After Hurricane Sandy hit my hometown, I’ve
been trying to follow the news more closely—especially concerning how people
are getting involved in the cleanup. Returning home for Thanksgiving, it became
even clearer to me the extent of damage that had been caused. Fortunately, in
the wake of the storm, or any natural disaster, it seems to me that people
drastically increase their interest in giving to those who have less. People
might think that this would go against Hobbes’ pessimistic view of the nature
of mankind. But somehow there always seems to be another story…
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=hurricane+sandy+damage&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&sa=N&tbo=d&rls=en&biw=880&bih=707&tbm=isch&tbnid=_wXNI_U4bQyrEM:&imgrefurl=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/hurricane-sandy-strikes-east-coast-gallery-1.1194577&docid=SC06goSEFfTi3M&imgurl=http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1195954.1351890667!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_635/hurricane-sandy-damage-union-beach-n.jpg&w=635&h=500&ei=fxS8UMXTEdTKyQGssYGgAQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=405&sig=110430932854175160905&page=2&tbnh=144&tbnw=177&start=16&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:0,i:137&tx=105&ty=45
This week, The New York Times released an article
revealing how the subtleness concerning offers of donations can mislead the
population who may think that they are contributing to a good cause, when they
might just be contributing to the company’s sales.
She explains, saying, “The offer of a donation
made in terms of a percentage of proceeds has become a familiar pitch, and it
is one that arouses the profound irritation of people like Professor Einstein
and the economist Patrick M. Rooney, monitors of the philanthropic world,
precisely because the phrase itself is subjective and vague. (In the case of an
operation like VenueBook, it is especially so, because the event-planning
service is free to consumers.) Generally, “proceeds” could refer to a
percentage of sales, or a percentage of profits or perhaps whatever an
organization has decided it ought to mean.”
Being one of these ignorant customers, who always
felt a little more willing to hand over a little more dough if it was going
towards something other than the corporation itself, I never thought to ask
these questions before. I don’t mean to be a cynic, but it seems to me that the
greater part of the population has turned to greed to sustain our lives rather
than support others who have less than we do. Although we feel guilty about our
privileges, this only leads to our charity because of our selfish need to
relieve ourselves from this guilt. It is this guilt that corporations use on
their defenseless clientele. The customers still buying and continuing their
lavish lifestyles act as the perfect group for them target. In fact, the act of
giving through a company by itself shows our selfish nature. We are willing to
give to get a service in turn when in fact we know it would be more effective
to give directly to a charity.
Gina Bellafante, the author, continues, giving an
example of such “philanthropy.”
“For its Concert for Sandy Relief, to be held at
Madison Square Garden on Dec. 12, the Robin Hood Foundation says in its promotion
that “net proceeds” from the event will go to its relief fund. While there is,
despite the temptation, very little cause to be cynical of such an affair — the
foundation, the hedge fund industry’s successful charity to combat poverty in
New York City, has already provided more than $8 million in grants to 90 groups
assisting hurricane victims — the term “net proceeds,” still fails to convey
what a ticket buyer might actually be giving. It seems more specific, but it
really isn’t. Not knowing what it costs to produce the event, you have no idea
whether it would be more efficient to write a check for $200 to a charity and
stay home.”
Preying on the ignorance of the average consumer
(who commonly lacks the knowledge to really process the claims corporations
make about their intentions with the profits) businesses hope to gain through
the idea of giving—although they might not be giving much at all. Their
vagueness allows companies to do this without leading customers on in a direct
way, even though they do so in a way because they know how their customers will
perceive the promise. So even if it was for a good cause, it just seems like
cheating to me now.
In the time of a truly tragic disaster, such as
the destruction brought on by Hurricane Sandy, it seems inherently selfish of
human kind to use this renewed interest in giving back for gaining more money.
Do you think that we have proven our selfish
existence or can you think of anything to redeem us?
Sources:
Bellafante, Gina. "Storm Charity: 15% of What?." The New York Times 30 Nov. 2012, sec. N.Y./Region: Print.
I definitely think that we have proven our selfish existence, and I really like that you brought up the example of donations made by purchasing things. I think that one of the best examples of this is Tom's shoes. Tom's shoes have become insanely popular, not because they are particularly stylish, but because with every pair of Tom's a person purchases, a pair of shoes is donated to a child in need. Last summer I had two pairs of Tom's, and both had multiple holes in them by the end of the summer. Yet I kept on wearing them, telling myself that I liked how they looked. I don't think that's why I actually wore them. By wearing Tom's, I expressed to the world that I was an activist, and I am the type of person that cares about shoeless children. But, when you think about it, if a child can't afford shoes, isn't it likely that this child also can't afford food, clothes, or medicine? Yes, shoes are important, but I think that it would be much more efficient to buy a pair of shoes without an attached charity, and to send money to an organization that will help these children survive, even if they go shoeless. Our society's obsession with Tom's shoes and other goods that donate money to charity, proves our selfish existence.
ReplyDelete