The intentions are clearly good, but it seems that this is just turning into social media attention-whoring, at least in my circle of friends. “Look at me, I’m doing a stunt and tossing $10 to a charity that I never gave two shits about until now!”
I donated blood last week and did not shame anyone else into doing it. I donated $50 to cancer research the other week too, again without publicly shaming people I know into doing the same. I don’t see any need to call attention to my charity or volunteer efforts.
On top of this some people seem to believe that dumping the bucket of ice means you do not have to donate. Just a chance to take part in a meme on facebook, I guess.
I got “called out” yesterday. Fine, I’ll play along, but I’m donating my $10 to another cause. ALS is getting plenty of money right now.
I guess it is all good if it gets people who normally spend their disposable income on themselves to throw a Hamilton to a good cause.
In all the instances of this that I have seen, the statement has always been that if you do the challenge, you don’t have to donate. It kind of seems dumb to me.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
In all the instances of this that I have seen, the statement has always been that if you do the challenge, you don’t have to donate. It kind of seems dumb to me. [/quote]
.
ALS research has raised 2.3 million since it started where as the same time frame last year they raised 25000. Seems kind of stupid to me to but it seems as though a lot of people are doing it and donating anyway or their friends are. More power to em if its for a good cause and it’s working.
I think its a CIA experiment on social media peer groups and their ability to preasure involuntary self-inflicted pain. A step closer to a zero contact manchurian candidate.
I don’t get this. Someone dumps a bucket of ice water over themselves, which is not a big deal, and somehow they want you to feel obliged to give money because of it? Really, I don’t get it.
Am I missing something? I had not heard of this until you mentioned it and had to look it up.
Is it any worse than wearing a pink or yellow bracelet?
It actually reminds me of a thread I read hear a few weeks back on selfless acts. Charitable giving is becoming nothing more than a way to make givers feel good about themselves. On the flip side when you look at so-called charities, the amount of money that actually goes to the cause is incredibly discouraging. I’m sorry, but if only 60% of what I give you actually goes to help someone truly in need, you aren’t getting a dime from me.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Is it any worse than wearing a pink or yellow bracelet?
It actually reminds me of a thread I read hear a few weeks back on selfless acts. Charitable giving is becoming nothing more than a way to make givers feel good about themselves. On the flip side when you look at so-called charities, the amount of money that actually goes to the cause is incredibly discouraging. I’m sorry, but if only 60% of what I give you actually goes to help someone truly in need, you aren’t getting a dime from me.[/quote]
I’ve heard there are only a few actual charities where the money goes 100% towards the cause. I think one of them was the salvation army.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Charitable giving is becoming nothing more than a way to make givers feel good about themselves. On the flip side when you look at so-called charities, the amount of money that actually goes to the cause is incredibly discouraging. I’m sorry, but if only 60% of what I give you actually goes to help someone truly in need, you aren’t getting a dime from me.[/quote]
Isn’t that what they always taught us in school? “You give because you feel good.” Or something like that.
Not-for-profits vary widely in their effectiveness and money spent directly on the program. Who cares if 100% goes towards programming if the program sucks? Also, a lot of those with higher percentages going towards programming are able to do so because they operate with an endowment covering the remaining costs.
I’ve never heard of this until now. FWIW, here’s ALS’ expense breakdown according to Charity Navigator (who gives them 4 out of 4 stars as a charity):
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charityâ??s budget spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 72.4%
Administrative Expenses 11.0%
Fundraising Expenses 16.5%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.16
Primary Revenue Growth 9.9%
Program Expenses Growth 11.5%
Working Capital Ratio (years) 0.83
[quote]tedro wrote:
Charitable giving is becoming nothing more than a way to make givers feel good about themselves. On the flip side when you look at so-called charities, the amount of money that actually goes to the cause is incredibly discouraging. I’m sorry, but if only 60% of what I give you actually goes to help someone truly in need, you aren’t getting a dime from me.[/quote]
Isn’t that what they always taught us in school? “You give because you feel good.” Or something like that.
