Concern

MonkeyTennis · 26-08-2010 10:34PM

Ive given 21 euro to concern a month for the last 4 years and 7 a month when I was a student. I couldnt really afford the 7 when I was a student but I did. I cant really afford the 21 now but I do

But If they ring me one more time Im going to f*cking kill them

Celly Smunt · 26-08-2010 10:36PM

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Ive given 21 euro to concern a month for the last 4 years and 7 a month when I was a student. I couldnt really afford the 7 when I was a student but I did. I cant really afford the 21 now but I do

But If they ring me one more time Im going to f*cking kill them

i can only imagine your frustration on how much of your money they waste on calling you,i am deeply sympathetic

RonMexico · 26-08-2010 10:58PM

When they ask for a specific amount it really pisses me off.

starbelgrade · 26-08-2010 11:06PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If there was ever a way to lose all credibility this would rank amongst the
classic examples. If ever I am to write a psychology paper I am going to
use this, quoted for posterity :cool:

I just need one example, can you tell me how there is naivety in funding a
charity that gives "a new family to orphans and supporting the remaining
family of children orphaned by Aids. Our charity helps Aids Orphans and
other orphaned children in almost every country in Africa"?

Who loses out here, according to your empirically stellar logic, when people
fund a charity that provides a new home for people orphaned over aids?

Africa's problems not only need to be sorted by Africa, but more importantly, need to be allowed to be sorted by Africa without our interference. It's not like this is an impossible task.

By providing short term solutions to long term problems (as in your example), the bigger picture is being missed entirely - which is - that Africa needs major political & cultural change, not more foreign aid. Foreign aid may help in times of humanitary crisis, such as natural disasters, to provide necessary aid, but simply doesn't help in the long term.

The proof of this is that after over 30 years of sending billions & billions of foreign aid to Africa, the continent is no better off than when we started throwing money at them. In fact, in many ways, it is worse off.

If you ever do write a psychology paper, you are more than welcome to quote me, but I fail to see the relevance of quoting posts from a debate that is based in political, cultural & moral issues & not psychological ones.

kincsem · 26-08-2010 11:28PM

There seems to be confusion about audited accounts. Businesses can spend money wastefully and incur losses. The auditors will give their opinion on whether or not the accounts reflect the annual trading fairly and if the balance sheet (assets and liabilities), are stated accurately. But they don't act as judges on the appropriateness of the spending. They do not give a "good housekeeping" certificate.

I was an auditor in Africa about forty years ago. My salary of £8k (was £5k in Ireland) was more than enough, but I saw that many of the salaries in a development organisation were £70k. I think the expression "charity begins at home" has a basis in fact.

kincsem · 26-08-2010 11:41PM

My few Euro go to Obera in Argentina every month.

kincsem · 26-08-2010 11:45PM

Bill2673 wrote: »

So if all you punters are so fed up with concern, who do you give money to?

See above.

I have experience of two people in two large Irish charity organisations. Not nice.

sponsoredwalk · 27-08-2010 12:16AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

The proof of this is that after over 30 years of sending billions & billions of foreign aid to Africa, the continent is no better off than when we started throwing money at them. In fact, in many ways, it is worse off.

I asked you, specifically, how donating to a charity that gives a new
home to children of parents who have died because of aids is naive - as
you implied

starbelgrade wrote: »

All charity has done for Africa is given donators & aid workers a feelgood factor - at the expense of those who they naivley believe they are helping. Nothing could be further from the truth.

was the case when people donate to charity.

You've avoided the question.

starbelgrade wrote: »

I can't answer for other people, but the main reason why I don't donate to charities is that I believe that the fundamental principles of charity are wrong.

Explain how donating to a charity that finds new homes for children
orphaned as a result of aids is fundamentally wrong?

starbelgrade wrote: »

All charity has done for Africa is given donators & aid workers a feelgood factor - at the expense of those who they naivley believe they are helping. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Explain how it's naive to fund a charity that will find homes for children who
have no-one because of aids?

starbelgrade wrote: »

Africa's problems not only need to be sorted by Africa, but more importantly, need to be allowed to be sorted by Africa without our interference. It's not like this is an impossible task.

