Contexts allowing individual randomization & tracking of medium-term outcomes
GWWC web site at point of email signup
Email lists
immediate: subject headers w/ 'open rates' as dependent variable
Contexts for 'Immediate outcomes' (clicks etc)
Facebook; But the targeting algorithm may frustrate randomization. (see .) Can it be switched off?
Contexts allowing
See
This is helpful if the important outcomes can be tracked by ZIP code/post code/address.
Online display advertising
Google search
YouTube
Testing Rich Content
How to test rich content?
We can use some of the same strategies as above to test "rich content", i.e., short or even long talks, book chapters, podcasts, and so forth.
However, we may also want richer more detailed 'qualitative' feedback...
Paid participants may allow richer feedback (see )
Emails might be an opportunity
What to test in 'rich content'
Does the messenger matter?
Does the messenger demographics and appearance matter?
Message customization (heterogeneity and targeted marketing)
We haven’t thought about this much but it seems important – it might be worth, for example, having different messaging for different cause areas and letting them be algorithmically targeted.
Imagery/non-content considerations
How many images to include on a page?
How much text to include in a page?
Targeting
See also
Question: If our aim is to change the culture of giving in general, what kind of people should we be targeting?
Influencers (People with lots of social influence)
Low-hanging fruit (i.e., people who are naturally predisposed towards effective giving, pledging, & EA)
Idea: Compare different outreach methods on the basis of "cost per pledge" (or per "whatever-metric-we-use"). (Outcomes: ... & ... )
Ideas/methods for targeting: platforms and audiences
Some audiences and approaches to targeting
Public lists of political donations (e.g, )
... donors to candidates sympathetic to a relevant cause area
medium-term: all outcomes tied to email
LinkedIn
Facebook (presumably)
Surveys with professional participants
Surveys with undergraduates
Here generalizability may be a challenge, particularly extending inference from convenience samples to larger and more general populations. "Might be good to think of creative ways of doing that though, e.g., looking at which content creates the most extreme enthusiasm."
Does it depend on the audience?
What’s the optimal length?
How many buttons?
How many choice options?
The 'mysterious sauce' ... JS knows about (Video ads/Best-practice guidelines)... we don't always have a "theory" but it might be meaningful.
Internet activity ... those who watch/read/search for:
Videos relevant to a cause area
Reddit threads relevant to a cause area
Magazines/news sites relevant to a cause area
Search/visiting webpages about charity effectiveness/merit (e.g., Charity Navigator) đź‘Ť
Education
Courses/degrees/majors relevant to a cause area
(e.g., development econ/studies, animal behavior, AI)
People at high-status institutions (future influencers/policymakers)
Exploiting social network structure
Targeting "influencers" and "central" people (on the basis of "number of followers" / friends / etc.)
Key search terms (google 'effective giving' etc)
Podcast listeners (philanthropy, economics, development & global health ...)