> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://globalimpact.gitbook.io/untitled/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://globalimpact.gitbook.io/untitled/partners-contexts-trials/gwwc/giving-guides-+.md).

# Giving guides - Facebook

Along with GWWC, we tested marketing and messaging themes on Facebook in their [Effective Giving Guide](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/giving-guide) 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 [post](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/nhbeKbwMgFKfrzLNb/marketing-messages-trial-for-gwwc-giving-guide-campaign) on the EA Forum:

{% embed url="<https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/nhbeKbwMgFKfrzLNb/marketing-messages-trial-for-gwwc-giving-guide-campaign>" %}

We build the results and analysis transparently in the [EAMT Analysis web-book here.](https://daaronr.github.io/eamt_data_analysis/chapters/gwwc_gg.html)

## Summary[^1]

**Context**: Facebook ads on a range of audiences&#x20;

... \[with text and rich content promoting effective giving and a "giving guide" -- links people to [a Giving What We Can page](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/giving-guide) asking for their email in exchange for the guide]

**Objective**: Test distinct [approaches to messaging,](#user-content-fn-2)[^2] aiming to get people to download our Giving Guide. A key comparison: ["Charity research facts" vs. "cause focus".](#user-content-fn-3)[^3]

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 [**as low as $8.00** across campaigns](#user-content-fn-4)[^4].
* “***Only 3% of people give effectively***,” seems to be an effective message for generating link clicks and email addresses, relative to the other messages.
* Lookalike and animal rights audiences seem to be the most promising audiences.
* Demographics are *not* very predictive on a per-$ basis.

#### **Key caveats**

**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 [discussion of the 'divergent delivery' problem HERE](https://effective-giving-marketing.gitbook.io/untitled/methodological-discussion/splits-randomization/facebook-split-testing-etc). I.e., we can make statements about "what works better on Facebook in this context and maybe similar contexts", [but not about "which audience, as defined, is more receptive"](#user-content-fn-5)[^5], as the targeting *within* each audience may differ in unobserved ways.&#x20;

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

<details>

<summary>Previous writeup and results</summary>

[**Link**](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FfrXhD1YAIjrATy9PR6ScP20NMQa82sd80YvMb62iUQ/edit?usp=sharing) **to the previous Gdoc report**

</details>

[^1]: This follows the [Trial reporting template](/untitled/marketing-and-testing-opportunities-tools-tips/trial-reporting-template.md), edited slightly for public reading.

[^2]: Worked with a creative agency to develop a set of animated video ads, with differing texts Note this had several 'versions' during the campaign (see 'Test 1 - Test 4').

[^3]: Previously, and in Grace's presentation, these were called "emotional and factual" approaches.

[^4]: And we believe it could be lower with more/better targeting

[^5]: Nor about "which message works better on a particular comparable audience" (for the same reason).


---

# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.

## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.

Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter:

```
GET https://globalimpact.gitbook.io/untitled/partners-contexts-trials/gwwc/giving-guides-+.md?ask=<question>&goal=<endgoal>
```

`ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
`goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal.

The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.

Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.