Nobody has said it isn't, nobody has claimed that Africans shouldn't
sort out their own problems. The very fact that you would say something
like this shows how ignorant you are of what a lot of charities do.

starbelgrade wrote: »

By providing short term solutions to long term problems (as in your example)

Again, tell me how providing money to a charity that will house the children
of aids victims is a short term solution to solving Africa's problems?
How is it naive to give homes to those children who've fallen victim to
losing their parents who themselves have died due to a disease that is
preventable provided the people have access to information that,
unfortunately, isn't easily accessible - especially when priests, & even some aid
workers themselves, refuse to tell the people about condoms & when
priests in Africa explicitly exclaim that condoms cause aids directly.
I can get all of these qoutes online from priests own mouths in a quick
google.

I can't believe how ideologically blinkered you are, well it's not a stretch
after reading some of the things you've said. A simple bit of online research
will educate you on the principles of self-sustaining charity & some more
research will help you find those charities whose philosophy is strictly that - self-sustaining.
I think you'll be surprised what a few hours researching,
instead of propagating incorrect slander, will do for the mind.

starbelgrade wrote: »

If you ever do write a psychology paper, you are more than welcome to quote me, but I fail to see the relevance of quoting posts from a debate that is based in political, cultural & moral issues & not psychological ones.

I can't help it if you don't see the relavence here, I can't go off educating
people off the internet on psychology 101, go to the yale opencourseware
website & get the free psych 101 lectures by Alan Bloom, they're free &
very eduational. In fact, here you go. I think the correlations between
psychology & this discussion will become abundantly clear once you learn a
bit about that which you assert to be unrelated - you seem to be at this
constantly for some reason, professing knowledge on topics of which you
can't even muster up a truthful fact about, & maybe a bit of psychology
will help you see the nasty habit you've acquired & give you the tools to
self-critically question whether it's an aspect of your personality you're
particularly proud of...

starbelgrade · 27-08-2010 12:22AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I can't help it if you don't see the relavence here, I can't go off educating
people off the internet on psychology 101, go to the yale opencourseware
website & get the free psych 101 lectures by Alan Bloom, they're free &
very eduational. In fact, here you go. I think the correlations between
psychology & this discussion will become abundantly clear once you learn a
bit about that which you assert to be unrelated - you seem to be at this
constantly for some reason, professing knowledge on topics of which you
can't even muster up a truthful fact about, & maybe a bit of psychology
will help you see the nasty habit you've acquired & give you the tools to
self-critically question whether it's an aspect of your personality you're
particularly proud of...

Dude, you seriously need to get over yourself.

BigBenRoeth · 27-08-2010 12:48AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I asked you, specifically, how donating to a charity that gives a new
home to children of parents who have died because of aids is naive - as
you implied

was the case when people donate to charity.

You've avoided the question.

Explain how donating to a charity that finds new homes for children
orphaned as a result of aids is fundamentally wrong?

Explain how it's naive to fund a charity that will find homes for children who
have no-one because of aids?

Nobody has said it isn't, nobody has claimed that Africans shouldn't
sort out their own problems. The very fact that you would say something
like this shows how ignorant you are of what a lot of charities do.

Again, tell me how providing money to a charity that will house the children
of aids victims is a short term solution to solving Africa's problems?
How is it naive to give homes to those children who've fallen victim to
losing their parents who themselves have died due to a disease that is
preventable provided the people have access to information that,
unfortunately, isn't easily accessible - especially when priests, & even some aid
workers themselves, refuse to tell the people about condoms & when
priests in Africa explicitly exclaim that condoms cause aids directly.
I can get all of these qoutes online from priests own mouths in a quick
google.

I can't believe how ideologically blinkered you are, well it's not a stretch
after reading some of the things you've said. A simple bit of online research
will educate you on the principles of self-sustaining charity & some more
research will help you find those charities whose philosophy is strictly that - self-sustaining.
I think you'll be surprised what a few hours researching,
instead of propagating incorrect slander, will do for the mind.

