We're good people, you're good people.
I'm Angela Duckworth.
I'm Steven Dubner.
And you're listening to No Stupid Questions.
Today on the show, is it worth it for charities to harass and annoy potential donors?
Hey, we know it's a pain in the neck to get 18 letters a year.
Do you think we like having to send out that many letters?
Steven, we have an email from a listener named Michelle.
Are you ready for it?
I'm ready.
Steven and Angela, why are charities spending money to annoy their donors?
I like Michelle.
Michelle goes on to explain, I have in recent years made it a priority to donate more to
charities I care about, but didn't expect that one of the long lasting repercussions
is that I am now constantly bombarded with junk mail, sometimes with a bunch of personalized
address labels or other, quote, free stuff from multiple charities multiple times a week.
This can't be a good use of their money, right?
Especially in the age of email.
In fact, I tend to donate again to charities who don't send me as much stuff because it
makes me feel like they are focusing their money and efforts on actually doing good work.
I would love to hear you discuss this phenomenon both from the economic and psychological perspective.
Best, Michelle.
I agree with Michelle.
This practice does seem stupid and outdated.
It happens to you, right?
It does.
You have innumerable return address labels.
I have so many of them.
Yeah, a lot of rainbows.
They're often really ugly and you kind of can't throw them away because you're like,
well, maybe I'll need a return label or 600.
I do throw mine away.
Although I did look it up recently.
It turns out that solicitations by snail mail are per capita much more successful than solicitations
by email.
So that could be one reason why Michelle and you and I are still getting so many.
On the other hand, I would think that because email is really, really, really cheap to send
versus mail that it's probably not a fair comparison.
It doesn't mean it's more cost effective because it's nearly costless to send emails.
And I will say this snail mail these days is getting pretty close to what a landline
has gotten to be, which is just spam.
Yeah. In fact, I got rid of all of our landlines.
Me too. Same these.
So for Michelle, I really empathize.
And to be fair, there are ways theoretically to get yourself off these mailing lists,
but most of them seem pretty incomplete and burdensome.
I mean, these are charities she has donated to.
So let's distinguish between random spam, like, please donate to this charity.
We got your name off of some mailing list that we bought and you just donated to our charity.
Michelle, thank you very much.
Here's your free tote bag, address labels, greeting cards, et cetera.
So I think Michelle is not getting spam charity mailing.
She's getting mailings from charities that she donated to.
Well, that may be true, but I will say this.
One way that charities and nonprofits and all different kinds of firms make money
is by harvesting addresses from good people and then reselling them to other firms.
We've talked about that a little bit on the show before, which is the moral licensing component.
Right. If you are doing something that is prima facie good, does it cancel out some little sins?
Does it cancel out a little misbehavior?
I just read this interesting piece by a guy named Noah Smith who used to write for Bloomberg.
He's an economist and he now writes on Substack and he just wrote a piece about how Oxfam,
the British charity, is, as he puts it, a serial repeat offender of dodgy statistics.
He accuses them of fudging numbers, which then get picked up by journalists and politicians.
But because they're Oxfam and because they're doing charitable things,
people are reluctant to either look too closely or to call them out.
What kind of numbers?
Things like in the time it takes you to read this email, two million people have fallen into
poverty or in the time it takes you to read this letter, another billionaire has been born.
So his argument is that if you take even a little bit of a close look at their numbers,
they are somewhere between cherry picked and exaggerated, which is another issue that a lot
of people have with charities. So that might be the bigger sin in the charity world.
But Michelle is asking about the smaller sin of, I like how she put it,
why are charities spending money to annoy their donors?
It reminds me of something that Steve Levitt and I wrote about in one of our Freakonomics books,
Think Like a Freak. And it was about this charitable organization called Smile Train.
Are you familiar with Smile Train?
Only vaguely.
Smile Train performs surgery on children around the world,
usually from low income places who have a cleft lip or a cleft palate.
