Everyone is familiar with it. It appears in the form of a question from a cashier in a store, a person with a booth outside your supermarket, or even from a fraternity or sorority knocking on your dorm door. "Would you like to donate to ____ to help save ______ from (insert terrible form of suffering here). This type of philanthropy always intrigued me.
It's quite different from the type of philanthropy we've talked about in class. In fact, it's almost the opposite. It is done passively rather than the donor actively searching for the possible recipient of the money, it is done without any prior research and it is a decision made impulsively and quickly. Despite all this, which goes against everything we've talked about in class up until this point, it is effective. Why is that?
Primarily it seems to play off of guilt. My mother, for example, always says yes when she's asked to donate to St. Jude's or to "cancer research" and her answer is simple. She always said "I sound like a terrible person if I say no. I'm saying I don't want to help cure cancer or I want children to suffer." Does she know if getting charged an extra dollar for her groceries will actually send a dollar to St. Jude's? No. Does she even know what the charity ACTUALLY does and how it spends its money? No. All she knows is somebody is suffering and if she cares about suffering she should donate. This connects very well to the "Emotion constrained by reason" blog post for this week as well. This form of "guilt trip philanthropy" certainly is the emotional extreme, because the person being asked will almost certainly have no logical reason to support the cause, other than feeling absolutely terrible if they say no. This always bothered me.
A major theme in class was always that you are not a bad person if you don't give to charity. Like with the tweet of the week, nobody was ever forced to donate. Nobody is even looked down upon for not wanting to support a cause. Philanthropy is not a requirement and every person doesn't believe in it. For this reason, I always hated campaigns based solely on guilt. I never say yes when I'm asked. Does that mean I want kids to die and I don't want to cure cancer? No. That means that if I want to save kids and cancer patients I'll use the skills I've learned in this class to find a charity that does a good job solving those issues that I feel like I can logically support. However, I can't fault those charities. Their strategy works for them very well.
What do you guys think? Do you say yes when you're asked? Do you worry that your money isn't actually going to the cause? Do I just sound cynical?
Haha yes you just sound cynical. These organizations are working to get the everyday folk to give to charities, that most of the time and definitely in the case of saint Jude's work in cancer research do good for the world. Charity cannot be something done by only those with money, and ability to throw around 10000 dollars over 3 months. If we want to see true change in this world we cannot only rely on the wealthy to give. So if there is a way to get the middle and lower classes to give charity and make a difference even if it is through guilt a good thing still happens and should be supported. However there is more to this, I would much rather people not give to random charities because if guilt. In a perfect world I would want those people who are giving out of guilt to instead look at how much they were going to give and instead give it to some organization they believe in more, but I fairly sure that this is not commonly done. Therefore we should support this cheap ploy of using guilt, because in this case as in most I think the ends justify the means.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Itai in that I don't think you sound cynical at all. I too usually decline the offer to donate to (insert charity) for (heartbreaking cause) for the reasons that you pointed out: I don't know anything about the charity or even who the money is going to. It could be a total scam and rather than funding cancer research, I could be funding someone's new TV. Unless the non-profit representative is a volunteer, the bulk of the donations could very well be going to paying for the transportation costs and salary of the person who is asking for money.
ReplyDeleteI think this is the same dilemma we face when we see the poor and homeless on the streets begging for money. We want to help, but we don't know where the money will go after you hand it over. Will it go to food or improving their living situation? Or will it go towards alcohol or drugs?
I agree that some, if not most, guilt philanthropy campaigns are sincere in their effort and do attract quality donations because of their grab on our emotions, but the uncertainty is too much for me.
Rather than be "guilt-tripped" into donating on the spot to a certain charity or giving extra change to the homeless man on the corner, I'd be much more comfortable giving to a non-profit, that I have looked into intensively, that funds cancer research or improves the lives of the homeless and does so effectively with my personal seal of approval.
Maybe in the future, I'll bombard the non-profit representative with all the questions we have learned to ask throughout our time in class and ask to see data to see just how effective their organization is.
