We often mistake stylistic polish for substantive competence. A tech company's slick website is the work of designers, not engineers. Similarly, a charity's beautiful website reflects marketing skill, not its ability to effectively deliver interventions. The two skill sets are distinct and should not be conflated during evaluation.
When a business gets high visibility but low conversions, the impulse is to blame the platform or marketing tactic (the 'sink'). However, the real issue is often the core offering—the product, pricing, or value proposition (the 'well'). People obsess over front-end fixes when the back-end is the actual problem.
Organizations mistakenly conflate visibility with value. The skills for self-promotion—taking credit and controlling narratives—are fundamentally different from those of actual leadership, which involve empowering others. This confusion leads to promoting the best self-promoters, not the best leaders.
Customers often rate a service higher if they believe significant effort was expended—a concept called the "illusion of effort." Even if a faster, automated process yields the same result, framing the delivery around the effort invested in creating the system can boost perceived quality.
Don't judge a charity's effectiveness by its website. An Indian charity, Bandhan, had a 90s-era website but an evidence-based program praised by Nobel laureates. Organizations excellent at impact delivery may be poor at marketing, presenting an opportunity for diligent donors to find undervalued opportunities.
Marketing is an accompaniment to a great operations team, not a replacement. If your company culture, leadership, or service delivery is weak, increasing your marketing spend will only expose and accelerate those foundational flaws. You must fix the core business before scaling marketing efforts.
Block's CTO argues that engineers mistakenly equate code quality with product success. He uses the example of early YouTube, which had a famously poor architecture but became wildly successful, while the technically superior Google Video failed. The focus should be on solving a user problem, not on perfect code.
Technical founders often mistakenly believe the best product wins. In reality, marketing and sales acumen are more critical for success. Many multi-million dollar companies have succeeded with products considered clunky or complex, purely through superior distribution and sales execution.
Preventing a problem, like malaria, is often more effective than curing it, but it creates a marketing challenge. It's difficult to tell a compelling story about a child who *didn't* get sick. This "identifiable victim" bias means funds often flow to less effective but more narratively satisfying interventions.
A charity like Make-A-Wish can demonstrably create value, even exceeding its costs in healthcare savings. However, the same donation could save multiple lives elsewhere, illustrating the stark opportunity costs in charitable giving. Effective philanthropy requires comparing good options, not just identifying them.
Unlike efficient markets, the charitable sector often rewards organizations with the best storytelling, not those delivering the most value. This lack of a feedback loop between a donation and its real-world impact means incentives are misaligned, favoring persuasion over proven effectiveness.