RIDGE POLITICAL REVIEW
  • Home
  • Domestic
  • International
  • Opinions
  • Economics
  • Local
  • About
  • Contact
  • All Articles

All Articles

#Generous: Charity In A New Age

10/23/2018

1 Comment

 
Picture

By Jonathan Nemetz

In July 2014, the internet was looking for the new trend of the summer and found it in an unlikely place: the ALS Association. The “ALS Ice Bucket challenge” became an online sensation, averaging 70,000 tweets about the challenge every day throughout August. Over the span of the challenge, politicians, celebrities, and many internet users posted 1.2 million videos on Facebook and raised an estimated $115 million USD for various ALS foundations.The Ice Bucket challenge brought lots of new attention to ALS, but also attention to how generosity may function in an increasingly social-media focused world.

Most recently, the basketball star LeBron James worked in tandem with the public school system in Akron, Ohio to open a new $8 million USD public school called “I Promise”. The school would provide free bikes, meals, and college tuition to its students. In an eleven minute speech at the highly publicized opening ceremony, James stressed the importance of helping at-risk children, and that his LeBron James Family Foundation would continue to search for ways to help areas that needed it most.

In recent years, social media has been used by celebrities to encourage donations, political action, and volunteer activism, all of it in vastly different causes ranging from climate change to sexism to extreme poverty. At the same time that celebrities have been making their donations a public event, companies have noticed the brand success of generosity, and have begun to take notes. Now celebrities and companies alike are joining with charities to promote their brands and their values, creating a new group of donors engaging in so called “Pop Philanthropy”.

Although the donations can be extremely helpful, and done in good faith, psychologists and economists have begun to worry about the effect that the public philanthropy of celebrities has had on the general population. One of the most alarming shifts in donations, to many, has been how celebrities shift donations focuses to sensational organisations and causes. Experts fear that people only give during crises, when giving year-round is the only way to prevent those crises in the first place. For instance, many developing nations receive vast amounts of free aid in response to disasters, but not the year round aid to develop their infrastructure to prevent the devastating effects that those can have.

A similar problem is faced by blood banks, which need blood when a disaster strikes, but more often end up with a massive surplus after the blood is needed. When a hurricane or earthquake occurs, people line up to donate blood to areas in danger, but it is often too late. Blood banks can only hold blood for 42 days, meaning that a month and a half after major disasters, blood banks end up throwing away blood by the gallons. Blood that would have saved lives, had it been donated before a catastrophe.

On average, celebrities tend to use their platforms in the wake of major disasters, creating a trend of reactive, rather than proactive charity. Although this is still admirable, it causes people to be less generous for other causes. When people donate to a charity that a celebrity has recommended, it fills up their “Moral checkbook”, making them less likely to donate in the future. And in the age of social-media, this can manifest in ways that provide no help at all. Some psychologists have shown that reposting the words of a celebrity, or publishing a post showing support for a cause, has the same effect on our brain as donating. This tricks people into thinking that they are doing good, without taking substantial action for that cause. Or, seeing celebrities donate can give the illusion that problems are being fixed, when lots of work is still needed.

The debate on whether or not celebrities have a positive impact on monetary donations may never be over. Of course, activism and donations rise when celebrities use their platforms for good, but the negative effects cannot be ignored. Yet perhaps the more important debate isn’t if someone can, but who and why. Now that companies are adopting the social media philanthropy of celebrities, exploitation of charities for corporate gain is also a new and emerging dilemma that charities face. Charities doing real good have to wonder if companies are manipulating their causes. Earlier this year, Nike donated $25,000 USD to Portlanders for Safe and Healthy Schools, an organization that helps to remove hazardous materials from Portland public schools, as well as modernizing their facilities. The donation came at the same time that the school board was looking into the sponsorship relationship that Nike had with the districts sports teams. Although $25,000 would only make up a very small portion of the organization's budget, it is enough to ask if Nike was trying to bribe the public with goodwill into supporting this sponsorship. And if Nike was using this donation to convince the school board to continue to allow the business relationship between Nike and the district’s athletic teams, should the company refuse such a potentially exploitive donation?

Entire businesses have also begun to sprout up in response to this new demand for public donations. The aptly named Pop Philanthropy, has started to capitalize on this trend, working with their clients to “Provide them with creative tactics that captures the attention of consumers…” as their site claims. Companies like Toms Shoes boast of “one for one” policies, where the purchase of one of their shoes or other products leads to a pair of shoes being given to a child in need. And although this promotion has garnered them lots of financial success, the actual impact has been limited. The company's founder claims that he wanted to allow more people to get an education by giving them shoes. However, the Toms brand is attempting to fix a problem that does not exist; fixing a lack of shoes to get people to school is far less effective than targeting poverty or discrimination. And in truth, the influx of free shoes can oftentimes crash local sectors of the economy that center around clothing. But despite these problems, the appearance of charity and generosity keeps Toms in business. People continue to buy their clothes thinking that making a difference is as simple and painless as buying a part of everyday life. The people who buy Toms are trying to do something good, and trying to feel as if they are doing something good. Unfortunately, doing something for the right reasons does not always correlate with the right outcomes.