I can't help it if you don't see the relavence here, I can't go off educating
people off the internet on psychology 101, go to the yale opencourseware
website & get the free psych 101 lectures by Alan Bloom, they're free &
very eduational. In fact, here you go. I think the correlations between
psychology & this discussion will become abundantly clear once you learn a
bit about that which you assert to be unrelated - you seem to be at this
constantly for some reason, professing knowledge on topics of which you
can't even muster up a truthful fact about, & maybe a bit of psychology
will help you see the nasty habit you've acquired & give you the tools to
self-critically question whether it's an aspect of your personality you're
particularly proud of...

Christ almighty tonight you clearly have some sort of point to prove

sponsoredwalk · 27-08-2010 12:50AM

BigBenRoeth wrote: »

Christ almighty tonight you clearly have some sort of point to prove

Funnily enough if you read the text I wrote you'll discover the point I'm
trying to make, then If you correlate the meaning of what I wrote with the topic of
discussion you'll find a complete answer

BigBenRoeth · 27-08-2010 01:02AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Funnily enough if you read the text I wrote you'll discover the point I'm
trying to make, then If you correlate the meaning of what I wrote with the topic of
discussion you'll find a complete answer

Would you just lie down

padma · 27-08-2010 01:19AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

Africa's problems not only need to be sorted by Africa, but more importantly, need to be allowed to be sorted by Africa without our interference. It's not like this is an impossible task.

By providing short term solutions to long term problems (as in your example), the bigger picture is being missed entirely - which is - that Africa needs major political & cultural change, not more foreign aid. Foreign aid may help in times of humanitary crisis, such as natural disasters, to provide necessary aid, but simply doesn't help in the long term.

The proof of this is that after over 30 years of sending billions & billions of foreign aid to Africa, the continent is no better off than when we started throwing money at them. In fact, in many ways, it is worse off.

If you ever do write a psychology paper, you are more than welcome to quote me, but I fail to see the relevance of quoting posts from a debate that is based in political, cultural & moral issues & not psychological ones.

All points here are quite clear, yet we all know in Africa's case there is a lot of exploitation happening in Africa. All the gold, sitting in the vaults in England. The diamonds and pretty much all the natural resources are being sucked dry from that continent. On top of this Cobalt mines in the Congo, the coffee thats guzzled morning, noon and night, and tobacco, the list goes on. Walk in to your supermarket and we see it everywhere, from fruit and veg to other household things at our fingertips.

One of the major problems is the fact that African countries aren't allowed or able to set their own prices for the goods they need to sell as export. Bananas one of the most nutritional sources of potassium and for 1:50 euro you can buy a bunch of them. If Africa had access to markets here and owned and controlled their own commerce things over the past 50 years wouldn't be the way they are. Yet because multinationals own and rule the trade they have no chance on the world stage. Free trade, it caused Irelands food shortage and is causing Africa's food shortage.

There's one law for the rich and one for the poor. Yet Development work is what it is its development work. Look at Ireland without the billions and billions of cash fired in to us here we wouldn't have half the roads in the country that we have, crap that some of them may be. When people mention CERTAIN countries in Africa being corrupt etc, we got to look at our own country and see and notice that those in power most turn out to be corrupt in some form of another.

War, while CERTAIN African countries have been embroiled in countless struggles and civil war, guns given by our neighbours across both of our ponds east and west have become like toys to the extent you could buy an A.K 47 in the Sudan for the price of a chicken at one stage.

Drought, A natural phenomenon which can have a massive impact on the land. This is where long term development work helps to build infrastructure and create food security.

There are many African local NGO'S in these countries who are supported by the likes of Concern who recognise fully that partnering with Local charities is more effective as Africans in general have a better sense of what is needed locally. By talking to people and partnering, respect and dignity becomes the foremost of all the relationships.

What is being got at here is it is a two way thing on the one hand you have a world system in place which has led to a crash in the economics of Africa, most countries being in debt up to their eyeballs, a section of their people surviving day to day and on the other hand, the workthat is happening to alleviate some of these problems by CITIZENS of the world having an understanding and wanting to reach out and show solidarity and show that they care. We ALL inhabit this earth and when one person suffers we all do.

Bia Blasta

Jaxxy · 27-08-2010 01:19AM

I find it disturbing that people who have posted in this thread are being judged for not donating to charities, and are being asked outright who they donate to if not to Concern.

