Began a pay-on-results coaching experiment, made $40,300 since July

post by Chipmonk · 2024-12-29T21:12:02.574Z · LW · GW · 15 comments

This is a link post for https://chrislakin.blog/p/began-pay-on-results

Contents

    This post has been completely rewritten: 
  The case for pay-on-results coaching  
None
15 comments

Previously: Pay-on-results personal growth: first success [LW · GW]

To validate my research, I began offering pay-on-results coaching in July. Clients have paid $40,300 so far upon achieving their goals.

This post has been completely rewritten: 

The case for pay-on-results coaching [LW · GW] 
 

15 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by ChristianKl · 2024-12-30T17:42:58.383Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

A rationalist interjects: “You should make public predictions about this stuff!” Idk, should I? What should I make predictions about? About whether individual cases succeed, or some broader trends? I'm not sure if it’s worth my time. I really like $ as a metric, not sure what the predictions add. Very open to being convinced here!

Predictions about individual cases would be great. Whenever you take a deposit write down the condition for the bounty being paid out, the amount of the bounty, and your self-assessed likelihood of the person paying the bounty in the following twelve months to you into a public Google Sheet. Maybe, add another row for "time-spent with the person".

The exercise about thinking beforehand about how likely you will solve the issue for the person is useful for you to understand your method better. It also help informing potential customers well about what they can expect from your service. 

Finally, it would be great to have a one-year follow-up after a bounty is paid and that information also added to the Google Sheet.

Replies from: Chipmonk
comment by Chipmonk · 2024-12-30T17:50:45.217Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

oh ok i might start doing that. knowing my calibration on that would be nice

comment by jimmy · 2024-12-31T19:27:42.066Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

What are the failure rates? So, I would love to share data on the cases I haven’t (yet) been able to help… but I don’t know how?

1) How many cumulative hours have you spent on things where there has been no success and you guys aren't working together anymore on the issue? How does this compare to the number of hours which have resulted in success, and the number where the result is tbd? How many hours have resulted in partial or incremental success, without meeting agreed upon win criteria?

2) Of those where someone bailed how many times did they bail and how many times did you bail? There's some ambiguity here, but probably manageable. If you don't expect to hear back (e.g. because it's been two months), then count it as a bail. If you suggest that their problem isn't in your wheel house and they say "okay" rather than asking to try anyway, I'd count that one as on you.

3) To what extent have you "failed" because the initial goal turned out to be meaningfully mis-specified? E.g. someone wants to be more socially active in a certain group, only to realize their aversion to socializing in that group is actually well grounded, and they no longer want to achieve their initial goal?

4) To what extent have you caused problems by being too successful for the specified goal? E.g. The person actually ends up active in that social circle before realizing that they've been wasting their time doing so. Or maybe you help someone be more secure and they're happy for it, but it did lead to them losing a relationship when they spoke a little too freely.

comment by Chipmonk · 2024-12-30T01:15:23.431Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

wow this is contraversial (my own vote is +6) 

wonder why

Replies from: AllAmericanBreakfast
comment by DirectedEvolution (AllAmericanBreakfast) · 2024-12-30T18:04:38.248Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I upvoted for the novelty of a rationalist trying a bounty based career. But also this halfway reads as an advertisement for your life coaching service. I wouldn’t want to see much more in that direction.

Replies from: Chipmonk
comment by Chipmonk · 2024-12-30T18:16:13.946Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

made some light edits because of this comment, thanks

comment by Matt Goldenberg (mr-hire) · 2024-12-29T21:55:53.773Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Amazing! This may have convinced me to go from "pay what you think it was worth" per session, to precommiting to what a particular achievement would be worth like you do here.

Replies from: Chipmonk
comment by Chipmonk · 2024-12-30T01:16:19.712Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

:D i really hope bounties catch on

comment by gw · 2024-12-29T21:43:03.615Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Please, tell me what metric I should use here!

Is it feasible to just generate a bunch of such metrics, with details about what was included or not included in a particular number, and share all of them?

Replies from: Chipmonk
comment by Chipmonk · 2024-12-30T01:18:30.880Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

could you give a few examples? 

also seems time-intensive hmmmm

also, i thought about it more and i really like the metric of "results generated per hour"

Replies from: gw
comment by gw · 2024-12-30T15:53:41.381Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think you've already given several examples:

Should I count the people I spoke to for 15 minutes for free at the imbue potlucks? That was year-changing for at least one. But if I count them I have to count all of the free people ever, even those who were uninvested. Then people will respond “Okok, how many bounties have you taken on?” Ok sure, but should I include the people who I told “Your case is not my specialty, idk if i’ll be able to help, but I'm interested in trying for a few hours if you’re into it”? Should I include the people who had an amazing session or two but haven’t communicated in two months? Should I include the people who are being really unagentic and slow?

It would already be informative if you put numbers on each of these questions (i.e. "how often does talking for 15 minutes accomplish something", "how many bounties have you taken on in/outside of your specialty", "what percent of your clients are 'unagentic and slow' (and what does this actually mean)"). Probably one could do much better by generating several metrics that one would expect to be most useful (or top N%tile useful) and share each of them.

Replies from: Chipmonk
comment by Chipmonk · 2024-12-30T17:27:55.988Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

oh ok hm. i also don't want to be incentivized to not give easy-for-me help to people with low odds of success though

Replies from: pandamonium
comment by pandamonium · 2024-12-31T00:41:49.889Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Disclaimer : I would not pay and want to pay that much money anyway - so I am not your intended audience

I'd trust you more (and I would think members of the rationalist community would too) if you gave several metrics, even if some of them are not so good, with explanations. Right now, it seems you chose a metric so that it looks good.

More metrics would take more time but not much if you have the data easily available. This would be my suggestion :

You can provide three percentages ( like when one provides three quantiles instead of just the mean of data values) :

  • the percentage of success in people you discussed for at least an hour
  • the percentage among the people with reasonable chances of success (motivated + didn't bail + your expertise + spent at least X hours)
  • the percentage among people with great chances of success.

These percentages, with precise information on what determines in which category clients fall in and the percentage of people treated who fall into each category, would give a first sound idea of the success rate.

Taking on low success rate people would not be a problem because their data is treated separately. It's only a problem if 90% of your clients are unlikely to be helped but that would not be a good thing anyway.

Replies from: Chipmonk, Chipmonk
comment by Chipmonk · 2024-12-31T02:29:36.285Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

i like this thanks. might take a bit of time to put together but interested

comment by Chipmonk · 2025-01-24T03:35:09.389Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

hmm i suspect releasing these metrics could make my customers significantly more annoying. like, early adopters are fun and experimental. but if i make it seem not risky then i get risk-averse people who tend to be prickly

so maybe i will compile and release this data but i would need to figure out how to do it in a way that doesn't change the funnel