The $5 philanthropist

Jess and I are about to move and we wanted to use the opportunity to de-clutter. In preparing for the move, we used some of our time yesterday to be mercenary in identifying stuff to throw away and give away. Within a few hours, every room was full of bags to dispose of. Problem was, we were identifying SO MUCH JUNK and couldn't dispose of it in our apartment's bins.

I had seen the ads for 1-800-Got Junk and knew that it had been rated as a great place to work and that it's a great local success story but had never used the service. First of all, the online booking process was incredibly elagant. Within minutes, I had booked an appointment for them to arrive a few hours later.

Instead of having to wait around all afternoon, we were given a two-hour window and a promise that we would receive a phone-call 15 minutes before they arrived.

We got a phone call an hour before, giving us plenty of time to go about the rest of our day.

The two guys were great! They were friendly, funny and professional. As they finished loading a lot of the stuff faster than we thought, they caught us going over old sentimental stuff that we were unsure of whether to let go. Recognizing the sensitivity of the situation, they left us alone to decide what to do.

Finally, unlike any comparable service, when we were in danger of being slightly over one price category, they worked to squeeze us in to the cheaper category. In doing so, they've only made me more of a fan.

It's so rare that a service lives up to its brand promise but this is the one that did.

I know this post is so evangelical that it sounds like I was paid to write it. I assure you that other than some "Junk Bucks" the guys left with us as an incentive to use the service again, I haven't nor don't need to be paid to promote their service.

My friend Michael Garrity wrote a post the other day about some service pretending to be a consumer-information service but instead is just propaganda for certain clients. And of course, there's the ongoing debate around PayPerPost and other services. What I liked about what Michael said is essentially great products don't need spin/propaganda.

You want to "engineer word-of-mouth"? Simple! Build a great product/service, invest in ongoing quality assurance, hire good people, infect them with enthusiasm for the company, treat them well, deliver outstanding customer service..repeat.

I'm a HUGE FAN of 1-800-Got-Junk. Organizations of any kind can learn from what these guys are doing.

Labels: 1800gotjunk, brand, customerservice, marketing

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"

Labels: causemarketing, charity, csr, idolgivesback, marketing, media, philanthropy

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.

Labels: americanidol, charity, fundraising, idolgivesback, marketing, philanthropy

I'm still trying to figure out which was worse: Jennifer Garner's new movie "Catch & Release" or the smell of the middle-aged woman sitting next to me who kept burping the most horrid smell. Combined, it was a lethal combination. Even though it was a free screening, I feel like I should be reimbursed for my time.

Speaking of movies, the Beeb posted this article on an Oscar-night celebrity promotional campaign being organized by the US Diamond industry.

According to the article, the campaign called Raise Your Right Hand Ring for Africa campaign will donate "$10,000 (£5,000) to African charities for each star raising a hand with a ring at events including the Oscars."

The article quotes the director of the recent movie Blood Diamond as pointing out the cruel irony "that the raising of one's hand and the using of one's hand to vote was the prompt for the Revolutionary United Front to chop off hands in Sierra Leone (where the movie chronicles the use of diamonds to fuel the bloody civil war that killed tens of thousands of people and displaced over a third of the country's entire population).

The spokesperson for the Diamond Information Center (the group organizing this promotional campaign) said in response to Blood Diamond's director: ""It's sort of strange that someone who is apparently so concerned about the needs of Africans is making public statements to stop jewellers from making large amounts of money available to African charities. It's unfortunate because it may be that people hear this and hear this very unfortunate connection that has been constructed, and decide not to do it."

The spokesperson goes on to say "The people who would be hurt by that are the beneficiaries of the charities."

Now that's quite literally a bloody cheek. Diamond Exporting from Africa is a hundred billion dollar business. If the Diamond Industry really was concerned about "beneficiaries," they'd concern themselves with the disgusting wages and working conditions of the diamond miners.

