There seems to have been a resurgence in charity mugging recently. Maybe it's because it's stopped raining - they're everywhere at the moment.
Every time I see them I want to have an argument with them about the merits of this particular form of fundraising but I hate seeing their earnest faces fall when I tell them that I think what they're doing is actually pretty bad. Bad for public trust in charity, bad for small charities, bad for public understanding of the issues.
Sometimes I just avoid them but occasionally when they're chasing me I tell them that I work for a charity that does similar work and giving to them would be a conflict of interest. The latter is not true of course - I'm happy to give to other charities that do similar work - but it does distract them for long enough to allow me to make good my escape.
One of them actually told me I should donate £5 a month for this very reason. His argument was essentially that he didn't need tell me anything about Anti Slavery because I should already know about it - I could save myself a lot of time by just getting the donation over and done with. I was not impressed. I think they're a great organisation, doing good work but I want a bit of time to do some research on exactly where my money's going if I am going to donate. And I certainly don't want to be guilt tripped in the middle of Camden when I've just finished a whole day of thinking about similar issues. The implication that I was letting the whole charity sector down by not giving my £5 a month was pretty insulting.
But then this is how they operate - guilt. Making students outside libraries and busy mothers outside supermarkets feel bad about themselves for just long enough to get their cash. Guilt can be a useful tool but if we really want to work towards resolving the issues that organisations like Anti Slavery tackle then we need to treat people like adults and engage with them more meaningfully.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Bizarre situation arose this morning when I took myself over the MSNBC website to have a look at their interview with Bill Gates.
As well as talking about how great Vista is etc. Gates gets on his high horse about the latest Apple ads. One of the video ads is embedded in the page so I thought I'd take a look. Forgetting that this was a big American site I was a bit surprised that the video was preceeded by a commercial.
Fair enough I thought - the video advertising model is still in development, we'll probably have to put up with this kind of crap for a while to come. But then I realised I was waiting to watch er, a commercial.
When you visit video sharing sites you quickly realise that the most popular videos are often commercials. So we find ourselves in a position where we are watching ads to get to the ads. Is this really the future of 'rich content' online? As if advertising wasn't all pervasive enough we now find ourselves at the mercy of a few ad execs who have the resources to drive huge traffic to their ads on YouTube etc. Their ads end up at the top of their charts while quality content remains hidden under this blanket of crap.
I blame Web 2.0. When's 2.1 launching?
As well as talking about how great Vista is etc. Gates gets on his high horse about the latest Apple ads. One of the video ads is embedded in the page so I thought I'd take a look. Forgetting that this was a big American site I was a bit surprised that the video was preceeded by a commercial.
Fair enough I thought - the video advertising model is still in development, we'll probably have to put up with this kind of crap for a while to come. But then I realised I was waiting to watch er, a commercial.
When you visit video sharing sites you quickly realise that the most popular videos are often commercials. So we find ourselves in a position where we are watching ads to get to the ads. Is this really the future of 'rich content' online? As if advertising wasn't all pervasive enough we now find ourselves at the mercy of a few ad execs who have the resources to drive huge traffic to their ads on YouTube etc. Their ads end up at the top of their charts while quality content remains hidden under this blanket of crap.
I blame Web 2.0. When's 2.1 launching?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Inc(RED)ulous.
I've been thinking a lot about (RED) recently. And those who have the dubious pleasure of knowing me will have heard me talking about it a lot too.
On the face of it what's to worry about? It gives money to HIV/AIDS programmes in areas of the world that are on the brink of collapse thanks to the disease; it engages with people on a level they understand (i.e. consumerism); it's got the backing of influential individuals and corporations. So why worry? Surely Bono has struck on the ultimate way for charities to get hold of people's money?
Well, yes and no. I have absolutely no problem with Global Fund (the charitable trust supported by (RED)) distributing around $10 million in September 2006 alone, to projects which seek to tackle HIV/AIDS in Africa. But I do take issue with (RED)'s methodology. Granted, without these methods Global Fund may never have had $10 million to give away but I am not convinced that the ends have justified the means.
(RED)'s proposition is simple: keep buying stuff and it'll all be okay. One of their slogans is 'Shop til it Stops'. Nice idea. Er, except it won't work.
The reality is that many of the problems that (RED) purports to tackle are a direct consequence of the consumerism that it perpetuates. The prevalence of disease in developing countries is intrinsically linked to poverty, poor governance and conflict. As we learned during Make Poverty History (thanks to Bono) fairer trade is essential in tackling all of these issues. If African countries (in particular) get a better deal then they become more affluent and stable. And the spread of disease declines.