That's right.
The idea being that if you have a cleft lip or a cleft palate,
it's a huge detriment to the rest of your life.
As I'm guessing you know from the data, physical deformities of any sort,
they have really long lasting effects in the labor markets, the education markets,
the marriage markets and so on. If it's fixed, it can radically improve that person's life.
And so this charity called Smile Train originally had a kind of standard American charity model,
which is to say we are Americans, we are good, we are smart, and we know the right way to do things.
Raise a bunch of money from well-intended donors. Take that money and hire airplanes to fly to
poor places around the world and get surgeons in America to volunteer their time to fly to these
places. Now, does that sound like a good model to you or a bad model to you?
Well, it's kind of tipped off by airplane. Sounds expensive. Sounds like they have their
own private ozone hole. But at the same time, I personally can't think of a better
strategy. Classic surgeons don't live there. You're right. There was no one there who was
willing and equipped to do it. So they needed a different solution. And there was a guy
at Smile Train for many years named Brian Mullaney, who looked at the way they were
doing business. And he thought, I wonder if we could readjust this business model.
So it was a very simple tweak. They took all this money that they were raising in America
and they started to use it to train surgeons all over the world and maybe fly in someone
to supervise now and again. But basically, they set up a bunch of self-sustaining operations.
And that really reoriented the way they did their work. And it was very successful.
And the epilogue is it's a happy ending, right? Not like aid to Africa, you know, economists are
like foreign aid is actually surprisingly horrible for the long term economic well-being
of these countries. In this case, training doctors in localities that don't have those
kinds of doctors like plastic surgeons, just good. Was that the ending of the story?
I love that your instinct is to be skeptical, especially because almost every time I tell this
kind of story, the answer is, but it's not as good as you thought it would be.
If you want a sad ending to the story, this era of Smile Train did end in massive lawsuits and
incriminations. So that's your sad ending. But I think that the actual adjustment of the business
model was successful. Wait, the lawsuits were from what? Oh, I'm not going to get into that.
But if someone wants to use their Google machine, I think they will find an abundance of reading
material with which I am blessedly not wildly familiar. But yeah, the world is messy, even
though there were good acts being performed. But anyway, that's not even the part of Smile Train
that Michelle's email reminded me of. Having had that success of adjusting the actual operational
model of Smile Train, Brian Mulaney, who's a former ad salesman, by the way. So he
knew the way people think about spending money, giving money, what makes them feel good, and so
on. And he had another idea for how to change Smile Train. He began just by asking a simple
question, why do people give money to charity? So, Andrew, let me turn that question to you,
thinking as a psychologist, what do you know about why people actually choose to give money to
charities? There are a multiplicity of reasons. But I think first and foremost, there is an
altruistic impulse that maybe all of us have, at least to some degree, to help somebody else.
And then that list of reasons continues to less altruistic ones, like I'm virtue signaling,
I want everybody else to think that I'm kind and generous. And then I think there's also,
to some extent, the kind of tit for tat, like if I donate, I get a tax deduction, or if I am a
supporter of public radio, I'll get this great tote bag. There are other motivations, but I think
altruism is the primary one. And there's one more theory that's nestled in among the few
that you gave. This was a phrase coined by the economist Jim Andrioni. He talked about warm
glow altruism, the fact that giving to charity makes people feel better about themselves. So,
it's got a self-interested component to it, and Andrioni wasn't saying that there's anything
wrong with that at all. In fact, it really is good for everybody. So, Brian Mullaney was working
with some economists. He was working with John List and Steve Levitt, both at the University of
Chicago. And he knew this literature, and he believed in this literature. He thought that
people are truly altruistic. They're maybe doing some virtue signaling. They're maybe trying to
catch some warm glows from their altruism. But he thought there was maybe another reason
why people give to charities, which is that when they're asked to donate, the social pressure
is so great that they get bullied into giving, even though they wish they'd never been asked
in the first place. And he suspected that this reason was actually a big driver of smile train's
success. Because when they would send out mailings, they would include photographs of
a physically disfigured child. Basically, they were trying to say, you're kind of not a good
person if you're not going to do that. He knew that that worked. They raised millions and millions
of dollars. But he also knew that it didn't really sit right with everybody. As Michelle was saying,
you will get letter after letter after letter after letter. And in fact, with Smile Train,
if you signed up and gave them something, they would send you... Do you want to know how many
mailings a year you would get from Smile Train? Oh my gosh, this is going to shock me, right?