This is another example of "social responsibility done wrong." Listen, TMZ.com is the first site I read in the morning, I buy Us everytime I'm on a plane. So this campaign is geared at people like me, people who are influenced by celebrity culture. And I just hope that my fellow Us readers and TMZ surfers see this campaign for what it is. An ironic, insincere, and crude attempt at buying a little good PR.

From a cause-marketing perspective, the lesson here is that "poorly executed cause-marketing" does more to hurt your brand than help it. The idiots who conceived of this campaign are of the same ilk that thought-up Dove's failed attempt at stimulating viral but ended being mocked and angrily criticized by the YouTube community.

Labels: africa, blooddiamond, causemarketing, diamonds, entertainment, marketing, online, oscars

If you haven't seen this already, you have to check it out

A day after Christmas, Philip Greenspun wrote that a friend of his had received a "water buffalo for Christmas from her dad." The gift was made through Heifer International's catalog of "ethical gifts." On their website, they call their catalog "The most important gift catalog in the world." Wow. Quite the claim. We're all familiar with the appeal of buying "ethical gifts" for friends and family. Many international relief and development charities have similar catalogues and new websites have emerged in recent years as online catalogues of these gifts.

Here's the catch: As Phillip's blog post said "If you read the fine print on the page, however, it turns out that there is no actual buffalo and no actual family and you won’t get a photo of your family and your buffalo. The money simply gets dumped into the common fund at the charity. We are trying to decide if this is the crummiest possible Christmas present."

The defense goes like this: "Donors are too lazy, or too uninterested in the details of our activities, so we're going to publish anecdotes that can be easily related and sold to the average consumer." At the best case, this is just lazy and unimaginative and at the worst case, well... In the days of heightened paranoia around "transparency ad accountability" and all of those other multisyllabic words that all cry "who can we trust?" isn't it some relatively dark shade of outright dishonesty?

The other problem with these unethically presented ethical gifts is that they let the donor off the hook. "Well ma, I bought you the Water Buffalo so that's my contribution for the year. Maybe for your birthday, I'll buy a pig, then we'll really have made a difference!"

Not only does it let the donor off the hook but it lessens the likelihood that you can engage that donor in the actual good work that really is happening on the ground.

I think it's high time we treat donors more intelligently, yes, even those that only have $100 to give. Instead of giving them this dumbed-down approach to giving, find new ways to express what it means to take on the problems of a community, embrace media like the one I linked to at the top of this post. Take some of your massive fund-raising budget and spend it on inexpensive video cameras, and a small centrally located edit suite, license some songs, and start posting 'em to YouTube like the clip I posted the other day.

That's the way to engage donors, not treat them like they need to be lied to.

Of course, I can't help but mention that it's this more respectful, intelligent approach that we do at GiveMeaning, but that aside, really, I'm saying to all my colleagues and "competitors" (your view, not mine): Treat donors with more respect and assume a higher degree of intelligence and interest in your work than in the "most important gifts" variety.

Labels: charitablegifts, charity, charitygifts, ethicalgifts, fundraising, greengifts, marketing, media, nptech, philanthropy

According to this article in the Salem, Oregon StatesmanjournalWoodburn Company Stores (presumably the name of the shopping mall) "plans a fundraising shopping event that it says will give participants a chance to be pampered while they shop and collect money for good causes.

The Nov. 4 event's goal is to raise $25,000 for 10 non-profit organizations, including the Volunteers of American, Easter Seals and Ronald McDonald Charities of Oregon and SW Washington.

Tickets cost $20, with $10 from each ticket going to the charities. Participants then shop in any of the 85 stores in the center from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. They also get lunch, dessert, a wine tasting, a gift from Garden Gallery Iron Works and gift wrapping. It's a great holiday promotion that could easily be implemented by other malls. I hope that there are information booths or better yet identifiable volunteers from the 10 organizations that will benefit from the event to talk about and raise awareness about who they are and what they do.

Labels: fundraising, fundraising ideas, marketing