Hi Toby, the CCF is not eligible for UK gift aid, I'm afraid, as it's a US-held fund, so donations are tax-deductible in the US only.
We're actively looking into workarounds. Theoretically, one can give to a giving vehicle eligible for UK gift aid, and that entity could then re-grant to this fund. Anyone interested can contact us at [email protected] to discuss options.

Thank you, Sarah!

Thanks so much, Marcus, on behalf of the Team :) 

Dear Frances, 
Some personal thoughts on this: 
First, I am so sorry this happened to you. This is extremely bad, and it was horribly handled! 
Most of all, thank you for having the courage to write this post, but also for an extremely good analysis of the community, of what could have been better, of patterns that repeat. I am impressed by how on-point, clear, and well-thought-out all of your observations are! It is exactly what needed to be said!
Please remember about those in the community who are on your side, because we want not only to do good, but also to be good! Don't know what else to say. Thank you for sharing this. 
Huge lesson for us all!

I hope you got apologies from the people who circulated the document. Seriously, guys, 11 people, have you ever heard of ethics? 
 
Anyways, @Julia_Wise🔸 @Catherine Low🔸 @Charlotte Darnell @Lisanne van den Bosch @Marta Strzyga 🔸, can you make sure the person who harassed Frances is no longer part of this space and EAG events? We're a community for doing good, not harm; as an independently confirmed harasser, they clearly don't belong here. I hope this is obvious.

I don't know, as I'm not very familiar with EA's AI side. I guess, for AI, the pathway is very specialized and only for extremely skilled individuals who can get into these highly competitive programs and become the very best in them. There is a huge chunk of EAs interested in working in other cause areas, and for that, I am unsure whether we have anything good. I'd love AIM to create this kind of program, but it's not its role in the ecosystem. We have EA courses run by CEA, but I've heard many complaints about the recent ones, so I am not optimistic they'll add much value, especially for experienced professionals who want to switch careers, rather than very EA-ingrained students, for whom they will be easier. 

Some lose thoughts around this: 
1) There are not enough people is correct if you understand it as "enough people with the right fit, for the jobs currently on offer" - so there can be thousands of candidates, but only a small percentage fit the very specific criteria. 
2) I doubt there is a good way to communicate this and not deter candidates, and therefore lose the chance to find those great people the charities need.
3) The current problem is the lack of good training programs in impact-focused thinking, so it's hard for people with tons of experience and great credentials to get to the required EA-ness stage (impact-focused mindset, landscape familiarity) quickly enough to get the positions on offer, when they join EA. 
4) Yes, most of us should be doing earning to give, because there is not enough opportunities, why some of us, that can handle the stress and pressure of launching new projects, should create opportunities for ourselves. 
5) Noone have mentioned that an organization can only scale if it's cost-effective, and to keep being cost-effective, it can't just absorb talent because we want to have jobs. Too many hires and you're spending much more than you're creating in impact, which should not be the case.
6) The other thing is that scaling is very hard, and we don't have a lot of expertise in the movement on how to do it right, while remaining cost-effective. So this expertise is developing slowly, but not fast enough to create many opportunities. 
7) Another bottleneck is people management experience. This is also a lacking skill in EA, so I can see why people will be slow and careful about hiring to ensure a good culture fit and maintain equilibrium within teams.
8) You are right that insane salaries should be used differently; there should be no insane salaries in our movement, CEOs/directors should not be paid much, much more than other people in the team. I think this is the case in charities I worked/work for, like Ambitious Impact, Rethink Priorities. There are no huge gaps between employees and leadership, as we all create the impact together. 
9) There are some organizations trying to address talent gaps, e.g., IAPS has fellowships, AIM has research fellowships, AIM has an incubation program, RP is fiscally sponsoring new impactful projects that people want to launch. AIM helped create "Effective Spenden" - like orgs in various countries. This is all absorbing some talent, but obviously not enough.
10) This is why I think we need to birng back earning to give, but ensure earning to givers have local communitis, where they can meet with like-manded individuals, and this is proerly fostered, so that they feel needed, they have connection with the impact they are creating etc.

I wish, though, that it would not matter to people if they're vegan, because the whole point is to show non-vegans that they can also do something good for farmed animals, without having to change their diet. So, in the future, I would hope that the pro-animal movement will have mostly non-vegans as members, because there are so few vegans, and so much to do. How will we drive top talent to work for animals, if we expect them to be vegan to run pro-animal campaigns, so that other advocates have a feeling they are the right people to do it? That's very alienating for potential allies to this cause, but I understand why you said that. Just don't think they have to be vegan at all, and that these high expectations are good to have. 

"The wider world tends to have allergic reactions to 'controlled opposition'" - I am unsure. In Poland, one of the most popular marketing campaigns is when one grocery chain is trashing the other - obviously this has been agreed, and Lidl is not suing Biedronka, or Biedronka Lidl, and people really love it :) BMW vs. Audi, Pepsi vs. Coca Cola - also did well globally. So I am unsure if what you say is correct. 

Personally, I admire your integrity and willingness to write this post, despite very strong attacks (not constructive criticism) you endured for thinking outside the box and trying something more risky, which marketing specialists in commercial markets do all the time. This point, I think, is missed. In marketing, controversial campaigns are very common; sometimes they succeed, sometimes they totally fail; it's normal. One of the most successful campaigns in Poland is one big grocery chain -  Lidl, fighting with the other big chain - Biedronka, or I think there is this exchange between two car brands, where one disses the other in commercials. You literally wanted to try a classic marketing strategy that works for the richest brands in the world. I don't think there was anything wrong with the ToC to start with. 

I also don't think you could predict how big the wave of criticism will be. I have been in the animal movement for 25 years, 25 of those vegan as well, and yet I thought the intentions behind this campaign would be much clearer to fellow advocates. It turned out that our community was absolutely not ready for something like that, despite, as I said, it being a classical marketing strategy, and despite the goal being to help animals via counterfactual donations (donations that would not otherwise happen without this specific campaign, potentially coming from non-vegans).

I think the momentum for this campaign was stolen from you, so you could never really finish the ToC and see whether it would have been successful if you were not blocked by the movement. You getting donations is very interesting - as James mentions here, would this not suggest that there are some people who actually decided to donate because of the campaign? But the result obviously was much less than you probably had in mind. Still, it seems like you have not lost any money, and there might be some positive effects for Veganuary as well. 

I agree, the planning could be better, but it seems to me that with $3.3 million raised in 2025, a 2.94x counterfactual multiplier, and a 13.27x non-counterfactual, Farmkind is really in a good position to take risks and make mistakes. 

So good <3 Thanks so much!