But I'm not even going to guess. How many mailings would I get if I had signed up once to donate to
Smile Train? 18. Oh God. 18 mailings a year. That's horrible. So more than once a month.
And the reason they did this is because the economics of fundraising are such that the
acquisition of a new donor, just like the acquisition of a new customer in business,
is difficult and expensive. And almost every charity loses money in that phase. But a donor
once they're hooked will tend to give again and again. And that's because they're being harassed.
So Brian Mulaney thought, well, hang on a second. What if we try to change this dynamic?
If people don't like getting hassled, but they are giving, would it be worth thinking about
offering a different solution? What if we offer donors a way that they would agree if they gave
money that will never be in touch with them again? He called this a once and done letter.
Like forever? Pretty much. In fact, he wanted to try all this and run an experiment. So yeah,
there were three options in this card that you'd get in the mail. Option one, this will be my only
gift. Please send me a tax receipt and do not ask for another donation again. I love this.
Number two, I would prefer to receive only two communications from the Smile Train each year.
Please honor my wishes to limit the amount of mail sent to me. And number three was please keep
me up to date on the progress the Smile Train is making on curing the world of clefts by sending
me regular communications, which means, I guess, 18 letters. So Angie, imagine you're on the board
of Smile Train and I come to you and I say, I think the way we're doing this is totally backwards.
I know it's expensive to acquire donors and therefore once we have them, we should just
milk and milk and milk them. But I think in the end, we might do better
by offering people a once and done. What would you say as a board member?
Well, on one hand, I know we might as a charity be net positive from sending 18 mailings, but
that's just a wasteful thing. And it may not be good for the greater society well-being to have
all this wastage. So I would have chosen the two a year because the acquisition costs of a new
donor are considerable, trying to get another person to know about you and get out their check
book. And actually, honestly, if I were the recipient of such a letter from Smile Train,
I think I would not say like leave me alone for the rest of my life twice a year is what I would
have chosen. So according to Brian Mulaney, even he himself thought this was maybe a totally stupid
idea that you're just cutting off your source of funding. You get these donors and you're immediately
saying we revoke the right to keep coming at you. But he thought it was worth a trial. I believe
they sent hundreds of thousands of letters with this once and done message and it contained a
reply card where each donor could check one of the three boxes. So it turns out that households
that got this once and done letter were twice as likely to become first-time donors as people who
got a regular standard solicitation letter. By fundraising standards, this was a massive gain,
twice as many people were giving for the first time. Also, they were giving a little bit more
money. On average, it was about $56 instead of $50. So Smile Train immediately raised
millions of extra dollars. But then you have to ask yourself, are they sacrificing long-term
because now every new donor has the option to tell Smile Train to get lost? So you might expect
that all the new donors would check box number one. This will be my only gift. Please send me a
donation. But only a third of them opted out of future mailings. Most donors were very happy to
let Smile Train keep harassing them. And overall, this once and done operation, it raised donations
by 46%. And because some people did opt out of future mailings, Smile Train actually raised
more money by sending fewer letters because they're saving so much on expenses as well.
So as we were trying to figure out why this worked, we came up with a few explanations.
Do you want to guess how we tried to explain this remarkable success?
I assume that there are people who would not donate to a charity like Smile Train anticipating
the bombardment over the next year. And by assuring them and giving them that option,
you're just picking those people up that you wouldn't have gotten. That's my guess.
