A question of intentions, integrity, and the means to an end
October 8th, 2007Is it just me, or have material donation incentives given out by representing charities and non-profit organizations become far more common in the last 10 years?
You know you’ve seen it, probably even donated money for it… A dollar for a blue silicon bracelet with an inspirational “stop prostate cancer” saying… A cute pink pen for donating a minimum of two dollars to stop breast cancer… A heart-shaped pin with a child’s drawing engraved in it for donating to children’s charities… Baring your boobies (or donating money to see said pictures) to raise money for breast cancer research…
All those organizations could have saved the money spent on producing such promotional “thank you for donating” material and put it towards their cause. Why is it that these organizations think we need to get stuff in return to “do the right thing”? I’d be perfectly happy donating to a good cause without getting anything in return. At the very least, they could send a mass heartfelt thank you email out to all donators. Why go to such lengths?
Have we become so material-orientated that we are less inclined to donate to a cause or organization if they have nothing to “offer” us? And if not, then why do these organizations seem to have this impression? Don’t tell me it’s a way of saying “thank you” to its donators - I don’t believe that for a second. It might be partially true, but I highly doubt that is the total and complete reason.
I understand that most people are naturally drawn to “stuff”, and as a result will probably be more motivated to donate if they are given something in return, but personally I think the money spent on little “thank you” materials could be better used somewhere else, even if it turns out to be a small and relatively insignificant amount. There are other less expensive ways of promoting and advocating the donation of money to worthy causes.
To be honest, if anything, organizations that offer such materials make me suspicious and doubtful of their claims. How do I really know my money donated isn’t going towards something other than the cause itself? In many cases, they often do not tell you that a portion of the proceed goes towards the actual cause. A portion? A portion of a dollar?
Yeah, that’s sure going to change the world.
I hate being so pessimistic and negative, but in this day and age, believing everything you are told and taking everything for face value makes you a fool. Does it help you sleep better at night knowing you’ve done your part to help discover a cure for breast cancer by giving them a dollar and getting a silly bracelet in return? (And don’t even get me started on the direction “a cure for cancer” is heading, or how corrupted the BCCA is in terms of pushing drugs and unnatural means, downplaying natural remedies as possible means to a cure!)
I think the old-fashioned way was the best. If you want to make a difference in this world and actually do something, forget going through glitzy promotional 3rd party organizations. Want to help starving people in 3rd world countries? Get out there and do it yourself, or really do your research and help fund a genuine, committed person or organization of persons to do it.
I believe Margaret Mead, an anthropologist, scientist and intellectual said it best when she said “Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Out of curiosity, I have to wonder: Would you donate money to a cause or organization if you got nothing back in return? Do materialistic incentives such as pens, bracelets, etc. actually motivate you to give back, or would less tangible things such as a report about how your money is being used be sufficient?
I’m not sure how things are done over there, but here in New Zealand, the material things that are used for fundraising are generally donated by big corporations. So none of the money raised is actually going towards the material things but the actual cause.
For example, a major New Zealand bank and New Zealand’s largest chain of department stores sponsor Daffodil Day so they’re able to afford the fabric daffodils and pens they give out to those who donate.
That being said, I donate to the SPCA on a regular basis and they rarely offer anything else but an adorable puppy with sad eyes. So, I’d definitely donate to charities that don’t offer anything material in return!
Reply: Ah yes, we sometimes have material things donated by big corporations here as well. Those adorable animals with sad eyes are rather moving. Animals always get me!
October 8th, 2007 at 9:53 pmMost of the organizations I have worked with get those types of things for free. We ask; companies donate. However, if money is spent, items are bought to be re-sold. It’s possible to raise a lot of money on what’s basically junk…
But, even with that said, I don’t know of anyone who’s donated to a cause because she was going to get ______ in return.
Also… T-shirts, bracelets, pens, &c. are rather worthless, but I’ve always viewed them as important advertising tools. When people wear/use these things, they become walking public service announcements. On campuses and in cities, groups of people wearing the same clothes &c. get others talking and involved.
And when selling crap, a lot of people who stop by to see the crap (who are ignorant of the cause), become touched by the cause, and end up giving much more than the price of the thing that caught their eyes.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:43 pmIronic … I just read that quote written on a building on Main the other day.
Reply: The Foundation, right? That’s where I first saw it too. :P
October 9th, 2007 at 1:54 amMy mother bought me an asthma card from the charity thinking it would be like a credit card (at least that was how it was described) saying how to deal with me in an emergency. She had to give £10 to receive one but she didn’t mind. It turned out to be a plastic sheet of paper, that she could’ve made herself. My mother didn’t really complain — it’s hard to when it’s going to charity!
My point is this; they have been sending us leaflets and letters ever since promoting themselves and I can’t help but wonder how much money is wasted on doing these things.
As for those wrist bands there was a time when my friends had them all up their arms; I wonder if they really cared about any of the charities they gave their money to. Sad, really.
Reply: The wristband fad was actually the main motivation behind that post - They used to be all the rage, and yet, for the price you pay for one (they often didn’t offer an option of donating more - it was “$2 for a bracelet! Proceeds go towards finding a cure!”), how much is really going towards the cause? How much are they wasting on other things, like letters and leaflets as you mentioned? And what is the true motivation behind those who “buy” them?
That’s terrible that they seemed to give the impression that your asthma card worked like a credit card, but like you said, it’s hard to complain when it’s going towards a good cause! Still though… False “advertising” (intentional or not) = Bad.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:02 pmI sort of make a point not to buy into those material things. I’d much rather donate to a simple box with a slot in it.
I really want to one day help by directly doing something myself, but I fear that I’m just idealistic right now.
I actually did a project about Margaret Mead, so I recognize that quote. She had a lot of other great ones, too.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:43 pmIt’s really sad because you’d think that knowing your money was going to help someone that it would be enough.
October 11th, 2007 at 10:00 am