EA - A robust earning to give ecosystem is better for EA by abrahamrowe

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A robust earning to give ecosystem is better for EA, published by abrahamrowe on November 11, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.(Written in a personal capacity, and not representing either my current employer or former one)In 2016, I founded Utility Farm, and later merged it with Wild-Animal Suffering Research (founded by Persis Eskander) to formWild Animal Initiative. Wild Animal Initiative is, by my estimation, a highly successful research organization.The current Wild Animal Initiative staff deserve all the credit for where they have taken the organization, but I'm incredibly proud that I got to be involved early in the establishment of a new field of study, wild animal welfare science, and to see the tiny organization I started in an apartment with a few hundred dollars go on to be recommended by ACE as a Top Charity for 4 years in a row. In my opinion, Wild Animal Initiative has become, under the stewardship of more capable people than I, the single best bet for unlocking interventions that could tackle the vast majority of animal suffering.Unlike most EA charities today, Utility Farm didn't launch with a big grant from Open Philanthropy, Survival and Flourish Foundation, or EA Funds. There was no bet made by a single donor on a promising idea. I launched Utility Farm with my own money, which I spent directly on the project. I was making around $35,000 a year at the time working at a nonprofit, and spending maybe $300 a month on the project.Then one day, a donor completely changed the trajectory of the organization by giving us around $500. It's weird looking at that event through the lens of current EA funding levels - it was a tiny bet, but it took the organization from being a side project that was cash-strapped and completely reliant on my energy and time to an organization that could actually purchase some supplies or hire a contractor for a project.From there, a few more donors gave us a few thousand dollars each. These funds weren't enough to hire staff or do anything substantial, but they provided a lifeline for the organization, allowing us to run our first real research projects and to publish our work online.In 2018, we ran our first major fundraiser. We received several donations of a few thousand dollars, and (if I recall correctly) one gift of $20,000. Soon after,EA Funds granted us $40,000. We could then hire staff for the first time, and make tangible progress toward our mission.As small as these funds were in the scheme of things, for Utility Farm, they felt sustainable. We didn't have one donor - we had a solid base of maybe 50 supporters, and no single individual dominated our funding. Our largest donor changing their mind about our work would have been a major disappointment, but not a financial catastrophe. Fundraising was still fairly easy - we weren't trying to convince thousands of people to give $25.Instead, fundraising consisted of checking in with a few dozen people, sending some emails, and holding some calls. Most of the "fundraising" was the organization doing impactful work, not endless donor engagement.I now work at a much larger EA organization with around 100x the revenue and 30x the staff. Oddly, we don't have that many more donors than Utility Farm did back then - maybe around 2-4 times as many small donors, and about the same number giving more than $1,000.This probably varies between organizations - I have a feeling that many organizations doing more direct work than Rethink Priorities have many more donors - but most EA organizations seem to have strikingly few mid-sized donors (e.g., individuals who give maybe $1,000 - $25,000).Often, organizations will have a large cohort of small donors, giving maybe $25-$100, and then they'll have 2-3 (or even just 1) giant donors, collectively giving 95%+ of the organi...