While some charities worry about what certain donors are trying to do, others are worrying about who those donors are in the first place. In 2015, an adult film company signed three separate $25,000 checks to foundations focused on researching breast cancer. However, the total $75,000 had first been turned down by several other charities, and when in 2014 it had donated to a testicular cancer foundation, the charity asked for the donor to remain anonymous. The same company also launched a line of branded clothing and other products whose proceeds would go to preventing domestic abuse.

As ridiculous as this is, it underlines an important relationship between publicity, charities, and social media. If donations are just donations, does every dollar count, or is a line drawn at some point between Nike and adult film companies? Ultimately, there isn’t a right or wrong answer for how charities and businesses should interact in an increasingly social media driven world. But as a consumer, ask yourself if buying this product is truly making the difference that you think it will. As a donor, ask yourself what led you to give or be active, was it an expert on the situation and its needs, or your favorite actor? The line between charities, celebrities, and businesses is one that is being redrawn, and one that may be hard to redraw in time.

1:https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2018/04/portland_school_board_members_4.html
2:https://www.globalpartnership.org/focus-areas/out-of-school-children
3:http://www.latimes.com/sports/lakers/la-sp-lakers-lebron-james-i-promise-20180729-htmlstory.html#
4:https://www.popphilanthropy.com/
5:https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Celebrity-Philanthropists-/239670
6:https://nypost.com/2015/09/09/porn-website-says-charities-wont-accept-its-donations/
7:https://www.vox.com/2015/7/23/9025975/toms-shoes-poverty-giving
8:https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/giving/donations-getting-too-much-of-a-good-thing.html
9: https://www.vox.com/2014/8/20/6040435/als-ice-bucket-challenge-and-why-we-give-to-charity-donate

1 Comment
Peter Donaldson
11/14/2018 10:02:41 pm

I have been working on the topic of foundations and non-profits for some time. Someone who knew of my interest in philanthropy sent me a link to your article. Your piece is excellent, well-argued and well written. I particularly liked your analysis of celebrity charity. Keep up the good work.

Warm good wishes,

Peter Donaldson

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    December 2022
    November 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    September 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    June 2015
    May 2015
    January 2015
    November 2014
    February 2014
    December 2013
    August 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    November 2012
    September 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    June 2011

    Categories

    All
    Aadhavaarasan Raviarasan
    Adam Smith
    Albert Wu
    Alex Liao
    Alex Timoney
    Alicia Jen
    Alison Shim
    Andrea Lan
    Andrew Falduto
    Anvi Mahagaokar
    Atreya Misra
    Ayla D'Silva
    Bardia Vaseghi
    Benny Sun
    Bharat Sanka
    Brandon Lu
    Brian Wen
    Brinda Gurumoorthy
    Caitlin Schiffer
    Camille Shen
    Caroline Margiotta
    Caroline Sha
    Catherine Chen
    Cathy Chen
    Chloe Yang
    Christine Wang
    Daniel Pittaro
    Daniel Zhang
    Davis George
    Deeptanshu Singhvi
    Dilara Shahani
    Ellee Tomaru
    Emily Pan
    Emily Wang
    Erin Flaherty
    Felix Zheng
    Hitha Santosh
    Howard Wei
    Injae Lee
    Jacob Clott
    James Gao
    Jasmine Xie
    Jedson Boyle
    Jennifer Huang
    Joey Walter
    Jonathan Nemetz
    Jon Jen
    Julia Roos
    Kaitlin Smalling
    Katherine Wang
    Katie Kleinle
    Kevin Tang
    Kevin Yang
    Kishan Gandham
    Kunal Damaraju
    Kyanna Ouyang
    Logan Aviles
    Lucas Canteros-Paz
    Maggie Hsu
    Mariam Khan
    Mark Stachowski
    Mason Krohn
    Meghan Mangini
    Michael Shaw
    Mimi Petric
    Namita Kalghatgi
    Noah Smith
    Oliver Tang
    Omar Bekdash
    Pasha Saidi
    Priya Mullassaril
    Raheel Abubakar
    Ranen Miao
    Rayhan Murad
    Robert Johnson
    Ryan Walsh
    Saamia Khan
    Saloni Singhvi
    Sam Klein
    Sarah Ouyang
    Shaina Spector
    Shaurya Ganjoo
    Shiam Kannan
    Sunjay Melkote
    Tim O'Shea
    Tim Tang
    Vicki Liu
    Victoria Lu
    Vivek Gurumoorthy
    Wei Wen
    Willa Yu
    Zayna Kutty

rpr

About
Home
Read All
​
Contact

Sections

International
Domestic
Economics
​Opinions
Local
​
Search Site
© COPYRIGHT 2018 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
  • Home
  • Domestic
  • International
  • Opinions
  • Economics
  • Local
  • About
  • Contact
  • All Articles