So why are we being encouraged to give money to Motorola, whose inevitable involvement in Coltan mining in DRC has the potential to do significant damage to the Congolese economy and continue the cycle of violence that has devasted the country for nearly a decade? Motorola has a (frankly rather unconvincing) policy on Coltan provenance. So why not put their money where their mouth is and invest in schemes that will improve conditions for miners and set in place programmes that will ensure future Coltan mining is undertaken legally, ethically and sustainably? The long-term benefits of this kind of activity would be considerably more significant and effective but then, 5% of your mobile phone bill effectively costs Motorola nothing and this kind of investment does...
Similar questions can be raised about Gap, American Express, Armani, Apple...
Not only are these companies absolving themselves of future responsibility but they (along with (RED)) are actively encouraging consumers to absolve themselves of the responsibility to question corporate behaviour and the reality of the international situation that has contributed to the spread of HIV/AIDS. Corporate Big Brother will make sure everything is alright so don't worry your little head about it.
I'm not trying to suggest that any the companies involved in (RED) are inherently evil or that their actions are actively malicious but I do believe that (RED) could have a negative impact on some developing countries in the long term and have a damaging effect on the public's perceptions of charitable giving. If we want to end the spread of HIV/AIDS then the public need to understand the root causes of the problems (RED) hopes to stop. Instead they are being asked to blindly throw money at the situation in exchange for a pretty tshirt. In the long run that's not going to change anythhing.
Why not use corporate and individaul influence and capital to move the goalposts in favour of the developing countries that (RED) wishes to help? Motorola, Gap, American Express et al. wield imense power. They could use it much more effectively. They might not get to hang out with Bono and June Sarpong but they would make a huge lon-term difference.
I've been thinking a lot about (RED) recently. And those who have the dubious pleasure of knowing me will have heard me talking about it a lot too.
On the face of it what's to worry about? It gives money to HIV/AIDS programmes in areas of the world that are on the brink of collapse thanks to the disease; it engages with people on a level they understand (i.e. consumerism); it's got the backing of influential individuals and corporations. So why worry? Surely Bono has struck on the ultimate way for charities to get hold of people's money?
Well, yes and no. I have absolutely no problem with Global Fund (the charitable trust supported by (RED)) distributing around $10 million in September 2006 alone, to projects which seek to tackle HIV/AIDS in Africa. But I do take issue with (RED)'s methodology. Granted, without these methods Global Fund may never have had $10 million to give away but I am not convinced that the ends have justified the means.
(RED)'s proposition is simple: keep buying stuff and it'll all be okay. One of their slogans is 'Shop til it Stops'. Nice idea. Er, except it won't work.
The reality is that many of the problems that (RED) purports to tackle are a direct consequence of the consumerism that it perpetuates. The prevalence of disease in developing countries is intrinsically linked to poverty, poor governance and conflict. As we learned during Make Poverty History (thanks to Bono) fairer trade is essential in tackling all of these issues. If African countries (in particular) get a better deal then they become more affluent and stable. And the spread of disease declines.
So why are we being encouraged to give money to Motorola, whose inevitable involvement in Coltan mining in DRC has the potential to do significant damage to the Congolese economy and continue the cycle of violence that has devasted the country for nearly a decade? Motorola has a (frankly rather unconvincing) policy on Coltan provenance. So why not put their money where their mouth is and invest in schemes that will improve conditions for miners and set in place programmes that will ensure future Coltan mining is undertaken legally, ethically and sustainably? The long-term benefits of this kind of activity would be considerably more significant and effective but then, 5% of your mobile phone bill effectively costs Motorola nothing and this kind of investment does...
Similar questions can be raised about Gap, American Express, Armani, Apple...
Not only are these companies absolving themselves of future responsibility but they (along with (RED)) are actively encouraging consumers to absolve themselves of the responsibility to question corporate behaviour and the reality of the international situation that has contributed to the spread of HIV/AIDS. Corporate Big Brother will make sure everything is alright so don't worry your little head about it.
I'm not trying to suggest that any the companies involved in (RED) are inherently evil or that their actions are actively malicious but I do believe that (RED) could have a negative impact on some developing countries in the long term and have a damaging effect on the public's perceptions of charitable giving. If we want to end the spread of HIV/AIDS then the public need to understand the root causes of the problems (RED) hopes to stop. Instead they are being asked to blindly throw money at the situation in exchange for a pretty tshirt. In the long run that's not going to change anythhing.