That's a really good explanation. The other explanations that we came up with,
one would be the novelty. When's the last time a charity or any kind of company really offered to
never bother you again? So maybe that alone gets your attention. We thought about candor.
Have you ever heard a charity acknowledge what a hassle it is to get all those
hassling letters? Almost empathy. Like, wow, you get me.
Exactly. You see me, Smile Train.
Control, maybe. We all like to have control over our destiny.
I do think there's research showing that people choices, even if they're arbitrary choices,
they just feel better. There's one more explanation we came up with. Hard to empirically
argue and I don't know if you'll even buy the argument without empirics. But I think one thing
that happened here is that this charity, Smile Train, that they kind of changed the frame of
the relationship between themselves and their donors. I think what the Once and Done campaign
did was really shifted how potential donors felt about this charity. If I get this letter,
I'm thinking, wow, these are people who are plainly doing something that's good for the world.
But rather than hound me with a hard sell, they're changing their message. And they're saying to me,
we know it's a pain in the neck to get 18 letters a year. Do you think we like having to send out
that many letters? It's really expensive. So rather than think of us as the adversary that's
ringing money from you, let's decide that we're on the same team. We are good people,
you're good people. Together, we can conspire to do some good in the world.
And that's what I mean by shifting the frame of the relationship by making themselves
appear more as allies with you as opposed to trying to milk as much donor money from you as
possible. I like it. I think it's closely related to just being really empathic and kind of
acknowledging the not so great aspects of soliciting charitable donations. I feel like this
with public radio and public television campaigns, sometimes the hosts will kind of turn to the
audience and in so many words say, doesn't this suck? Doesn't this just suck that we have to take a
72 hour break from our normal programming? You can end this suffering right now. If you would
just collectively donate, none of us want to be here. But all of us would recognize that this is
a project that needs money. So come on, let's do it. Does that work on you? Well, we have continuously
supported public television, public radio, and a number of different charities. So it works in the
sense that we're donating. I'm not sure it works in the sense that like we wouldn't donate if they
didn't say those things. It certainly makes me feel better when I have to weather those campaigns.
We would probably donate anyway, but it is comforting to know that the terribleness of
some of these charity campaigns is acknowledged. Still to come on No Stupid Questions,
Steven and Angela discuss whether those personalized address labels actually get people to donate.
I appeal to charities publicly to stop sending us shit.
Before we return to Steven and Angela's conversation about charitable giving,
let's hear some of your thoughts on the subject. We asked listeners to tell us about the best
and worst incentives that charities use to solicit donations. Here's what you said.
Every once in a while, we'll get solicitations from charities that include a refrigerator magnet
or mailing labels or a calendar. Now, I assume they do this in order to make you feel like you
owe them something so that you'll give a donation. But unfortunately for them, I have no shame and I
will put the magnet on the refrigerator or the calendar up and wind up not sending anything in.
When I was an undergraduate, I took some classes at the MIT Sloan School of Management
and one year there was a fundraiser where they were giving away t-shirts to anyone who had
donated to the MIT annual fund. So if you were anything like me, you could give a dollar and
receive a pretty nice t-shirt in return. Now, at first, their initial loss doesn't seem so bad
because if I wear the t-shirt, that's brand recognition. And also, they now have my data
so they can send me emails and paper mailers and maybe I'll donate again in the future.
But unfortunately, I lost that t-shirt within the year and I unsubscribed from their email list
almost immediately. I will say that six years later, after what must be hundreds of dollars
worth of postage, the MIT annual fund development team and I still have a very strong snail-mail
relationship. But if I'm being honest, it's probably time for them to break up with me.
I'm not a very giving partner. Hi, my name is Katie. I live in Philadelphia and my favorite
most successful fundraising strategy was when I was in high school, we sold pieces of duct tape.
