This is a really good point. The goal of both Wren and COTAP is to have the most impact solving climate change. Having the most impact doesn't have to mean you charge the lowest fee - but it does mean removing the most amount of CO2. If charging a higher fee gives Wren a change to reach millions and get them to pay more where COTAP is still tiny and have one-time donations that is a strong argument for why a different model is needed here
COTAP here... Thanks to thisjustinm for getting us into the conversation : )
Not to rain on the parade here, just a cautionary tale that is intended to be helpful...
I would say take a look at Cool Effect which launched in early 2016. Charity at a glance, but it's also a bottomless-pocketed family from Marin. It cuts itself checks from the Overlook Intl Foundation, run by the same people. Both orgs have same CEO. All fine...
But look at the 990s... They have thrown the kitchen sink at this and have probably dumped $10+ million by now. $800K+ in PR and marketing before they even launched.
Yet they've only sold well under 1 million tonnes over 3 years. In other words, back of the envelope they've lost $9 per tonne, even when being a charitable donation.
Also, divide their 838,715 cumulative tonnes noted on their home page by their 533,115 cumulative members. 1.57 tonnes/member over 3 years, or a half tonne per member per year. Not anywhere close to the average US footprint.
Half the country doesn't believe in climate change, or it's not a priority, or is living paycheck to paycheck, or all of the above. Offsetting is not anywhere on the horizon of their hierarchy of needs. Offsetting is complex, misunderstood, and controversial (see our op-ed's n TheHill.com for a taste).
When you finally get beyond those nesting subsets, there's enough market size to go around in theory but it's extremely competitive.
I hope my answer didn't come off as ignorant to the COTAP story - I'm sorry if it did.
Thanks for sharing the backstory on Cool Effect. Their effort on marketing to me also reflect the type of marketing that don't work. After spending 5 years at the growth team of Airbnb I'm more convinced than ever that marketing have to have strong ROI that can be measured. If it does, it's an excellent way of growing something. And because of Google and Facebook's dominance, more and more this is becoming one of the very few ways to go really big. I know Wren isn't spending money on marketing yet but having a foundation where that is possible is a great chance to make a really big impact.
I totally agree that educating the rest of the country and policy etc are the top priorities but at the same time you have millions of individuals who want to take individual action but don't know exactly what to do. Both you and Wren seems like great options for them to be involved.
One thing that might help is if we publish all of our spending online in a transparent way. There are probably legal/accounting considerations we'd need there but I'd imagine it would be safe to post that after each year.
So far, we have spent less than $200 on marketing and PR, mostly to test Google Ads. We realized pretty quickly google ads weren't effective so we shut them off. Since we're setup as a business we can't afford to lose money on each ton.
They're a 501(c)3 private foundation, similar to a 501(c)3 public charity like COTAP. This makes offsetting contributions tax-deductible. The point is by making it tax-deductible, along with other things like helping folks offset monthly, they've already tried to make it as compelling and easy as possible to offset, but no dice relative to time/effort/$ put in. Similar to StandforTrees.org. I'm basically saying I don't think Wren is different enough, other than charging higher margins, something not in their favor. It is good they're transparent about margins, but that's not unique either.
