As to the cocaine and hookers: I know you’re joking, but when I used a personal beeminder-like anti-akrasia strategy, which was 100% charity, I worried about this issue, and found that it was not a problem in practice.
I think your rationalizations for being the main beneficiary are reasonable. I do not think that they justify you being the only beneficiary.
How about this: allow people to add a “charity tip percentage” on top of their BeeMinder money. For instance, if I chose 100%, and I was due to pay $5, you’d charge me $10 and give half to charity. That way, you get the same money (except for the extra deterrent of the higher total), and I get to choose what percentage goes to charity. You also get interesting data about how much people value the idea of some of their money going to charity.
You could start with limited options for the charities—a diverse menu of a dozen good charities would have something for anyone.
I suspect I’d set my percentage somewhere in the 100-200% range. That is, of the total, I would want 50-67% to go to charity.
Once you had data on what numbers people tended to choose, you could experiment with defaults.
I suspect that this would really help you grow. You’d really rather be saying “we’ve helped raise $XXXX for charity” than trying not to talk about it. And since you are in a market where price is not a problem, you can afford to be somewhat generous.
ps. the “paid” graph is plenty of info for me on how you spend your money :)
pps. I admit that the idea that I’d be willing to have the money be about 50⁄50 between you and charity may be strongly subject to anchoring effect. Having now looked at stickk.com, I feel a tendency to want to reduce your share. It is entirely possible that you’d make more money overall with a stickk.com-like model. Above all, you need data, and you can’t get data unless you somehow provide options.
As to the cocaine and hookers: I know you’re joking, but when I used a personal beeminder-like anti-akrasia strategy, which was 100% charity, I worried about this issue, and found that it was not a problem in practice.
I think your rationalizations for being the main beneficiary are reasonable. I do not think that they justify you being the only beneficiary.
How about this: allow people to add a “charity tip percentage” on top of their BeeMinder money. For instance, if I chose 100%, and I was due to pay $5, you’d charge me $10 and give half to charity. That way, you get the same money (except for the extra deterrent of the higher total), and I get to choose what percentage goes to charity. You also get interesting data about how much people value the idea of some of their money going to charity.
You could start with limited options for the charities—a diverse menu of a dozen good charities would have something for anyone.
I suspect I’d set my percentage somewhere in the 100-200% range. That is, of the total, I would want 50-67% to go to charity.
Once you had data on what numbers people tended to choose, you could experiment with defaults.
I suspect that this would really help you grow. You’d really rather be saying “we’ve helped raise $XXXX for charity” than trying not to talk about it. And since you are in a market where price is not a problem, you can afford to be somewhat generous.
ps. the “paid” graph is plenty of info for me on how you spend your money :)
pps. I admit that the idea that I’d be willing to have the money be about 50⁄50 between you and charity may be strongly subject to anchoring effect. Having now looked at stickk.com, I feel a tendency to want to reduce your share. It is entirely possible that you’d make more money overall with a stickk.com-like model. Above all, you need data, and you can’t get data unless you somehow provide options.
This is really smart. Thanks! I’d like to get this recorded on our uservoice page: http://uservoice.beeminder.com
If you want to copy it there, by all means, otherwise I’ll do so in a couple days.
Thanks again!