It was one piece of duct tape for a dollar and each piece of duct tape went towards taping our
principal to the wall of our school gym. And I think at the end of our fundraiser, we raised
like $300. Our poor principal was plastered against the wall with all these pieces of duct tape.
His feet weren't even touching the ground. That's how much tape was on our principal. And not only
did we make a lot of money through our fundraiser, but we even got our principal safely off the wall.
That was, respectively, Byron Duvall, Chloe Garza, and Katie Tsai, thanks to them and to
everyone who sent us their thoughts. Now back to Stephen and Angela's conversation
about the many surprising methods that charities use to raise money.
So do you know of any good recent research about what is an optimal way to make people give? What
can charities do or not do that is most likely to warm the heart of a potential donor?
There was an article that came out a couple of years ago in marketing. This article is called
Coins Are Cold and Cards Are Caring, the effective pre-giving incentives on charity
perceptions, relationship norms, and donation behavior. It's an article that kind of summarizes
the research that's already been done to date, but they also compare this kind of return address
label, gift card, non-monetary pre-gift incentive to just cash. And here's what I learned. When you
get those letters in the mail from a charity that has a little dollar in the window or a quarter,
et cetera, you are more likely to open it. I think very few of us can just throw that envelope in
the trash. But if you compare monetary incentives like coins, dollars, non-monetary incentives,
greeting cards, return labels, and then just like no incentives, which of these modalities is the
best? It's actually giving nothing. That said, you do get people to open more when there's a coin in
the window, et cetera. It's just that the average donation isn't necessarily more, and then you have
to subtract the cost of the coin or the dollar. And then I think one of the most important things
that I got out of it is that when you send somebody a dollar or a quarter or a nickel,
asking them to in turn make a donation to this charity, however you frame it, you've actually
changed that relationship. And now you've made this a transaction. You're no longer in the kind
of altruistic mindset, this is more now tit for tat, like, well, they gave me a dollar, so I
probably give them fill in the blank. So I appeal to the charities publicly to stop sending us
I don't need any more address labels. And this research suggests that in the long run,
just for your own fundraising, you may not be doing yourself any good at all.
So based on that paper, based on what you know about psychological appeals generally,
based on what we talked about with the success of the Once and Done initiative by Smile Train,
if you could just bring together 100 executive directors of nonprofits and give them a few
bullet points to consider for optimizing fundraising while minimizing the garbage
that Michelle and you and I don't like getting in the mail, can you reduce it to some first
principles? Yeah, let me try. One is when you are appealing to a public audience for charitable
donation, that you should not give gifts or tit for tat incentives. I am sure that there are some
people for whom that works wonders, but on average, the net effect, especially when you take into
account the cost of doing that real costs, but also maybe the relationship costs shifting to
a transactional relationship from what it should be, which is an altruistic communal kind of
relationship. This article, by the way, that I just mentioned, didn't even talk about environmental
costs. When you layer in the costs of junk mail to the environment, etc., it's a pretty clear
thing, like don't send stuff. I'll borrow from the Center for High Impact Philanthropy. It's a
think tank at University of Pennsylvania, which is my home university, but it's also run by Kat
Reschetta, who's a very good friend of mine. And I think she would argue that when you are soliciting
charitable donations, you should emphasize what the real return is for any donor, which is your
impact on a problem that they care about. So quantify how much have you moved the needle
in the lives of other people? And in what way? I think that is the best kind of appeal.
A third bullet point would be that you can't expect everyone to donate to everything. And there is
research by Deborah Small. I think now she's at Yale, and she studies charitable giving,
that people's personal preferences actually matter a lot. So we're not robots and we're not all
effective altruists in the sense of people who are only looking at the net return.
If you like farm animals, you are more likely to donate to one of those
buy a sheep for village things. Like that's going to matter more to you than,
oh, but this other charity just working on clean water has a net higher impact. So I think when
you design these campaigns, you should think about targeting people who just personally care for
maybe idiosyncratic reasons. And then finally, I'll just say this, I think keeping in mind
that people are people is helpful. One of my pet peeves is when they do food drives,
like please bring in a can of soup or something from your pantry, or let's have a bake sale.
