, contexts, trials
  2. Giving What We Can

Giving guides - Facebook

PreviousPledge page (options trial)NextMessage Test (Feb 2022)

Last updated 2 years ago

Was this helpful?

Along with GWWC, we tested marketing and messaging themes on Facebook in their Facebook Lead campaigns. Across four trials we compared the effectiveness of different types of (1) messages, (2) videos, and (3) targeted audiences.

A summary of this has been shared as a on the EA Forum:

We build the results and analysis transparently in the

Context: Facebook ads on a range of audiences

Objective: Test distinct aiming to get people to download our Giving Guide. A key comparison:

Also informative about costs and the 'value of targeting different groups' in this context.

Key findings:

  • The cost of an email address via a Facebook campaign during Giving Season was .

  • “Only 3% of people give effectively,” seems to be an effective message for generating link clicks and email addresses, relative to the other messages.

  • Lookalike and animal rights audiences seem to be the most promising audiences.

  • Demographics are not very predictive on a per-$ basis.

Key caveats

The outcome is 'click to download the giving guide'.

Previous writeup and results

... [with text and rich content promoting effective giving and a "giving guide" -- links people to asking for their email in exchange for the guide]

Specificity and interpretation: All comparisons are not for 'audiences of similar composition' but for 'the best audience Facebook could find to show the ads, within each group, according to its algorithm'. Thus, differences in performance may combine 'better targeting' with 'better performance on the targeted group'. See our . I.e., we can make statements about "what works better on Facebook in this context and maybe similar contexts", , as the targeting within each audience may differ in unobserved ways.

to the previous Gdoc report

🤝
a Giving What We Can page
discussion of the 'divergent delivery' problem HERE
Link
Effective Giving Guide
post
EAMT Analysis web-book here.
Marketing Messages Trial for GWWC Giving Guide Campaign - EA Forum
Logo