Donation is a choice, not a moral obligation or duty.

sponsoredwalk · 27-08-2010 01:22AM

BigBenRoeth wrote: »

Would you just lie down

So are we here to talk about giving to charity or are we here to focus on
me?

I've given a lot of arguments to both of you showing you both to have
really flawed & contradictory logic, you can either defend your arguments
or drop it but don't expect to get away with rabble-rousing slander that is
devoid of any truth.

As I said, nobody wants your money if your not happy giving it away but
the reasons why you don't want to give it away don't necessarily have to
make sense, I'm pretty confident at this stage neither of yours makes any
& are instead excuses, on your part because you're afraid to say "no" in a
firm manner to "those bastards", the "conmen" chuggers who chase you
into shops, on his part because he makes bold claims as if they come from
philosophical outlook that it's morally wrong to give charity
(remember, that is me taking his argument without all the nonsensical slander he used telling
us charity causes corruption, people do it to satisfy their feel-good factor at the expense of those who naively believe they are helping).
This philosophy of his falls flat when we probe even a little bit deep,
a bit of self-criticism instead of spouting slander loudly is always the
best remedy for these ailments we see in you guys, it is an especially
good way not to lost face - which you both seem to care about since
you're willing to respond with a response to me, even if it doesn't address
any of the points I made.

sponsoredwalk · 27-08-2010 01:30AM

Over the last ten years, the Africa region has seen commendable progress in the areas of democratic governance, economic growth and the provision of basic social services. Africa has the highest number of countries with democratic systems to date since the 1960s.

Before the economic crisis hit Africa in 2008, the region boasted impressive growth rates. Many countries were able to capitalize on this trend to allocate considerable sums toward basic social services, making progress toward achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Thus, while Sub-Saharan Africa remains the developing region with the highest number of people living in extreme poverty, poverty rates have dropped rapidly since 1990, hovering around an estimated 46 percent in 2008.

Sub-Saharan Africa has also succeeded in reducing by 17.4 per cent between 2001 and 2008 the number of adults and children newly infected by HIV/AIDS, and access to Anti-Retroviral Therapy has been expanded in many countries.

The region continues to show overall progress on gender equality and women’s empowerment. Gender parity in primary education will be achieved in most countries in Africa in 2015. The number of seats held by women in parliament has increased in at least 31 countries.

Today, the global economic and financial crisis is threatening to reverse many of these advances. The crisis is likely to add between 7 million (World Bank estimate) and 16 million (UN DESA estimate) people living below US$1.25 a day in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2009. The World Bank and IMF estimate that the poverty rate of Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to be 38 percent by 2015, rather than the 36 percent it would have been without the crisis, lifting 20 million fewer people out of poverty.

Sub-Saharan Africa may be the lowest emitter of carbon dioxide, but it stands to be the region most affected by climate change (.pdf), which will compound the environmental and energy challenges that the region faces.. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that by 2020, 75-250 million people across Africa could face water shortages and rain-fed agriculture could drop by 50% in some African countries by 2020. If temperatures rise above two degrees Celsius in sub-Saharan African, an additional 600 million people in the region could face hunger, new epidemics of mosquito-borne diseases as well as additional agricultural losses of up to US$26 billion by 2060.

Link

We're kind of focusing on Africa because it's the most-mentioned region
in the media but there are plenty of places destroyed by the "virtues" of
free markets that we can pick out of the information cloud.

Padma's made good points, if you want to read the history of the rape of
Africa I can offer up a good book

How Europe Underdeveloped Africa

Kooli · 27-08-2010 05:05PM

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

I find it disturbing that people who have posted in this thread are being judged for not donating to charities, and are being asked outright who they donate to if not to Concern.

Donation is a choice, not a moral obligation or duty.

I think the only people who are being asked are those who nitpick the particulars of a particular organisation (i.e. I wouldn't donate to X because of the money that goes to admin/phonecalls/salaries, or because I hate chugging, or because they asked me for a specific amount etc. etc.).

Those who are honest and say they don't donate because they aren't interested, don't think it's worthwhile, don't care aren't being asked that question.

But for those who are pretending to take some sort of principled stand, or for those who pretend that this particular charity has 'lost their vote' through the way they run the organisation, I think it's a fairly relevant question!!

