As kbog has already expressed similar thoughts, I'm also quite concerned the description "superdonor" is quite offputting.

If at all, I'd prefer something that doesn't signal moral superiority as much, e.g. "'I've decided to donate 10% of my income - ask me why!". But in general I'm not particularly convinced that this is a good strategy at all.

(I also don't find the design very appealing.)

My gut reaction to this is pretty negative. I've considered donating to be a sort of obvious thing that you have to do if you don't want to be personally responsible for unnecessary death and suffering, and something that's expected rather than something that you can brag about. So seeing things promoted in this way strikes me as, well, shallow marketing. But don't get me wrong, I'm fine with marketing moral obligations if that's what it takes to get more people to give their money. I read somewhere else that you shouldn't fall prey to the fallacy of assuming that other people will think the same way that you do, so I shouldn't assume that other people will also have a negative reaction to this. If this works to convince more people to give their money then great, I'm all for it. My gut reaction is negative but my think-about-it reaction is not. I hope I'm not derailing the conversation or the spirit of your project, I'm just giving you my data point as an example of how some people might have negative psychological reactions.

But how do you think the average person might view this? I thought it was pretty straightforward that people are disturbed and made uncomfortable by other people's signalling of moral superiority. That's why people get bothered by vegans and altruists, even if they're not bragging at all, just because they are made uncomfortable and feel inferior in the presence of do-gooders.

Moreover, I can imagine plenty of EA critics using this as a great example of philanthropy becoming a cultural fetish that gives people psychological rationalization to dodge personal responsibility for participation in capitalism and avoiding systemic change. It plays right into the hands of Zizek et al. But I haven't heard much from that crowd lately, so I don't know if they're still relevant.

I personally don't care for the design whatsoever but certainly agree with spreading the word through some form of apparel that sparks curiosity. I think that something more empowering would be a better approach. The EA logo is a great design - I like the idea of black or white shirts with the EA logo and some sort of message like " Do Good Better". I'd be happy to mock something up if you have a hi-res photo of the EA logo.

I agree with many of the comments here, so I won't beat a dead horse. But one thing that no one mentioned is that there have been concerns about diversity in EA. If you choose to use images of people in advertising (of any kind), it's nice to represent more diverse demographics. :)

As anecdotal as it gets, but running a booth at the Vegan Summer Festival in Berlin I got the feeling that this “behold your tremendous power to change the world” rhetoric worked best from among a few spontaneous ideas I had as a first hook to get people’s attention.