| Soliciting
donations for charities in public places is nothing new,
but if the practice continues in its current form it will
not continue to serve the best interests of the community
for much longer.
Spruiking
for donations is a slightly more respectable form of begging.
Rather than being approached by the wretched and diseased
person who could be saved with the jingle of a gold coin
we are interrupted by the cheery face and bright T-Shirt
of the Charity Spruiker. These types loiter aside footpaths,
usually perched on the shoulder of the main thoroughfares
ready to peddle their magic trinkets to purge the guilt
of almost any passer-by.
 The
experienced spruikers pick their quarry well. Those of us
accustomed to their ways become bullish as we quicken our
step and feign distraction. The spruiker as Matador. The
Bull accepts a line of passage from a distance, his glazed
eyes locked on a far street-corner. Pacing into deeper into
the arena the Matador crabs closer to the line of approach
with casual, but cautious eyes. The best amongst them will
let many lesser targets trickle by unchallenged when they
spot a prize animal down the street. Nearing the final moments
of the pass, both parties sneak a quick glance shoeward.
This brief diversion of eyes offers the relief only known
by those who often stare at fires. It does not distract
either party from the task at hand, but fortifies the resolve.
Both are committed to a destiny that cannot be betrayed
by a relieving glance. Momentum is now with the feet and
the body and the heart. At the approach of a determined
bull, the wise Matador withdraws his challenge with a dismissive
wave of the clipboard. Occasionally a parting shot of "Don't
you care about the..." trails off into the crowd.
I
understand the benefits of such practices. Without the help
of these sometime volunteers (some organizations actually
pay their employees) general awareness of charities would
be lower. However this can easily lead to the overestimation
of a shrewdly marketed charity at the expense of other charities
that may have a greater relevance to more people, and have
a greater need for financial support.
Is
it best for us to donate to an environmental cause? Should
we be spending on Medical research of some type? Should
we give to a church, homeless shelter, animal home or other
organisation? Should we be donating domestically? Should
we be donating abroad? Where does our money actually go?
Who oversees its distribution? Is it spent efficiently?
There
are a number of considerations we should make before deciding
to donate to any charity. The problem is that the most
appealing and well-marketed charities are getting the
lion's share of our benevolence at the expense of lesser'known
causes. Anything that involves children or animals seems
to do well. They are cute and cuddly with so much to live
for, and accordingly are very marketable.
Recently,
I noticed that a very prominent charity had its logo branded
all over a brand new Volkswagen Beetle. The current retail
price of the Beetle is around $30,000. Wouldn't that money
be more useful spent elsewhere, perhaps on needs of the
children this charity is supposed to be helping? It is
probable that this car was donated by the dealership or
there was a significant discount involved, but wouldn't
a donation be better off in some other more practical
form? Wouldn't the dealership be better off donating a
car for a raffle or auction? The unfortunate answer is
no. The best way for this charity to increase donations
is by driving around in a cute car that projects their
brand image. This charity will probably raise more donations
because of this marketing strategy than they ever could
have by raffling the car. (As an aside, consider how much
free brand equity Volkswagen is building through this
exercise. I would suggest that it would outweigh the costs
of a fleet of cars.)
I
do not blame the charities for these tactics; they are
just playing the game to stay afloat. The problem with
tactics like these is that all charities will end up spending
more and more money on marketing themselves. This will
be either through direct financial expense, or by wasting
more valuable time and efforts of their voluntary and
paid personnel.
The
ability for charities to cut through and strike a chord
with the public is diminishing fast. It seems like every
day has been claimed by one cause or another. Today it
is National This Day; tomorrow it is National That day,
the day after it's some other National Day for purging
one's guilt. "Another Day, Another Dollar, Another Ribbon"
might soon be uttered in elevators. But unless the total
amount that Australians donate to charities increases
at the same rate as Charity marketing costs, then the
future will be bleak.
 One
thing that is as important than financial contributions
is the captive attention of the public. There is so little
space and forum for discussion of charitable causes. I
presented to you a little bullfight above to demonstrate
my point. I'm never sure exactly which charity I am giving
to if I toss a few coins into a Spruiker's white plastic
bucket at the train station. They all look so alike. If
I were to offer all the "minutes" and "seconds" of time
requested of me on my walk from the station to my office,
I would still be standing there listening to the terrible
plight of one poor group or another. Not long ago I started
receiving regular cold calls at home from Charity Spruikers.
What is going on? The "Marketing Survey" call is one of
the more invasive and annoying practices that we must
endure in contemporary life, surely this is well beneath
charity? It will not be too long before I view all charitable
organizations with complete contempt. Rogue operators
like these are "devaluing the charitable brand" so to
speak. I am sure that I am not alone.
If
we must endure the Spruikers and unsolicited calls, wouldn't
it be much wiser for charities to band together? Rather
than have umpteen "Every-Colour-of-the-Rainbow Days",
perhaps we could have three or four annual events. The
concentrated efforts of many charities and natural efficiency
from sharing the cost of promoting such an exercise would
undoubtedly create a larger response, and serve to maintain
public trust. At the same time, money could be donated
equally to a number of charities for donations collected
at the same time. Wouldn't it be nice to know that your
donation would be going to help several different groups,
rather than just one? In the meantime, I encourage you
to donate anonymously to a charity that you feel
will spend your donation in a way that would make you
feel good.
images courtesy of Geek
Philosopher
|
