There were the baby boomers
and at some point there was Generation X (also the name of Billy Idol's first band)
they weren't sure if they should call the next group Generation Y, the post modern generation....I think the consumer generation kind of fits.
I have a friend that has a red phone because some of the proceeds go to help people in Africa. I buy the occasional gift off a web site that gives a portion to breast cancer research and another that gives to food for the homeless. There are so many people that bought LiveStrong bracelets that I think they stopped counting.
We love to give...to stuff that will sort of give us something in return.
Tom's figured that out.
If you try and get a few bucks for cancer research, you'll get just that...a few bucks. If you host a cancer research event, pay a few celebrities $35,000 to show up, feed folks and send them home with a gift bag...you'll raise hundreds of thousands of dollars. It just works.
The Gap, Apple and Motorola spend over 100 million in advertising dollars to launch their red campaign. They raked in 18 million in profits. That's 18 million more than they would have raised...so that's good.
It's just hard to not be cynical about paying $100 for something so that $9 would go to a cause. Would we be better off shopping for a better deal and giving the money we saved to the cause we support? I should mention that if I was on the receiving end of even $18, I wouldn't complain about it. It's just that I refused to have one of those gum ball machines in my shop (yeah, I had one) because I knew that for every $200 raised, they gave on average 50cents. The Leukemia Society isn't complaining because $.50 times a few hundred thousand gumball machines brings them a bunch of money. It just feels a little wrong...
and at some point there was Generation X (also the name of Billy Idol's first band)
they weren't sure if they should call the next group Generation Y, the post modern generation....I think the consumer generation kind of fits.
I have a friend that has a red phone because some of the proceeds go to help people in Africa. I buy the occasional gift off a web site that gives a portion to breast cancer research and another that gives to food for the homeless. There are so many people that bought LiveStrong bracelets that I think they stopped counting.
We love to give...to stuff that will sort of give us something in return.
Tom's figured that out.
If you try and get a few bucks for cancer research, you'll get just that...a few bucks. If you host a cancer research event, pay a few celebrities $35,000 to show up, feed folks and send them home with a gift bag...you'll raise hundreds of thousands of dollars. It just works.
The Gap, Apple and Motorola spend over 100 million in advertising dollars to launch their red campaign. They raked in 18 million in profits. That's 18 million more than they would have raised...so that's good.
It's just hard to not be cynical about paying $100 for something so that $9 would go to a cause. Would we be better off shopping for a better deal and giving the money we saved to the cause we support? I should mention that if I was on the receiving end of even $18, I wouldn't complain about it. It's just that I refused to have one of those gum ball machines in my shop (yeah, I had one) because I knew that for every $200 raised, they gave on average 50cents. The Leukemia Society isn't complaining because $.50 times a few hundred thousand gumball machines brings them a bunch of money. It just feels a little wrong...
People inherently focus on themselves and their needs...maybe the "me generation" is a better label. We're selfish...but we'd like to help...a little...especially if you hook me up with some new shoes or a cool bracelet.
I guess it'd be better to skip the gum and send the quarter to the Leukemia Society.
....but then we wouldn't have the cool bracelet/phone/t-shirt that let's people we care about cancer/aids/poor people....sort of.
I guess it'd be better to skip the gum and send the quarter to the Leukemia Society.
....but then we wouldn't have the cool bracelet/phone/t-shirt that let's people we care about cancer/aids/poor people....sort of.
We're not fanatics or anything...
Unfortunately charitable and non-profits have had to resort to this type of pseudo-bribery to get donations. I think part of this is because there are a LOT of organizations clamoring for our donations. But I think the main problem is "We're selfish..." as you said.
ReplyDeleteIf we look at our motivation when we "support" a cause or an organization, isn't it usually at least partly about US and what WE get out of it? (a prize, recognition, a tax deduction, that warm feeling – or maybe we give just to avoid feeling guilty or looking miserly)
It's nice that we buy Girl Scout cookies to support the Girl Scouts, but we're really buying something we want, right? The same with giving at a particular level to public radio or public television – we give at that level to get something we want. (I admit to all of this, as well as buying overpriced candy bars from school kids so I won't look like a cheapskate.)
Isn't it a rare when we gladly contribute to an organization because we WANT to?
On the other hand, what about the motivation of corporations who link whatever their business is with charitable fund raising? Do they really want to help out a certain cause, or market their business? They could just make a corporate donation, but instead more money gets spent on advertising the promotion (and their product) than what goes to the cause – at least in the case of the RED campaign.
ReplyDeleteMany non-profits are to blame for people's reluctance to make donations. They "reward" the people who make contributions by following up with endless requests for more money, as well as often selling or "sharing" their donor lists with other fund raising organizations.
I forgot about the girl scouts and their crack laced cookies!!!
ReplyDeleteWhen I give to my Church or organizations like Young Life, how much is going toward the needs of the organization and the upkeep of the organization and how much is going toward the Leaders'/Pastors' vacation expenses, new minivan, mortgage on their house (while I live in an apartment) or their children's Gymboree clothes (while my kids wear Walmart).
ReplyDeleteShouldn't Church workers have real jobs and then donate their time to their organization so all of the money donated goes toward the Church?
Maybe Pastors shouldn't flaunt their standard of living so much.
A followup regarding my second comment about the amount of money corporations spend on advertising charitable promotions such as the RED campaign vs. the amount they donate (in the case of the RED campaign “$100M” vs. “$18M”).
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the news article posted on joinred.com (“The Big Question: Does the RED campaign help big Western brands more than Africa?”), I should also mention that those figures are disputed.
The article states that the total donated “is actually $25m during the six months since the RED product range was launched in the United States last October. That is five times the amount given to the Global Fund by the private sector over the previous four years.”
The article questions the validity of the $100 million dollar advertising figure (it appears to be more of a “nice round number” than an actual total) and points out that corporations would have spent that money (whatever the actual total was) to advertise their products anyway.
Rather than question why a corporation spends its money on advertising vs. donating the money, we could ask ourselves: why don't I donate the price of this product instead of buying it?
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
ReplyDeleteCatholic churches have leaders that vow poverty but I cannot think of any other churches that do not have staff who are supported and well paid for their work. Some churches have more staff to support than others.
ReplyDeleteBracelet/phone/t-shirt compared to salvation.