This provocative article appeared multiple times in my Facebook feed yesterday. After giving it some thought, Id like to say a few words on it, right here in this town square we call the Internet. It wouldve been helpful if the author of the piece had posted a link to the study that he says proves the existence of a charity cannibalism effect. I would like to understand the methodology that produced those findings. But even without seeing that research, I see an assumption in his argument that everyone who can donate to charitable causes is already doing so, and doing so to the maximum of their ability. I know a fair number of very generous people. And honestly, I dont think were tapped out yet. Not by a long shot. For the moment, however, lets assume dollars (and pounds and Euros, etc) are a bit tighter than I think they are. What if a fundraising appeal is so novel in its design, execution and reach that, despite the supposed scarcity of goodwill, it succeeds in enlarging the pie of contribution money, instead of simply, as the author asserts, resizing the various pieces? For example, what if it unlocks a very large segment of small dollar contributors whose individual donations are so small that they dont actually rob anyones Peter-cause to pay anyone elses Paul-cause. Or what if the Peters they do rob are for-profit indulgence-peddlers like McDonalds our Starbucks? Or what if those people who cannot or will not give money are at least inspired to donate time to an altruistic endeavor, when previously they took no such action? Without proof to back up his arguments that charity is truly a zero sum game, the author comes off as a frustrated and judgmental intellectual, clad in the teflon armor of his noble intentions. What he laments as a race to the bottom among charities might also be described as a game that is hard to master, and highly competitive, but highly rewarding to play. He also seems to call our attention to absolute outcomes like winners and losers. Instead, why not focus on how we can all expand the game of giving? We might do this in at least two ways: (a) extracting more charity from those already playing, i.e., give till it hurts, then give more, and; (b) getting more people to play. I know people who work professionally on the former of these objectives. I doubt many of them have found judging donor motivations to be an effective tool in their fundraising arsenal. And regarding the latter goal, I dont see how it helps the ALS Association, or the authors own non-profit organization, attract new donors when the author suggests that Ice Bucket Challenge participants are principally motivated by looking good or feeling good. Even if this is true, cant we all tolerate a certain amount of narcissism in our social media feeds -- and narcissism, I hope we can all agree, is already a prominent feature of the social media experience -- if the trade off is that more people are inspired to jump into the giving game? None of this is to defend the Ice Bucket Challenge as the greatest thing ever in charitable giving. I just dont see how questioning participants motives advances the cause(s). Im also not dismissing the authors request that donors do due diligence on the effectiveness of charities, or that they try to make regular (informed) giving a more structural part of their lives. I just think a lecture on how and why we should be giving should take a back seat to mass repetitions of real-world actions that can enlarge the goodwill pie. I believe we -- especially those of us in the developed world -- are *nowhere near* our breaking point when it comes to helping our fellow humans. So when viral campaigns like the Ice Bucket Challenge mobilize us to step up our game, or simply to get off the sidelines, well, we need not pour cold water on that.
Posted on: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:57:16 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015