[Foundation-l] Attempt at a compromise (Re: Advertising)

Sat Dec 30 01:53:01 UTC 2006

On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/12/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 29/12/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How about sponsors get listed in the order of the percentage of their
> > > > net worth they contributed? So some guy who makes $15K a year and
> > > > donates $100 gets listed higher than some guy worth $6 billion who
> > > > donates $200K.
> > > > Yes, I recognize that's not actually feasible, but I think you get the idea.
> > > > You shouldn't get to pay to get higher placement on some donor list
> > > > just because you're richer.
>
> > > That idea has some heartwarming qualities, but it doesn't get us more
> > > of the cash. Because the second guy gave us more *we* can use than the
> > > first did. Which is, after all, the point of the exercise.
>
> > Ah, but there are more of the first guys.
>
>
> Yeah, but you need both. As I said earlier, donations almost always
> follow a power law, like Alexa ratings or whatever. And you don't get
> the first without the thank-yous, because they're used to them.
>
So let's retrain them. Don't charitable entrepeneurs want to break the
traditional paradigms?