Between PAFF 551 and 552, I have now read a few articles that state that products sold as a result of partnerships between nonprofits and for-profits decrease charitable giving. Perhaps, I am just being selfish, but I find myself becoming slightly irritated by their logic. I am curious if many of the individuals who are deterred from giving by making these purchases were likely to give in the first place. Could it be the opposite, are people that more likely to give also more likely to purchase these products? I have a few examples from my personal life. First, a significant percentage of my running clothes are Livestrong. Perhaps, a traditional pair of nike running shorts would cost $28, and the Livestrong pair may be $30. I am going to make this purchase regardless, I don’t want to be running around in uncomfortable shorts, so what are they advocating for? Should I buy the $28 shorts, and mail the American Cancer Society a check for $2. Christmas cards is another good example, do I buy cheaper cards, rather than the ones that support the UN, and send them a check for $.75? What about the (product)red Ipod, that wasn’t any more expensive, do I send a few dollars to an organization fighting AIDS in Africa because, well, because they say I should?
What I am trying to imply is that these are purchases that people (or at least I) would make anyway. I am not going to forego these purchases and donate this money. I make donations in addition to these purchases –more than my bank account thinks I should- and believe it is a good idea to provide consumers with these options.
What do you guys think? Do you think that people who buy these products will donate additional money? Were people who chose not to ever going to donate in the first place?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI sympathize with your point Casondra, but am not sure it wholly discredits the critical argument that Eikenberry, who I perceive you have qualms with, is arguing for. I do see the merits of nonprofits partnering with for-profit firms, but I think it is worth expressing that American culture is increasingly customer/consumer oriented, and that it might be problematic that people associate giving with a self-interested motive rather than the public good.
ReplyDeleteLast semester, we talked about how wealthier people who gave a small percentage of their income were granted larger tax-breaks than their poorer counterparts that gave a larger percentage of their income. Why is this?
To me, it seems that philanthropy or donations for a collective or public good is being conceptualized by a lot of American as: What do I get in return if I give money? Is this not antithetical to giving in the first place?
The same sort of market or self-interested ideology can be seen in how a large number of American citizens view the taxes they pay. More and more, less people are willing to contribute to public goods or services without some sort of direct fiscal/monetary benefit.
So while I understand that a socially conscious individual like yourself does not need to be reminded of the reasons behind giving, I do see the reasons as to why Eikenberry finds market/consumer culture to be problematic for the development of public goods and the organizations that wish to provide them. Eikenberry declines at the end of her article to be participating in a hegemonic debate concerning the permeation of market liberalism in our society, but I think it is worth, at the very least, some serious debate.
I didn’t mean to imply that I do not see fault in expecting “something in return.” When they were discussing capping tax right-offs for charitable donates, (at $1,000 I believe it was) I was disheartened by how concerned people where that it would seriously curtail charitable giving. I want to believe that tax write-offs are not a driving force behind giving, but I am also aware how likely it is. I agree with Eikenberry’s argument that the “something is return” mentally should be changed, I didn’t mean to argue against that element of the article. What I am not as sure about, is whether people prone to donating regardless will be curtailed by making these purchases? Or will people who would likely not have donated anyway, simply use it as an excuse or a “cover” of sorts?
ReplyDeleteI guess what I am saying, is that I do not believe that someone who would have otherwise donated to a charity will say “wait, I bought finger lakes fresh lettuce and Newman’s own cookies last week, instead of wegman’s lettuce and Oreos, so I do not need to donate.”
*Hope that is clearer*
I agree with you, Casondra. I think that, unless their budgets are so tight that they are unable to contribute more, people who are already planning on donating to causes will still do so, even if they have purchased products that are connected to nonprofit organizations. Those who do not have flexible budgets to allow charitable donations but wish to support charities may decide to buy the products as a "replacement" for a donation, and many other consumers who would not normally donate to the organization will end up purchasing the products for various reasons. I think organizations can benefit in a variety of ways from these types of ventures, and as long as they are careful about which types of products they put their names on, they don't have a great chance of losing funds.
ReplyDelete