As I stated in my blog comment a couple weeks ago, I don't believe in "guilt trip philanthropy," "checkout philanthropy," or whatever you want to call it because it is a penny-wise, pound-foolish system. People may give a dollar or two at the store, but in doing so, they make themselves less likely to donate to that charity later on. When you weigh the dollar or two they give at the register against the much more significant amount they would likely give if they chose to donate on their own, checkout philanthropy seems to be next-to worthless.
ReplyDeleteAs I discussed a couple of weeks ago, checkout philanthropy doesn't work because it doesn't really involve people with the charity. When someone has just spent, say, $100 on groceries, adding an extra dollar on top to go to charity doesn't register as a huge cost. They may get a nice feeling from donating, but in the long term, they will most likely forget about the exchange entirely (probably by the time they get home). In fact, they don't even end up feeling neutral towards the charity. A study found that people who engage in this sort of giving are less likely to make a donation later on (http://recharity.ca/new-study-stirs-slacktivism-debate/).
I think that there's no shame in politely declining to donate at the register, as it's been proven to be a largely ineffective method of giving. Whether the organization is sincere or not, they would be much more appreciative of a significant donation made from your own home than a dollar or two at the store from someone they'll never hear from again.
This is an interesting argument you pose, Richard.
ReplyDeleteEver since I was a kid, my mom always said no when the person at the grocery store asked her if she wanted to donate. She even refused to answer the door when someone knocked, asking for a donation. I always thought that was strange, so one day I decided to ask her. She told me that she doesn't like being pressured into things, so if someone is asking her to make a donation, she will not make one because she likes to make her own decisions.
I thought this was admirable. To this day, I always give donations because I feel bad saying no to someone when they're right in front of me. However, I should listen to what my mother has to say because I should want to donate because I want to, not because someone is asking me to. In addition, my mother would rather donate to an organization that she has a connection with, rather than a random one in the grocery store. This is also not something I previously thought about when someone asked me if I would like to make a donation.
Richard, you do not sound cynical at all. It is completely acceptable to worry that your money isn't doing what the grocery store said it would be doing. Rather than being cynical, I believe you're being reasonable.
Like Charlie and Richard, I do not view it as cynical to decline the dollar donation at the register. I am in accordance with the idea that one should look deeper into the workings of an organization before deciding to donate. Prior to writing this comment, I was not completely sold on the dire importance of transparency and accountability in the nonprofit sector. Upon trying to find an article refuting the claim that nonprofit corruption was a major issue, I found this bit of information that altered my view on the subject.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/us/29fraud.html?scp=1&sq=strom+light&st=nyt&_r=0
I have to say that I was shocked by the findings of this article. According to the report, an estimated $40 billion of the $300 billion given to charities in 2006 were lost to fraud. If accurate, that would amount to approximately 13% of the total donations to the nonprofit sector being siphoned off and not going towards the cause! What makes this even more striking is that these instances of fraud are not easily detectable by routine audits. Though this report is a few years old, I still believe in its accuracy today, and this brings me to advise caution when donating to a charity. This report caught me off-guard, as prior to this I quickly dismissed the notion of large-scale nonprofit corruption as ludicrous. As the management of nonprofits is being approached in an increasingly business-like manner, I guess it can be expected that the fraud that many people condemn capitalism for has worked its way into the nonprofit sector as well.
To tie this back into the blog post, I have to disagree with Itai, and state that it is certainly not cynical to want to know more about an organization and how it utilizes the money it collects from donations. Though the $40 billion estimate may not be 100% accurate, the fact that any amount of fraud even remotely close to that value exists is disheartening and should be cause for some added concern, even when dealing with a one dollar donation at the grocery store.
I, along with Kyle, Charlie, and Richard, do not view declining the donation as cynical; I view it as being skeptical, and I think it can sometimes benefit us to be skeptical people. We have been taught to question everything in life, and to never believe anything that sounds too good to be true. This has been ingrained in us, especially, as students in university and this class in specific. Yet, while this is typically seen as being "cynical," which often has a negative connotation, I think that our curiosity and eagerness to find out as much information as possible is a rather positive thing. Thus, I think it is perfectly fine to reject the donation at the checkout. Most times, people know absolutely nothing about the charity the money would be donated to, and have no idea how the organization is run or how effective their money would be.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, if it is only an extra dollar on top of a $100 bill, are we really risking that much? Like Kayleigh said, it is reasonable to decline the donation if the reasoning behind that decision comes from a desire to know more about where the money is going and what sort of organization would be supported, hypothetically. However, if our reluctance comes from a desire to simply reject the pressure, it could be that the cause is suffering more than we are.