Bill2673 · 27-08-2010 05:10PM

Kooli wrote: »

I think the only people who are being asked are those who nitpick the particulars of a particular organisation (i.e. I wouldn't donate to X because of the money that goes to admin/phonecalls/salaries, or because I hate chugging, or because they asked me for a specific amount etc. etc.).

Those who are honest and say they don't donate because they aren't interested, don't think it's worthwhile, don't care aren't being asked that question.

But for those who are pretending to take some sort of principled stand, or for those who pretend that this particular charity has 'lost their vote' through the way they run the organisation, I think it's a fairly relevant question!!

I agree with ya....

If people say I won't donate to this charity or that charity because they lack transparency or have too many overheads.....then tell us what charity meets your criteria of efficiency or overheads......I think thats a fair question.

Its not a question of who do you donate to. Its a question of, which charity would you recommend.

Jaxxy · 27-08-2010 06:24PM

Kooli wrote: »

I think the only people who are being asked are those who nitpick the particulars of a particular organisation (i.e. I wouldn't donate to X because of the money that goes to admin/phonecalls/salaries, or because I hate chugging, or because they asked me for a specific amount etc. etc.).

Those who are honest and say they don't donate because they aren't interested, don't think it's worthwhile, don't care aren't being asked that question.

But for those who are pretending to take some sort of principled stand, or for those who pretend that this particular charity has 'lost their vote' through the way they run the organisation, I think it's a fairly relevant question!!

I can see your point, but what makes you think people are "pretending" to make a principled stand? Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is entitled to spend their own money on whatever they see fit. So what if they don't want to donate to a charity, or if they say they don't donate to charity X because of whatever reason?

Nobody has to disclose that kind of information if they don't want to. I wouldn't ask you how much you paid off your ESB bill this month.

sponsoredwalk · 27-08-2010 07:12PM

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

I can see your point, but what makes you think people are "pretending" to make a principled stand? Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is entitled to spend their own money on whatever they see fit. So what if they don't want to donate to a charity, or if they say they don't donate to charity X because of whatever reason?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

As I said, nobody wants your money if your not happy giving it away but
the reasons why you don't want to give it away don't necessarily have to
make sense,

If you go back and read the things some of the people said in this thread
you'll see that the "principled stand" people were taking was just a load of
bull∫hit, when people go of bad mouthing a particular charity, or in fact all
charities & the very idea of charity they better have some pretty good
reasons if they want to convince anyone else.

Nobody here has told someone they must donate to a particular charity or
indeed berated them for not doing so, the argument has been against
people who want to go off talking big behind the safety of the internet
about "those bastards" who want a "feelgood factor" at the expense of
those people who "naively" believe they are doing good work.
We've pretty much sussed out that the reasons people don't want to
donate are petty ones that can't withstand criticism, snuffing out faulty
logic is not a demand for someone to donate to charity.
I wouldn't even care if they held contradictory & faulty logic personally
but they feel the need to go off spouting this nonsense in a way to
slander good people and good work, I don't think that's right.
I respect someone who says "I'm not donating charity because I don't want to".
I don't respect someone who hides behind ridiculous reasons to justify
not giving to charity, especially when they try to argue their view is
correct yet can't withstand the slightest scrutiny.

walshb · 27-08-2010 07:43PM

fkiely wrote: »

Alan Kerins African Project.

And what is so different about his and the countless other charities set up to save Africa, set up by anybody and everybody. It's a masive ego trip, that's all.

What is Mr. Kerins profile, charity history, and all that? What got him so interested in saving Africa?

I have said before, a lot of Africa's problems are down to interference from ego trippers and do gooders, whose
sincerity is questionable.

recylingbin · 27-08-2010 07:59PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You want them to be poor enough so that they are stuck on the streets
handing out blankets, not actually making real money to go overseas and
help people in dire need.

You sound like the type of person who wants them to be poor enough so that you can garner kudos by breaking your back organising a table quiz in some cúnt pub, full of assorted cúnts and notmal people who have been guilted into attending, so that you can raise enough money to go on a free holiday abroad.
You never see these cnuts organising anything to raise money so that they can hand out free syringes on sheriff street.

starbelgrade · 27-08-2010 08:10PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If you go back and read the things some of the people said in this thread
you'll see that the "principled stand" people were taking was just a load of
bull∫hit, when people go of bad mouthing a particular charity, or in fact all
charities & the very idea of charity they better have some pretty good
reasons if they want to convince anyone else.

