I mean no disrespect to the 500 or so individuals who have publicly challenged me to participate. And God knows, I’m in near constant need of a cold shower. But as a guy who has represented some rather large, profitable companies while running a non-profit foundation, I’ve got some opinions on the subject of persuasion, especially as it applies to fundraising. And I’ve been struggling with how to share those thoughts in a way that will not make me look like a ######-bag.
First of all, I tip my hat to the marketing genius that conceived of this device. Thanks to The Ice Bucket Challenge, The ALS Association has collected $75 million dollars in donations. That’s up from just $1.9 million over the same period a year ago.That’s amazing, and totally unprecedented. And if we lived in a world of unlimited philanthropic resources, it would be fantastic news. But we don’t live in that world. We live in a world where generous people of finite means must allocate their charitable giving with discretion - in the same way they allocate all other expenditures. In this world, more money for ALS means less money for Heart Disease. More for Malaria means less for Diabetes. More for AIDS means less for Alzheimer’s. And so forth.
It’s not exactly a zero sum game, but the cannibalism factor in charitable giving is a very serious problem. According to the experts, 50% to 70% of all the money collected as a result of the Ice Bucket Challenge will directly impact future contributions to other charities in an equal and opposite way. In other words, if The ALS Association collects a $100 million - as it’s on track to do - other charities competing for the same dollars will collect between $50 and $70 million LESS. Thus, the largest donations do not necessarily go to those charities that serve the most people or do the best research - they go to those that who market themselves in the most effective way.
This informs the way I give, and the way I solicit. It’s one thing to sell cars or trucks or jeans or paper towels. God knows, I've been there, and I'm comfortable with the consequences of pushing one brand at the expense of another. But in the non-profit world, the stakes are bit higher. I’m reluctant to participate in a challenge that’s raising so much money for a small association, especially when it impacts other research that will eventually save the lives of millions. That's the cold and ####ty calculus of charitable giving.
Of course - I understand those who see it differently. If my Dad or my brother was among the 6,000 diagnosed with ALS every year, I’d be standing under a shower of freezing water, waving my checkbook in the air and challenging the world to get on board. I remember when my Mom was diagnosed with breast cancer - I would have done anything to fix it. In fact, I took off my pants and challenged the world to donate the cost of their favorite pair of jeans to help find a cure. I get it.
But here’s the thing - if you decide to give charitably, it’s important to understand everything you can about the way your money is going to be spent. That’s not happening here. The spectacular success of the Ice Bucket Challenge is not the result of a conscious, collective commitment to rise up against a terrible scourge; it’s the result of a marketing campaign. Consequently, a foundation accustomed to working for decades on a million dollars or so in annual donations, will now have to manage a $75 million jackpot. That worries me, as it should anyone who has ever studied the fate of lottery winners. That’s not their fault, but it doesn’t change the situation, and I’m not inclined to challenge more people to send more money to coffers that are already overflowing.
Some of you will remember a recent post about my friend, Jill Brown. Jill is a stuntwoman who got a brain tumor and lived to tell the tale. http://www.refinery29.com/2014/01/60...in-tumor-story Last year, she asked me to sponsor her in a walk to raise money for brain tumor research. She didn’t like asking, and I don’t blame her. Asking people for money is never fun. Even for a good cause. But Jill was very grateful for a second chance at life, and determined to support those suffering from the same condition that she overcame. So she personally called everyone she knew and explained why she walking, how the money that she raised would be used, and why the research was so important. Consequently, she raised a tidy sum for a great cause that was near and dear to her.
Point is, Jill did several difficult things. She vowed to walk, at a time when walking wasn’t so easy. She committed her time, her energy, and her passion to a cause that mattered deeply to her. And most importantly, she made the whole thing personal. That made me want to help her. Not just because she's my friend - but because she was helping herself.
The Ice Bucket Challenge is different. Here, people I’ve never met give me 24 hours to either write a check to a charity I’m not familiar with, or dump a bucket of cold water over my head. Tell me honestly - if that precise challenge arrived to you privately, via the US Mail, what would you do with it? You’d throw it in the trash, right? But a public challenge is not so easy to ignore. Online, everyone is watching. Your friends. Your co-workers. Your clients. Maybe even your boss.
When it comes to asking people for help, I don’t like to put them in an awkward position. So the only challenge I’m issuing today is to Freddy. If he can refrain from peeing on the floor, I’ll send a check to the local shelter. Beyond that, I'm staying dry.
Again - to anyone who’s been affected directly or indirectly by ALS, my heart goes out to you. And to those who challenged me personally, I know your heart’s in the right place. So I’m going to reserve the right to dump various substances over my head at a future date for whatever reason I deem appropriate, and encourage you all to ignore the gimmicks, get informed about the charities you wish to support, and contribute generously to whatever cause resonates with you.
Same as the Maclean's article. You shouldn't give to the ALS foundation because:
1) There just aren't enough people with ALS. Too bad so sad for the people suffering from it.
2) There just aren't enough people with ALS. Too bad so sad for the people suffering from it.