This is an interesting blog post. I have to say I am not really opposed to people going door to door or collecting money in a grocery store. I even hesitate to call it guilt trip philanthropy. I have been on both ends of the experience before and that is why I see no harm in it. When asked I don’t always donate and honestly there is no rhyme or reason to when I donate and when I don’t. What is the difference between throwing your change in a tip jar at a deli or a donation at the super market? Even though you don’t know much about the organization it is still helping someone just as much, if not more, as a dollar in a tip jar is helping.
ReplyDeleteIn high school, I was in a club called “Students for 60 Thousand.” One big thing the club did (but not the only thing) was go to Nicaragua. We brought down donated clothing, taught in schools and assisted locals in brick houses. Before we left though we were each expected to raise money for the supplies we were going to need to build the houses. We went door to door and asked for donations we even stood outside Stop and Shop. We never thought anything less of someone if they didn’t donate. Don’t get me wrong we got plenty of No’s but that is part of doing that. We didn’t expect everyone to say yes and no one should. We even had some people state strong opinions against us but if we didn’t do those things there is no way we could have raised the money. Just because some people may feel uncomfortable does that mean we should let the people in Nicaragua go without roofs over their heads? I think that kind of donating/asking for donations is fine as long as the person asking and the person answering remain polite and respect each other’s opinions.
I've never spent much time into thinking about this guilt-based philanthropy, until the topic began to come up on the blog. I've generally said "No." when asked to donate at the register, without thinking about why, and then proceeded to feel guilty - if I just spent $100 on groceries, why can't I donate one extra dollar? This guilt, however, never spurred me to make a different decision further down the road.
ReplyDeleteI did, however, recently say "Yes!" to check-out philanthropy. It was a cause that I feel a connection with - Child Abuse Prevention Awareness. I didn't feel any different towards the cause after donating, I didn't feel like I had make a particular difference in the world, and I didn't really worry about where that dollar actually went - again, it's just one dollar. If check-out philanthropy made it's appearance in the form of cashiers asking for significant sums of money, then I would be apt to do research and weigh a decision before donating, but I really don't see a major issue with them asking for a dollar at a time. Even if it does not move on to make a huge difference, or any difference at all, to an organization.. did losing that dollar really make a difference to you? Probably not.
This is the topic that I wrote my blog post on, it’s nice to see that someone else is having the same thoughts. I personally didn’t find this to be an attractive method of philanthropy. However, it is proven to be effective since guilt is strong enough to make people feel obligated to donate. I almost always decline donating and choose not to feel guilty since it is my choice to donate or not to donate. I agree with Charlie in that it is the same dilemma that we face when we see the poor and homeless on the streets begging for money. If we donate to them, we do not know where the money is going or how it will be used, or if it will even be used effectively. Another thing that comes to mind is when children and young students go around asking you to buy chocolate bars and candy to go towards their sports team. We don’t know how it will help the sports team, or if it will even go to the sports team. I decided at the conclusion on my blog post on this topic that it is an effective strategy to gain money towards a cause, but it is not an informative or necessarily positive approach. I hope it becomes more informative and positive in the future.
ReplyDeleteThis blogpost is something that I've thought a lot about and I'm glad that these are considerations that other people are having. I always feel incredibly uncomfortable when people ask me to give in this sort of manner (i.e. at the cash register or approach you on the street) and I generally say no, feeling very guilty. At the end of the day, if it's a cause that sticks with me, I am much more prone to researching it and then looking for ways to give or help out. The point Betty brings up about students asking people to buy candy or chocolate bars for their sports teams is also an important one because buying a chocolate bar from a student who says their sports team needs the money is similar to giving a dollar at the cash register for whatever the organization is – there's so little transparency and so little information a potential donor gets about where their one dollar goes that it seems almost irrational to give. The better option would be to learn more about the cause and learn more about how to do more for the cause. Further, as has already been brought up – how much can giving that one dollar at the cash register possibly do for the cause?
ReplyDelete