Nobody here has told someone they must donate to a particular charity or
indeed berated them for not doing so, the argument has been against
people who want to go off talking big behind the safety of the internet
about "those bastards" who want a "feelgood factor" at the expense of
those people who "naively" believe they are doing good work.
We've pretty much sussed out that the reasons people don't want to
donate are petty ones that can't withstand criticism, snuffing out faulty
logic is not a demand for someone to donate to charity.
I wouldn't even care if they held contradictory & faulty logic personally
but they feel the need to go off spouting this nonsense in a way to
slander good people and good work, I don't think that's right.
I respect someone who says "I'm not donating charity because I don't want to".
I don't respect someone who hides behind ridiculous reasons to justify
not giving to charity, especially when they try to argue their view is
correct yet can't withstand the slightest scrutiny.

You disagree with my opinion - I get that. God knows that you've stated it enough & at great length, ad naseum. However, the reason that I don't donate to charity is - rightly or wrongly - as a matter of principle. You can "pooh-pooh" that all you want - and I suspect that you will continue to do so, judging on your form - but that doesn't mean that your opinion of why I have my own opinions on the matter, are correct.

Just because you keep repeating something over & over again, doesn't make it true.

I would have debated the point with you further, but you seem more interested in "getting one over" than anything else. It seems that this & your obvious ability to use Google, are about the only things that you've brought to the debate.

In his post, Padma made some very valid points - most of which I agree with - but as with you, I disagree that role of development aid is a neccessary, or even beneficial one.

This is not some excuse I pulled out of my arse because I don't like chuggers - I've never even seen a chugger - and the sooner you get your head around that fact, the better.

Little Acorn · 27-08-2010 08:54PM

This is a bit off topic, as I am not actually arguing whether people should give to charity or not, as I think it depends on everyone's personal circumstances if they can or not, and I haven't read the whole thread.

I'm just wondering does anybody know how much money is raised every year from all the charities combined that deal with food,water,medical care, and education for really poor countries?

It may be a stupid assumption on my part, because I have no idea how much they actually make, but I would assume it must be millions if you combine all the charities worldwide.
My question is why if it has made a massive difference, then why do they not publicize on tv all the difference that it has made?

How long will countries worldwide have to keep donating to poor countries before they become fully developed, and not in as much need? Is it multi billions? More? Will they ever be able to get out of poverty, or is it likely that they will always remain this way? These are just things I'm genuinely curious to know, and I'm not trying to get anybody's back up, as obviously I believe these countries need as much help as possible. I'm just wondering is there an achievable end goal in sight, and does anybody know what amount of money or how many years this could take?

Regarding their advertising campaigns, I think that maybe they need to try a different style. I don't have any problem with charities advertising, as it makes perfect sense to me that they need to advertise in order to raise money, I'm just wondering how affective it is?
I think the way they approach people on the street and how they advertise on the tv should be changed.

For example, I think they should have highly visible stands on the street, and maybe volunteers could use music or megaphones to draw people's attention even more to the stand. At the stand there should be lots of information pamphlets, and people to answer questions and take donations.
This in my mind would work far better than jumping out in front of people and following them on the footpaths, with clipboards and/or buckets.
This would mean only people who had a genuine interest in donating would bother going over to the stands, and volunteers would not be wasting their time trying to convince people who can't afford it or who don't want to donate. It would also take away the argument that some people are pressurised or guilt tripped into donating.

Regarding their tv adverts, I think they need to add more positivity to them. A large number of people have become completely desensitized to them, and I have to admit that I am one of these people. I absolutely acknowledge that a human life has in general always got more value than an animal's, but I am going to admit that the ads for the work donkey, and abandoned dogs grabs my attention far more than some more well known ones, because they usually end with a positive, showing the good that your money can do.
The appeals for food and water are understandably extremely sombre, but they are also very repetitive and I think it is the repetitiveness and not the actual content that makes people become desensitized to them.