Why not use corporate and individaul influence and capital to move the goalposts in favour of the developing countries that (RED) wishes to help? Motorola, Gap, American Express et al. wield imense power. They could use it much more effectively. They might not get to hang out with Bono and June Sarpong but they would make a huge lon-term difference.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Darfur. If you've read or watched the news in the last year or so you've probably heard about it. But do you know what it's all about? It's generally considered to be the worst humanitarian crisis in the world but its causes remain a mystery to most.
Unfortunately those who took the trip to How Long is Never? Darfur - A Response at the Tricycle Theatre in London didn't come away with much more insight than they arrived with.
The six short plays were well acted and staged but the content seemed to leave most of the audience a little cold. With the exception of a duologue between a mother and daughter the plays failed to engage and fell back on cheap shots at the UN or ham-fisted moralising.
Frankly we deserved better. The debate that followed offered more useful analysis but ultimately an evening that should have been an empowering call to action ended (like so many peace agreements, UN discussions and government debates) in petty squabbling and name calling.
It was telling that only towards the end of the debate did anyone discuss the root causes of the conflict. And by then it was too late. Time was running almost as short as the audience's patience.
And therein lies the problem. The plays spent an hour and a half telling us we should listen up and do something instead of sitting on our arses but they neatly dodged the issue of why. Why did the conflict begin? Why would a government support a militia that systematically kills its own people? Why do the militia feel compelled to comit such atrocious acts? Why is the situation getting worse?
Without context it is very difficult for a western audience (even one as switched on as those present at the Tricycle) to understand why Darfur deserves more attention or more emotional and financial investment than any other horrific conflict in Africa.
Along with journalists, playwrights, artists and government, NGOs bare a huge reponsibility in this respect. It is up to those of us who work in the industry (don't kid yourselves - it's an industry) to honestly asssess our fundraising efforts and start to treat donors and potential donors with the respect they deserve. Pictures of crying children and brutal statistics might tug on the heartstrings but they don't address the long-term needs of the people they purport to help. Constantly baraging people with these images and messages is counter-productive.
An intellectual as well as emotional engagement is required if people are to stop simply throwing money at the world's problems and begin to address their causes. Oxfam have the right idea with their excellent I'm In campaign. Ordinary people doing a little bit towards a cause that (no matter what Sir Bob says) has failed on almost every level. Oxfam are treating their supporters with respect. There is nothing back-patting about the campaign. Make Poverty History isn't working and Oxfam needs your help to get it back on track. And (gasp) they don't just want your money. They want you and (most importantly) your mind.
We should all take note.
Unfortunately those who took the trip to How Long is Never? Darfur - A Response at the Tricycle Theatre in London didn't come away with much more insight than they arrived with.
The six short plays were well acted and staged but the content seemed to leave most of the audience a little cold. With the exception of a duologue between a mother and daughter the plays failed to engage and fell back on cheap shots at the UN or ham-fisted moralising.
Frankly we deserved better. The debate that followed offered more useful analysis but ultimately an evening that should have been an empowering call to action ended (like so many peace agreements, UN discussions and government debates) in petty squabbling and name calling.
It was telling that only towards the end of the debate did anyone discuss the root causes of the conflict. And by then it was too late. Time was running almost as short as the audience's patience.
And therein lies the problem. The plays spent an hour and a half telling us we should listen up and do something instead of sitting on our arses but they neatly dodged the issue of why. Why did the conflict begin? Why would a government support a militia that systematically kills its own people? Why do the militia feel compelled to comit such atrocious acts? Why is the situation getting worse?
Without context it is very difficult for a western audience (even one as switched on as those present at the Tricycle) to understand why Darfur deserves more attention or more emotional and financial investment than any other horrific conflict in Africa.
Along with journalists, playwrights, artists and government, NGOs bare a huge reponsibility in this respect. It is up to those of us who work in the industry (don't kid yourselves - it's an industry) to honestly asssess our fundraising efforts and start to treat donors and potential donors with the respect they deserve. Pictures of crying children and brutal statistics might tug on the heartstrings but they don't address the long-term needs of the people they purport to help. Constantly baraging people with these images and messages is counter-productive.
An intellectual as well as emotional engagement is required if people are to stop simply throwing money at the world's problems and begin to address their causes. Oxfam have the right idea with their excellent I'm In campaign. Ordinary people doing a little bit towards a cause that (no matter what Sir Bob says) has failed on almost every level. Oxfam are treating their supporters with respect. There is nothing back-patting about the campaign. Make Poverty History isn't working and Oxfam needs your help to get it back on track. And (gasp) they don't just want your money. They want you and (most importantly) your mind.
We should all take note.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
