Can we come up with some effective ways to communicate what we have donated, which allow us to avoid the wrath of the egalitarian instinct?
This is the critical part.
Quick idea: You could create a “charity group” which would have membership, and would encourage people to give money to charity. The actual amounts of money given to specific causes would be publicly reported with members anonymized, like this: “In our group G, unspecified individuals donated to this cause the following amounts: X1, X2, X3.”
Your name would not be connected with the amount directly, but as a known member of the group you would still get some status indirectly. You could say: “My group supports a lot of causes, see here.” It does not sound as selfish as when you speak about yourself. Also, the total numbers would be more impressive (“I gave $100″ vs “our group of ten people gave $1000”).
Possible free-rider problem. Could be overcome by making the donations non-anonymous within the group, and anonymized only for the outside world. Or even anonymized for most of members (except those who do the accounting). For example as a member you precommit to give at least $X every year through the group, and this is verified. This information could also be made semi-known to the public (you don’t announce it too much, but it is in FAQ on your webpage).
If you are going to make a charity group anyway though, you might as well announce the name of the donor. The social pressures to donate will be higher if you announce the name of the donor, and as explained earlier the donor will not be punished by egalitarian instinct because the donor did not choose to have their name published in the public report—in fact the donor will get a higher status.
Could be overcome by making the donations non-anonymous within the group, and anonymized only for the outside world.
That could work! That way, you can tell outsiders “We are 20 people who raise a total of $10,000, will you help us?” It creates the feeling that everyone is donating, and doesn’t sound like boasting.
However, following the principles outlined above, within the group you wouldn’t want any anonymity at all (unless there is some hidden benefit to anonymity over plausibly-deniable publicity which you are seeing that I am not).
the donor will not be punished by egalitarian instinct because the donor did not choose to have their name published in the public report
I think this would work fine. I would probably put an emphasis in the report on the group first—start by speaking about common effort and how much the group did together; provide individual names and numbers at the bottom of the page, or as a sidebar on the right side of the page.
This is the critical part.
Quick idea: You could create a “charity group” which would have membership, and would encourage people to give money to charity. The actual amounts of money given to specific causes would be publicly reported with members anonymized, like this: “In our group G, unspecified individuals donated to this cause the following amounts: X1, X2, X3.”
Your name would not be connected with the amount directly, but as a known member of the group you would still get some status indirectly. You could say: “My group supports a lot of causes, see here.” It does not sound as selfish as when you speak about yourself. Also, the total numbers would be more impressive (“I gave $100″ vs “our group of ten people gave $1000”).
Possible free-rider problem. Could be overcome by making the donations non-anonymous within the group, and anonymized only for the outside world. Or even anonymized for most of members (except those who do the accounting). For example as a member you precommit to give at least $X every year through the group, and this is verified. This information could also be made semi-known to the public (you don’t announce it too much, but it is in FAQ on your webpage).
I think you just independently derived GWWC.
If you are going to make a charity group anyway though, you might as well announce the name of the donor. The social pressures to donate will be higher if you announce the name of the donor, and as explained earlier the donor will not be punished by egalitarian instinct because the donor did not choose to have their name published in the public report—in fact the donor will get a higher status.
That could work! That way, you can tell outsiders “We are 20 people who raise a total of $10,000, will you help us?” It creates the feeling that everyone is donating, and doesn’t sound like boasting.
However, following the principles outlined above, within the group you wouldn’t want any anonymity at all (unless there is some hidden benefit to anonymity over plausibly-deniable publicity which you are seeing that I am not).
I think this would work fine. I would probably put an emphasis in the report on the group first—start by speaking about common effort and how much the group did together; provide individual names and numbers at the bottom of the page, or as a sidebar on the right side of the page.