General Chat

................................................that requests for aid for people who suffer a disaster often use the "guilt thing" to get people to donate? I've just watched an appeal for people to donate to Haiti and the theme behind the request is "look at you - you're ok but what about these poor people. Shouldn't you be sharing your good fortune with them?" Now before someone jumps on me - I have donated and am happy to but I don't like to be made to feel guilty for my good fortune.

Sue x

your so right Sue

But i still made my donation today

even baby satans school are collecting for them

Exactly Joy - we still make our donations so there really is no reason to make us feel guilty.

Sue xx

I HAVE donated..... but I'd be LESS inclined to if I felt I was being emotionally blackmailed into doing so.....and I had I seen it I may well not have done......hugely counterproductive imho.xx

yeah defo, i havent donated yet, i would have today but mam took the baby to school, i will on monday, but i think people should donate becasue they WANT to not because there guilted into it xxxx

Perhaps not all appeals do that. This thread was prompted by an advert for a telethon that is being held to raise money for the people of Haiti. Don't get me wrong - my heart breaks for these people. But this appeal went on about how we live in a lucky country and how it's important to share our good fortune with these poor people (very true) and - the part that annoys me - "how would you feel if this happened to you and your family".

Sue xx

And another thing ...

If you watch girlie shows like home decorating and cooking and B-list drama reruns during the day, you are inundated with them. Orphaned children, sick children, sad children ... And sad animal ads. At least here in Canada.

Do they run them during sporting events? No. Well of course that would be expensive (not that the teams might not donate a bit of time ...). But there are dumb shows that men watch too, surely, where ad time would be cheap.

What I'm getting at: the television advertising is aimed at women. Women are far more easily heart-tugged and guilted. The ads are aimed straight at women.

But who actually has more money? On average, men. I say let them sit through some of the interminable, depressing advertising, and nagged into putting their hands in their pockets a little more often.

I guess that's what I'm getting at, Janey. To be honest I would prefer the facts about what our donations are for. A run down of what is needed and what will be done would be good. We know these people are in dire straits - the average person in Haiti didn't have much in the way of material things to start with and now they have nothing. We know that. I would like to know WHAT my money is going to do for these people not WHY I should be donating.

I donate monthly to a reputable children's organisation. I get a bi-monthly newsletter telling me what my donation is doing. I appreciate that and it makes me feel good to be a part of it. It's informative, interesting and to the point. That's all I need. The fact that I donate means I'm sympathetic to their plight.

Sue x

Maybe this is what the expression " charity begins at home " is all about.

At " home ", in your own heart , you want to help others in distress......having something from the outside trying to force you to give through guilt tactics just isn't right ( in my opinion ) .

That's true, Mandy. I just want the facts about what is needed. Then I'll make up my mind as to whether I would like to donate.

I'm thinking that the market for donations are becoming more competitive and perhaps they have to try new tactics to keep the money coming. After all we are only able to donate so much. I tend to be choosy about where my donations go.

Sue xx

have you thought how much money it takes to put an add on tv, radio, especially on prime time?

Well there's that, CN. Is that where our donation money goes. I have reason to go into our local Cancer Council office and the office is covered in boxes full of pamphlets, hats, t-shirts etc. Not all are used for fund-raising. I was GIVEN a box of assorted goodies to distribute as I see fit.

Sue xx

my OH went into it, he wanted to support the troops and went into detail on where the money went on them, support the heroes was the one he went for cos he did the research.
what im trying to say is , not all of the charities are very charitable :(

When we had the horrific bushfires here last year I researched every charity asking for donations. I chose the one that gave the highest percentage of donations to the people who needed it.

Sue xx

precisely, you have to research, not all charities are charities these days :(

I work for a charity which is fully manned. We provide equipment for patient care plus raise money for research. We have very low administration costs. The most money spent would be on insurance and auditing fees. Our auditor charges a small fee and our solicitor works "pro bono". Our major fundraiser is once a year and we worked out for the last one that 92% of the money raised went towards our patient care. We're very proud of that achievement.

Sue xx

If you're wanting to donate for disaster relief specifically, I don't think you can really go wrong with the big names.

Red Cross
CARE
Oxfam
UNICEF

are the ones I think are obvious choices, and no one really needs to worry much about their spending. (Yes, I heard about some Oxfam problem in England, but overall, they're highly reputable.)

CARE and the Red Cross in particular have the size and experience and resources to get the money turned into aid and get it where it's going, and do it efficiently. I'm partial to CARE myself in general, but I think the Red Cross makes sense for big disasters.

Charities *have to* advertise. They aren't fools. They don't advertise because they need something to spend their money on. They advertise because it *works*. If everybody stuck their hand in their pocket without being nagged, advertising wouldn't be needed. It's a drag that some of "your" money gets spent on trying to persuade Joe over there to donate -- but if 10p of your money gets Joe to donate £10 of his money, it's still money well spent.

What you want to watch out for is charities that hire telemarketers who get a percentage of collections. That is not efficient use of their money and your donations. The big ones do not do that.

You do hear stories about corruption and ripoffs in the countries where the aid goes. Keep in mind that international charities *have* to deal with those governments, and also have to hire local staff to do "on the ground" work, and problems can seep in that way. The charities don't control conditions in the places where they work.

We are warned constantly by our government backed "Games and Racing" board to be very wary of "Traders" as they call the telemarketing "thing". They get a huge percentage of donations. I wonder how much success they get from "cold calling" - I've never donated that way.

I donated to the Red Cross for our bush-fire victims. As I said in an earlier post I researched very carefully and I have to say they came out on top. Actually they made a statement saying ALL money donated would go to the bush-fire appeal.

I do understand that so much money has to go into advertising and to a certain extent I agree with that. It does work. Our Cancer Council does advertise extensively for their Big Morning Tea and raise hundreds of thousands but sometimes they go a little overboard.

Sue xx

im off to bed, what i was going to say, im not going to now,
i put it to my OH and he didnt agree soo, i best not.
sweet dreams everyone.
xxx

Good night, CN. I'm off too.

Thanks for your thoughts everyone.

Sue xx