I guess I would revise my comment to be more modest in its proposition.
 

One part of what the OP is saying is that increased funding for animal welfare by EA would result in greater pushback against EA in general for putting resources toward something it considers strange or weird or otherwise contrary to their values.

I'm saying that the effect of this "EA is weird for prioritizing Animal Welfare" would probably be less than the effect of the better messaging, communication, and marketing, that the money would enable. So the net effect of more money in animal welfare (assuming prudent communications and marketing spend in the deployment) would be better public perception of EA rather than worse.

You're right that the underlying perceptions and views are unlikely to be adequately addressed even if all the $200 mil was going to marketing, but with a prudent portion of it going there, I would anticipate the net effect on public perception of EA to be positive rather than negative.

The challenges you've identified regarding the shift from global health to animal welfare—such as resistance, politicization, and cultural insensitivity—largely stem from insufficient communication, which can be significantly improved with more funding. By investing in effective messaging strategies, we can make animal welfare interventions more relatable and acceptable to the broader public, thereby increasing their popularity and impact. Moreover, the Effective Altruism community risks reputational damage by advocating for animal welfare without adequately investing in public communication; without a strong messaging system, we may alienate potential supporters and undermine our efforts. Therefore, allocating more resources to both animal welfare initiatives and their communication is crucial—not only to address these concerns but also to enhance the movement's credibility and ensure our interventions are both effective and well-received.

Hi Ian, 
 

In the case of our current agent, he receives 45% of the annualized premiums as a commission. If he gets high enough sales, with where he currently works, his commission percentage of annualized premiums could go as high as 80%. We also are open to working with other independent insurance agents who get commissions percentages that are a larger portion of annualized premiums than that.

But even at the current rate, a purchase can translate into a rather significant donation, in the hundreds, or even thousands of dollars, without costing the buyer anything more for the same policy.

Regarding auditing/verification intend to give the person who bought the policy documentation showing the donation corresponding with their purchase of insurance. We also intend to periodically indicate how much in donations has been made through all of our programs to charity recipients.

We would be open to further auditing, of course, as would be consistent with the privacy rights of buyers.

On the question of costs, these could be reduced dramatically if there were a central, updated hub that informed people about opportunities, ideally linked from the EA Forum or otherwise made conspicuously available to EAs or those aligned with similar cause areas. I vaguely recall efforts like this in the past, but having an easily accessible and conspicuous organization of opportunities is critical to reducing search costs. It's somewhat surprising that something like this hasn't already been fully implemented and maintained, given the significant reduction in effort and resources it would imply.

Thanks for thinking of us  @david_reinstein! 

Right now, we're focused on gathering information about Profit for Good businesses. Down the line, we’re definitely interested in compiling a guide of individuals or businesses that might offer favorable terms to Profit for Good enterprises, especially those benefiting effective charities. However, at the moment, we don’t have the capacity to work on compiling and developing this list.

Yes, both talks are on the same concept of Profit for Good.

I don't think either makes direct reference to the Profit for Good Initiative.

The issue with support roles is that it's often difficult to assess when someone in that position truly makes a counterfactual difference. These roles can be essential but not always obviously irreplaceable. In contrast, it's much easier to argue that without the initiator or visionary, the program might never have succeeded in the first place (or at least might have been delayed significantly). Similarly, funders who provide critical resources—especially when alternative funding isn't available—may also be in a position where their absence would mean failure.

This perspective challenges a more egalitarian view of credit distribution. It suggests that while support roles are crucial, it's often the key figures—initiators, visionaries, and funders—who are more irreplaceable, and thus more deserving of disproportionate recognition. This may be controversial, but it reflects the reality that some contributions, particularly at the outset, might make all the difference in whether a project can succeed at all.

I think I considered it prior to the enumerated portion, where I'd said

"it would be valuable to see an analysis—perhaps there’s something like this on 80,000 Hours—of the types of roles where having an EA as opposed to a non-EA would significantly increase counterfactual impact."

I agree that the "high autonomy and lack of ability to oversee or otherwise measure achievement of objectives" would be a reason that having EAs in the role might be better. The scope of jobs in this category is not clear.

There may have been an overcorrection and I still think ETG is a good default option - the scarcity of "EA jobs" and frequent posts lamenting the difficulty of getting jobs at EA orgs as an EA suggests that there is no shortage of EAs looking to fill roles for which close alignment is critical. Especially in the animal welfare EA space - everyone wants to be doing direct work and so little funding to enable excellent work. There may be more of an "aligned talent constraint" problem in AI Safety.

I didn't neglect it - I specifically raised the question of in what conditions EAs occupying roles within orgs vs non-EAs adds substantial value. You assume that having EAs in (all?) roles is critical to having a "focused" org. I think this assumption warrants scrutiny, and there may be many roles in orgs for which "identifying as an EA" may not be important and that using it as a requirement could result in neglecting a valuable talent pool.

Additionally, a much wider pool of people could align with the specific mission of an org that don't identify as EA.