Imo, they should also have ads that solely show the positive effects that donations are having. Something along the lines of "so far this year we have raised x amount of money, and this is what it has been used for">>followed by video and explanation of an entire village or large area that has being helped, and not just an individual's story. The ad could end with something positive like, "many others need your help,we are dedicated to change, and if YOU would like to become part of this movement for change, and help make a difference to these lives, then dial this number"
I think people respond better to positivity, and this would give people a real sense of hope and involvement, as they actually get to see all the good that their donation would make.
Of course they would still need their sadder ads aswell to show what is actually happening, but just showing them by themselves gives a sense of hopelessness to the potential donater, and that nothing seems to be making a difference, whereas I think an occasional positive ad could counteract this.

Before anyone assumes that I may be against charities I am absolutely not. I donate to Leprosy Mission every month, it's a very small amount but all I can afford. When/if I get a good job in the future and have more money when I'm older, then I hope to be able to donate a little to some other charities[including a few national ones].
I'm just posting about what changes I think could be made regarding the way they advertise to the public, and also would like to know if anyone could shed some light on my earlier questions, regarding is there an achievable end goal in sight? etc. Thanks to anyone who can answer some of those queries.:)

padma · 27-08-2010 11:57PM

Little Acorn wrote: »

This is a bit off topic, as I am not actually arguing whether people should give to charity or not, as I think it depends on everyone's personal circumstances if they can or not, and I haven't read the whole thread.

I'm just wondering does anybody know how much money is raised every year from all the charities combined that deal with food,water,medical care, and education for really poor countries?

It may be a stupid assumption on my part, because I have no idea how much they actually make, but I would assume it must be millions if you combine all the charities worldwide.
My question is why if it has made a massive difference, then why do they not publicize on tv all the difference that it has made?

How long will countries worldwide have to keep donating to poor countries before they become fully developed, and not in as much need? Is it multi billions? More? Will they ever be able to get out of poverty, or is it likely that they will always remain this way? These are just things I'm genuinely curious to know, and I'm not trying to get anybody's back up, as obviously I believe these countries need as much help as possible. I'm just wondering is there an achievable end goal in sight, and does anybody know what amount of money or how many years this could take?

Regarding their advertising campaigns, I think that maybe they need to try a different style. I don't have any problem with charities advertising, as it makes perfect sense to me that they need to advertise in order to raise money, I'm just wondering how affective it is?
I think the way they approach people on the street and how they advertise on the tv should be changed.

For example, I think they should have highly visible stands on the street, and maybe volunteers could use music or megaphones to draw people's attention even more to the stand. At the stand there should be lots of information pamphlets, and people to answer questions and take donations.
This in my mind would work far better than jumping out in front of people and following them on the footpaths, with clipboards and/or buckets.
This would mean only people who had a genuine interest in donating would bother going over to the stands, and volunteers would not be wasting their time trying to convince people who can't afford it or who don't want to donate. It would also take away the argument that some people are pressurised or guilt tripped into donating.

Regarding their tv adverts, I think they need to add more positivity to them. A large number of people have become completely desensitized to them, and I have to admit that I am one of these people. I absolutely acknowledge that a human life has in general always got more value than an animal's, but I am going to admit that the ads for the work donkey, and abandoned dogs grabs my attention far more than some more well known ones, because they usually end with a positive, showing the good that your money can do.
The appeals for food and water are understandably extremely sombre, but they are also very repetitive and I think it is the repetitiveness and not the actual content that makes people become desensitized to them.

Imo, they should also have ads that solely show the positive effects that donations are having. Something along the lines of "so far this year we have raised x amount of money, and this is what it has been used for">>followed by video and explanation of an entire village or large area that has being helped, and not just an individual's story. The ad could end with something positive like, "many others need your help,we are dedicated to change, and if YOU would like to become part of this movement for change, and help make a difference to these lives, then dial this number"
I think people respond better to positivity, and this would give people a real sense of hope and involvement, as they actually get to see all the good that their donation would make.
Of course they would still need their sadder ads aswell to show what is actually happening, but just showing them by themselves gives a sense of hopelessness to the potential donater, and that nothing seems to be making a difference, whereas I think an occasional positive ad could counteract this.

