Thursday, May 10, 2007
An envoy appointed and a bit on CSR
A bit groggy this morning. Woke up at 5:30am to speak at a Rotary Club meeting early this morning.
I found this story within the news section of the GiveMeaning site.
It's long over-due and it will be interesting to hear Mr. Giujin's official statements.
In other news, I found this article through my Google Reader this morning talking about different approaches to Corporate Philanthropy. Though it is specifically referring to Australian companies, it's good reading for anyone in corporate philanthropy as it raises the question that I think needs more conversation around: "Are corporate donors dealing with the real needs of the sector or are they more inclined to fund high-profile, simplistic, and sometimes ineffective, feel-good projects?" is the question asked by Niall Mulligan.
The answer should be both and at first blush, it might seem unfair to generalize but I do see this distinct dichotomy that the author flags. There is a new breed of community engagement consultants who are emphasizing "high-touch" projects that can mobilize their client's employees in ways that a three-year capacity grant to a sexual assault centre can't do. When these high-touch projects are designed more around looking and feeling good then around an impact/investment ratio, there is cause for concern.
I've been harping on this theme all week - the "feel good versus the know good" which may in fact be the perfect play on words.
On point, I'll leave you with this link from - of all places - PerezHilton.com. It's a strange day when Clay Aiken has got something poignant to say about what was missing from Idol Gives Back"
I found this story within the news section of the GiveMeaning site.
It's long over-due and it will be interesting to hear Mr. Giujin's official statements.
In other news, I found this article through my Google Reader this morning talking about different approaches to Corporate Philanthropy. Though it is specifically referring to Australian companies, it's good reading for anyone in corporate philanthropy as it raises the question that I think needs more conversation around: "Are corporate donors dealing with the real needs of the sector or are they more inclined to fund high-profile, simplistic, and sometimes ineffective, feel-good projects?" is the question asked by Niall Mulligan.
The answer should be both and at first blush, it might seem unfair to generalize but I do see this distinct dichotomy that the author flags. There is a new breed of community engagement consultants who are emphasizing "high-touch" projects that can mobilize their client's employees in ways that a three-year capacity grant to a sexual assault centre can't do. When these high-touch projects are designed more around looking and feeling good then around an impact/investment ratio, there is cause for concern.
I've been harping on this theme all week - the "feel good versus the know good" which may in fact be the perfect play on words.
On point, I'll leave you with this link from - of all places - PerezHilton.com. It's a strange day when Clay Aiken has got something poignant to say about what was missing from Idol Gives Back"
Labels: causemarketing, charity, csr, idolgivesback, marketing, media, philanthropy
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Charity and Class Consciousness
I found this blog entry through StumbleUpon today and I thought it worth sharing. It touches on the increasing "consumer mentality" of charity (consumer mentality and actual charity to many is an oxymoron) and despite the style's capacity to offend, I think it's well worth a read.
The big question from this piece (for me) is "do the beneficiaries care what motivated the funding of their assistance?"
This is far less simple a question that it first appears.
Do we really have to care? Does it make a difference if we don't?
Does anyone give a damn?
The big question from this piece (for me) is "do the beneficiaries care what motivated the funding of their assistance?"
This is far less simple a question that it first appears.
Do we really have to care? Does it make a difference if we don't?
Does anyone give a damn?
Labels: American Idol Charity, idolgivesback, Jesus, Maimonides, poverty, Status Anxiety, Thorstein Veblen
Monday, April 30, 2007
Fast-Food Philanthropy? Idol Gives Back
In my Google Reader the other night, I found a post by Amy Tiemann at the MojoMom Blog entitled "Fast-Food Philanthropy" talking about the recent "Idol Gives Back" American Idol campaign to raise money for charities seeking to address poverty in America and abroad. I wrote the following comment in response to her blog entry:
Thanks for your post. I can only imagine the negotiations that went on behind the scenes between the orgs that are to receive this money and the producers of Idol Gives Back.
As is the case with many big appeals (e.g. Make Poverty History, Live8 etc), the actual highlighting of individual charities in a piece like Idol Gives Back would be fraught with the brand managers of those charities squabbling over how they are represented, worried that they would lose a percentage of the pie, as opposed to think about how the pie is increased from mass-media events like Idol Gives Back.
Idol is one of the most valuable pieces of television programming on the network, certainly much more watched than the late-night and weekend appeals put on by the big international charities.
The fact that IGB's appeal speaks and incites action amongst a group of people most likely not otherwise conscious of the plight of African Countries is indeed a good thing. And while it leaves people to get that "quick satisfaction" that placates their need to do more than "phone it in" the reality is that for many citizens, this is all they are capable of.
I have lamented the fact that most all big appeals have little to no meaningful feedback. Long ago, I coined the term "Return On Generosity" to refer to the fact that without this measure, most of us are unlikely to remain invested.
What's wrong with Fast-Food Philanthropy is that the producers have forgotten to include the "toy in the happy meal" that makes one want to come back and collect the other toys on my next purchase.
I hate ending on such a stupid analogy but hey, I'm hungry and I'm in need of some fast-food.
Thanks for your post. I can only imagine the negotiations that went on behind the scenes between the orgs that are to receive this money and the producers of Idol Gives Back.
As is the case with many big appeals (e.g. Make Poverty History, Live8 etc), the actual highlighting of individual charities in a piece like Idol Gives Back would be fraught with the brand managers of those charities squabbling over how they are represented, worried that they would lose a percentage of the pie, as opposed to think about how the pie is increased from mass-media events like Idol Gives Back.
Idol is one of the most valuable pieces of television programming on the network, certainly much more watched than the late-night and weekend appeals put on by the big international charities.
The fact that IGB's appeal speaks and incites action amongst a group of people most likely not otherwise conscious of the plight of African Countries is indeed a good thing. And while it leaves people to get that "quick satisfaction" that placates their need to do more than "phone it in" the reality is that for many citizens, this is all they are capable of.
I have lamented the fact that most all big appeals have little to no meaningful feedback. Long ago, I coined the term "Return On Generosity" to refer to the fact that without this measure, most of us are unlikely to remain invested.
What's wrong with Fast-Food Philanthropy is that the producers have forgotten to include the "toy in the happy meal" that makes one want to come back and collect the other toys on my next purchase.
I hate ending on such a stupid analogy but hey, I'm hungry and I'm in need of some fast-food.
Labels: americanidol, charity, fundraising, idolgivesback, marketing, philanthropy
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]