These are ways of drawing attention to and resources toward charitable stuff,
but they've always bothered me because it's really inefficient. Like if I bake a batch of brownies
for $12 and you sell it for $10 net, it's negative two. And couldn't I have just signed you a check?
So I may be irritated by bake sales and food drives, but the fact that they persist and the
fact that there are some people who would not give otherwise suggests that human beings are
complicated and they give for lots of different reasons, including that they like to bake or that
it feels good to them to put a can of soup into a little box at the front of the office.
I share your frustration with churches and synagogues that do food drives and they say,
go to the store and get cans. This is what we need. So I could see how if you're cleaning
out your cupboard, it's more efficient because maybe you're taking something that you're not
going to use. Right. The cream of celery soup that you were like, why did I buy that? Oh,
have you not read the hundred great uses of cream of celery soup website lately?
But I share your frustration. It's so inefficient. In fact, when Russia invaded Ukraine, a bunch of
organizations around me started holding these fundraisers of different sorts. And a lot of
them were drives for supplies like food and diapers and band-aids, pencils. And I'm thinking
like, what the hell is wrong with money? Isn't this exactly what money was invented for?
Right. Fungible currency was a great invention.
But I do like your point, which is that, yeah, if you want to include the whole spectrum,
some people are, for whatever reason, more comfortable, more excited about giving in a
different domain. It's visceral. You know, they don't have to use their imagination.
I think I can both accommodate the psychology of people who feel good about seeing a pencil in
somebody's backpack. And on the other hand, somebody like you and me was like, wait, that
is deeply inefficient. There are economies of scale and purchasing the pencils. Also,
how are you going to manage the inventory? Like, it's so dumb. But here's what I would say. And I
feel better about the soup can. Why don't you collect the checks in empty soup cans?
There are other ways to bring home the visceral, the imagery. Maybe we can do that with the right
kind of messaging, but not actually do deeply inefficient things like sending people greeting
cards or having them bring in soup cans. Does it bother you when a nonprofit sells
their mailing list to other firms, whether nonprofit or otherwise, and then you get
bombarded with others? And if so, I may have a partial solution for you.
I didn't really fully appreciate that, Steven. It hadn't occurred to me. So does it bother me
now that you have raised that to conscious awareness? Yes, it does bother me. I don't
like people trading mailing lists of any kind. So what's my pro tip for solving the problem?
Well, this is not really pro tip for solving the problem. This is a pro tip for kind of feeling
slightly better about understanding the problem. Now, if you really want to solve the problem,
there are these registries like the equivalent of do not call registries, but we all know how
inefficient do not call registries are typically. And I think the ones for getting off mailing
lists are similarly ineffective. But one trick you can use and Michelle might get a kick out of this
because she will see just how widespread the handoff of her information is. Every time you
sign up to give money to a nonprofit, you list as your name your real first name. So let's say
Angela and name a charity that you've given to recently or that you might want to give to
sometime in the near future, like Character Lab, for example. But also, I know that was a little
selfish. That's my charity. But like Outward Bound, let's say Outward Bound. I love Outward Bound.
So let's say that a niece of yours writes a letter and says, Angela, I have been working
with Outward Bound this past couple of years and I found them to be a remarkably upstanding
nonprofit and I really want you to give if you're willing and able, blah, blah, blah.
And she sends you a link, let's say. And so when you go to sign up, rather than just writing
Angela under the first name field and Duckworth under the last name field, if there is a middle
name field, you take advantage of that. If not, you just give yourself two first names and your
second first name will be Outward. So now you are Angela Outward Duckworth. And now on all the mail
that you ever get that was sold by them, you will know exactly where it's coming from. And so I
would say to Michelle, this probably won't solve her problem. But if let's say the big charity she
wants to give to is like Puppy Love that rescues puppies, then at least from now on, she'll be
Michelle, Puppy, whatever her last name is, and she can get at the very least a smile out of it.
