I don’t think there has been any time in history where a single click had the potential to do so much good, and the disbelief that this is possible is the main thing that our viral campaign would have to overcome.
THEN DON’T PUT FORWARD THAT MATH.
People can readily understand putting an ad on craigslist for charity, and can get that it will make lots of money, and that craigslist will do it if enough people want them to.
You’ve worked out that you can present that case in a different, mathy, and incredible sounding way. Don’t.
I think the incredible conclusion could work if done right. “Incredible but true: Generate $20,000 for charity with just a few clicks! (Details inside.)”
That sounds even more suspicious. Generally taking something suspicious and then adding a phrase like “this seems suspicious, but it actually is true!” is a sure fire way to increase suspicion even further.
I don’t quite understand the passion in the objection. Even when things are already know, sometimes speaking of them can be useful. This is especially the case when things are put into perspective.
Now, I might object that the math put forward was based off highly dubious assumptions. In particular, the 50,000 facebook clickers doesn’t sound believable to me. I have no idea about the$1,000,000,000 number. But if I actually accepted those premises then putting out the figure $20,000 per person would be useful. People don’t naturally make that sort of calculation, even in an approximate way. $1b is just ‘big number’ and 50,000 looks pretty much like a big number too. So if the premises were right I would say get that math out there as clearly as possible. Emphasise the conclusion ($20,000 per person) and not the working out.
THEN DON’T PUT FORWARD THAT MATH.
People can readily understand putting an ad on craigslist for charity, and can get that it will make lots of money, and that craigslist will do it if enough people want them to.
You’ve worked out that you can present that case in a different, mathy, and incredible sounding way. Don’t.
I think the incredible conclusion could work if done right. “Incredible but true: Generate $20,000 for charity with just a few clicks! (Details inside.)”
That sounds even more suspicious. Generally taking something suspicious and then adding a phrase like “this seems suspicious, but it actually is true!” is a sure fire way to increase suspicion even further.
I don’t quite understand the passion in the objection. Even when things are already know, sometimes speaking of them can be useful. This is especially the case when things are put into perspective.
Now, I might object that the math put forward was based off highly dubious assumptions. In particular, the 50,000 facebook clickers doesn’t sound believable to me. I have no idea about the$1,000,000,000 number. But if I actually accepted those premises then putting out the figure $20,000 per person would be useful. People don’t naturally make that sort of calculation, even in an approximate way. $1b is just ‘big number’ and 50,000 looks pretty much like a big number too. So if the premises were right I would say get that math out there as clearly as possible. Emphasise the conclusion ($20,000 per person) and not the working out.