Is he advocating that every single disease based charity shut down except heart disease? Only give to the charity that will affect the most people? We don't factor in that ALS affects much younger people than heart disease, generally? We don't factor in that ALS means worsening suffering, locking able minds in bodies that can do less and less? We don't factor in that lack of exercise (not being overweight as many presume) is a prime cause of cardiovascular disease while there is no controllable lifestyle factor to avoid getting ALS?
It would seem that Mr. Rowe has not done HIS research. He claims that the ALS foundation won't know how to handle this huge windfall. My ass. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the ALS foundation isn't even breaking even this year given the budget cuts they have seen from the federal government as Obama has been forced to tighten the purse strings. Next year they won't have an icebucket challenge windfall and will REALLY be forced to cut research grants.
And I saw a very good article the other day about the "cannibalization factor". The person said that while it is true that it is likely that 50% of the money raised by the icebucket challenge will be diverted from other charities (not in my case; I am giving the same amount to all other charities this year + the $50 I gave to ALS) it is ALSO true that this kind of grand marketing could well introduce charitable giving to people not prone to donating. It could well be creating "life long philanthropists".
I went around yesterday collecting money for the Ottawa Humane Society "Run for the Animals". I did NOT bring around the Humane Society financials and show each person where their money was going. I didn't pontificate about why the cause was important to me personally. "I expect the person to do a good song and dance before I give to their charity and these ALS people challenging me didn't do a good enough dance." Yep. Sounds douchy to me....
The Following User Says Thank You to Devils'Advocate For This Useful Post:
This is the accent I have to deal with every day (Brummie).
Spoiler: It doesn't get any easier to understand when they grow up.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
It would seem that Mr. Rowe has not done HIS research. He claims that the ALS foundation won't know how to handle this huge windfall. My ass. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the ALS foundation isn't even breaking even this year given the budget cuts they have seen from the federal government as Obama has been forced to tighten the purse strings. Next year they won't have an icebucket challenge windfall and will REALLY be forced to cut research grants.
I think you misread the information about the NIH budget cuts. While it is true that their budget is being cut by over a billion dollars, they only spend $40 million annually on ALS research. Assuming that ALS research is being cut in proportion to their overall budget, NIH will spend roughly $2 million less on ALS than they did previously. While that certainly isn't a good thing, the ice bucket challenge has made up for that difference dozens of times over. I'm not judging how people choose to allocate their charitable givings, but it's worth nothing that many other worthy causes have also suffered due to the NIH budget cuts, and they also need donations to make up for that.
Same as the Maclean's article. You shouldn't give to the ALS foundation because:
1) There just aren't enough people with ALS. Too bad so sad for the people suffering from it.
2) There just aren't enough people with ALS. Too bad so sad for the people suffering from it.
Is he advocating that every single disease based charity shut down except heart disease? Only give to the charity that will affect the most people? We don't factor in that ALS affects much younger people than heart disease, generally? We don't factor in that ALS means worsening suffering, locking able minds in bodies that can do less and less? We don't factor in that lack of exercise (not being overweight as many presume) is a prime cause of cardiovascular disease while there is no controllable lifestyle factor to avoid getting ALS?
It would seem that Mr. Rowe has not done HIS research. He claims that the ALS foundation won't know how to handle this huge windfall. My ass. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the ALS foundation isn't even breaking even this year given the budget cuts they have seen from the federal government as Obama has been forced to tighten the purse strings. Next year they won't have an icebucket challenge windfall and will REALLY be forced to cut research grants.
And I saw a very good article the other day about the "cannibalization factor". The person said that while it is true that it is likely that 50% of the money raised by the icebucket challenge will be diverted from other charities (not in my case; I am giving the same amount to all other charities this year + the $50 I gave to ALS) it is ALSO true that this kind of grand marketing could well introduce charitable giving to people not prone to donating. It could well be creating "life long philanthropists".
I went around yesterday collecting money for the Ottawa Humane Society "Run for the Animals". I did NOT bring around the Humane Society financials and show each person where their money was going. I didn't pontificate about why the cause was important to me personally. "I expect the person to do a good song and dance before I give to their charity and these ALS people challenging me didn't do a good enough dance." Yep. Sounds douchy to me....
#HumbleBrag
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
If people don't want to do it they shouldn't do it, its totally fair. There's no need to go into some long explanation about why. You have your reasons. And the people that have done it shouldn't act like they are some kind of humanitarian hero, and they certainly shouldn't look down on those who didn't do it. Most people on facebook that did the challenge probably still couldn't really tell you about the disease, they did it becuase it was trendy and an attention grabber. Luckily the by product of humans being lemmings in this case, is that it actually has raised a lot of money.
I generally find these sweeping trends on social media pretty annoying, and in some ways I found the ice bucket challenge annoying -- but it was effective. I even participated in it myself. If none of my nominees end up doing it that's fine too, their decision.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
The Following User Says Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
My brother in law works in the pharmaceutical industry. His POV on this stuff is that even if the money is being used for research against one specific disease, progress made in that cause can often be used to further other research. He's long said that he just wants to see money going towards this type of research regardless of the cause.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JiriHrdina For This Useful Post:
Icebucket Challenge