It's like contact tracing for these mailing lists, right?
That's exactly right. Now, here's the big problem. Let's say Angela Outward Duckworth
gives some money to Outward Bound and then Outward Bound starts sending her 18 letters a year like
Smile Train used to do, including a bunch of return address labels that say Angela Outward
Duckworth. Then what am I going to do with those damn labels? I could change my name, I guess.
No Stupid Questions is produced by me, Rebecca Lee Douglas. Before we move on to the fact check,
let's give listener Michelle, our question asker, the last word.
I loved this discussion. I didn't know about the Smile Train story, but I would be so thrilled for
the ones and done to catch on with every charity. In fact, I will personally pledge on public record
to double my annual donation to any charity that gives me that option.
And now here's a fact check of today's conversation.
In the first half of the show, Steven says that the original business model for the charity Smile
Train involved flying surgeons to low income areas around the globe to operate on children
with cleft lips or cleft palates. This is not quite correct. Brian Mullaney and Charles Wang,
the co-founders of Smile Train, had previously been board members of Operation Smile, a similar
charity that did use this model. When Mullaney and Wang split from Operation Smile to create
Smile Train in 1998, they decided to use the new, more sustainable model that Steven described
and began training and funding local surgeons instead. Steven also mentions lawsuits and
incriminations related to the charity, but doesn't go into further detail. He may have been referring
to a 2013 summary judgment that ruled that co-founder Brian Mullaney needed to repay Smile Train UK
more than 633,000 pounds that he allegedly received in unauthorized payments. Or perhaps
he was thinking of when the company received criticism in 2017 for an October-themed mailer
that read, quote, what if every day felt like Halloween, accompanied by a picture of children
with cleft palates. Finally, Steven references the concept of warm glow altruism as defined
by economist Jim Andrioni. The phrase Andrioni coined is actually the synonymous but slightly
more alliterative, warm glow giving. That's it for the Fact Check.
Coming up next week on No Stupid Questions, is your anger physically hurting you?
In the few hours that follow a very angry outburst, you are more likely to have a heart attack or a
stroke. That's next week on No Stupid Questions. For that episode, we want to hear your perspective
on whether anger is a healthy or an unhealthy emotion. And why? And what strategies have you
found that help you manage it? To share your thoughts, send a voice memo to NSQ at Freakonomics.com
with the subject line, anger. Make sure to record in a quiet indoor space with your mouth close to
the phone. And please keep your thoughts to under a minute. No Stupid Questions is part of the
Freakonomics radio, people I mostly admire, and Freakonomics MD. All our shows are produced by
Stitcher and Renbud Radio. This episode was mixed by Eleanor Osborne. We had help this week from
Lyric Bowditch. Our staff also includes Neil Carruth, Gabriel Roth, Greg Rippon, Morgan Levy,
Zach Lipinski, Julie Kanfer, Ryan Kelly, Jasmine Clinger, Emma Terrell, Jacob Clemente, and Alina
Coleman. We had additional research assistance from Anya Dubner. Our theme song is And She Was
By Talking Heads. Special thanks to David Byrne and Warner Chapel Music. If you'd like to listen
to the show ad-free, subscribe to Stitcher Premium. You can follow us on Twitter at NSQ underscore show
and on Facebook at NSQ show. If you have a question for a future episode, please email it to
NSQ at freakonomics.com. To learn more or to read episode transcripts, visit freakonomics.com
slash NSQ. Thanks for listening. Steven, are you beeping?
I think we're hitting the trifecta of New York City noises right now. We're hearing
construction beeping. We're hearing some sirens. And I think we're hearing angry car horns. Now
it's making me wonder if they're coming to get me. Do you think I should bar the door?
The Freakonomics Radio Network. The hidden side of everything.
Stitcher.