Not-for-profits vary widely in their effectiveness and money spent directly on the program. Who cares if 100% goes towards programming if the program sucks? Also, a lot of those with higher percentages going towards programming are able to do so because they operate with an endowment covering the remaining costs.
I’ve never heard of this until now. FWIW, here’s ALS’ expense breakdown according to Charity Navigator (who gives them 4 out of 4 stars as a charity):
[/quote]
The problem is it’s going from a “donate to make yourself feel good”, to a “donate to get more attention from friends and strangers.” How about a little humbleness.
I wouldn’t expect 100% of donations to go to a given cause, but some charities actual giving rates are pretty dismal. Glad to hear ALS seems decent. My rant was driven by attention seekers, not the charity.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Charitable giving is becoming nothing more than a way to make givers feel good about themselves. On the flip side when you look at so-called charities, the amount of money that actually goes to the cause is incredibly discouraging. I’m sorry, but if only 60% of what I give you actually goes to help someone truly in need, you aren’t getting a dime from me.[/quote]
Isn’t that what they always taught us in school? “You give because you feel good.” Or something like that.
Not-for-profits vary widely in their effectiveness and money spent directly on the program. Who cares if 100% goes towards programming if the program sucks? Also, a lot of those with higher percentages going towards programming are able to do so because they operate with an endowment covering the remaining costs.
I’ve never heard of this until now. FWIW, here’s ALS’ expense breakdown according to Charity Navigator (who gives them 4 out of 4 stars as a charity):
[/quote]
The problem is it’s going from a “donate to make yourself feel good”, to a “donate to get more attention from friends and strangers.” How about a little humbleness.
[/quote]
Why is this a problem as long as someone in need is benefitting?
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Why is this a problem as long as someone in need is benefitting?[/quote]
The problem isn’t with the beneficiary. The problem (or annoyance - probably a better word as the OP used) is it encourages narcissistic behavior amongst the donators. As I said, why not donate with humility? Or frequently, why not donate some time that will directly help those in need.
Frankly, it’s unlikely that many diagnosed with ALS today will see much benefit at all from a donation to research right now. If you know someone with ALS or if there is some one with the disease in your area, spending a day with them is going to do a lot more for there well being than a $10 donation to make yourself feel good. Afterwards, put the $10 in an envelope and send it in for future ALS sufferers. There’s no need to announce it to the whole world.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Why is this a problem as long as someone in need is benefitting?[/quote]
The problem isn’t with the beneficiary. The problem (or annoyance - probably a better word as the OP used) is it encourages narcissistic behavior amongst the donators. As I said, why not donate with humility? Or frequently, why not donate some time that will directly help those in need. Frankly, it’s unlikely that many diagnosed with ALS today will see much benefit at all from a donation to research right now. If you know someone with ALS or if there is some one with the disease in your area, spending a day with them is going to do a lot more for there well being than a $10 donation to make yourself feel good. Afterwards, put the $10 in an envelope and send it in for future ALS sufferers. There’s no need to announce it to the whole world.[/quote]
I don’t think any of us here are under the illusion that most people actually donate to charity out of pure goodness in their hearts. We can talk about being humble, making a donation discreetly or making personal visits being more sincere, but the bottomline is that it is not going to happen. I don’t see this campaign as a problem since its producing extraordinary results (although its seems pretty annoying just reading about it lol).
As a Minnesotan, I have heard only bad things about cris carter, an arrogant selfish jerk mostly. And it’s unanamous from everyone who knows him.[/quote]
I wouldnt doubt that one bit, but i hate chris berman much more.
[quote]tedro wrote:
it encourages narcissistic behavior amongst the donators.[/quote]
You could also argue that it doesn’t encourage it so much as it exploits the behavior of narcissists… if it’s a youtube video of them complaining about their cat vs. this, at least some good can come out of this.