Before anyone assumes that I may be against charities I am absolutely not. I donate to Leprosy Mission every month, it's a very small amount but all I can afford. When/if I get a good job in the future and have more money when I'm older, then I hope to be able to donate a little to some other charities[including a few national ones].
I'm just posting about what changes I think could be made regarding the way they advertise to the public, and also would like to know if anyone could shed some light on my earlier questions, regarding is there an achievable end goal in sight? etc. Thanks to anyone who can answer some of those queries.:)

That's a wonderful post and well constructed, As im no longer currently working in the development sector I can't comment on the why's of certain target campaigns that some large organisations run.

However I have over the years seen some fine advertisements where exactly what you have said has been portrayed, this in my opinion helps to motivate people towards helping out as once you know the positive effect your money is doing, you are more likely to contribute in other ways too. From a simple thing like buying your foods as ethically as you possibly can. Awareness is the key and once you and I, us in general become aware of our own power as a citizen of this planet we bring the ball back in to our court (sos to speak)

Yet while there is an emergency happening in the world it is good to show what is happening on the ground in this particular situation as 1, people want to help out that particular issue and 2 the organisation may only have 2 months to gain as much support as they possibly can due to the media finding some other toy to play with, be it the war on terror or ash cloud or whatever else is gonna sell the papers, with the eventuality and knowing that people are gonna stop giving at some stage for that particular problem, so while it is fresh in the publics hearts a campaign to encourage people to just pick up a phone and dial is highly effective and essentially the more money that flows through the more lives can be saved.

In terms of how much MONEY it would take to solve the hunger issue in the world, I'm not really so sure it can be answered in this way as 1, What is money? It is an idea. A very powerful idea yet it is the driving force behind money and the purpose of how it is used which time can only tell. For sure there are deeper issues here.

Yet to give an idea I can remember and know that certain things happen with some large organisations (no names mentioned) In a certain province in one of the poorest countries in the world there is a mine, full to the brim of a metal which many in this world covet. The province wouldn't be the poorest area of this country but it has a level of poverty which would still shock people (remembering this is one of the poorest countries in the world) This organisation was offered money to build up infrastructure in this province provided it was to be instructed by the donors. These donors then laid out the plans to incorporate roads, schools, clinics and hospitals etc very close to the mines. Effectively setting up a road network which in turn meant IMO they could whisk away as much of that shiny metal to the closest port. The organisation took the money and did it, and have done this in many other areas around the world in similar situations.

It was NOT an Irish aid organisation yet it is a widely known International organisation. The fact is there are poorer provinces in this country which are not giving the help that was needed. Now the aim of my favourite charity, Concern, which people here know Im an avid supporter and an ex staff member is to work with the poorest of the poor, It is them that they target and help build and organise CBO'S(Community based organisations). There is no focus whatsoever on the politics of the country they are guest in they are solely there to empower and enrich those who missed the handouts when they gave them out to education and good health.

Most if not all Irish organisations carry this with them abroad and that is IMO why Irish organisations are held in such good esteem and why for a country of 4/5 million people we are leading the fight in stamping out world hunger by being the biggest advocates for change and helping to raise the platform for those whose voices aren't properly heard.

If money was an available resource it is in who's hands is what really matters at the end of the day. And here in this thread people have shown their frustration at all different angles, yet something we all agree on is No child or person should or need to go hungry in this world, every person has a right to education and good health. These are part of the U.N declaration of human rights, yet it isn't in place unfortunately. The unfortunate thing is people like you and me are the ones who donate. World hunger could be wiped out with the stroke of a pen.

Here is a nice Bob Marley song which I feel strikes to the heart and cuts through the BS. If its your thing enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbXTSgKdDmE

bnt · 28-08-2010 12:31AM

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Didnt it use to be give what you can?! :mad:

I think I remember that some study came out in the UK, about five years ago, that said that people would be more likely to give if you asked for a specific sum, and that people shy away from any open-ended commitments. So these figures started popping up in ads, almost overnight.

There are some charity ads on the TV at the moment - might be Concern, I don't know. The ads have all the clichéd tricks you can think of: heart-rending music, extreme close-ups of children (always children), slow-mo, female voice-over, asking for a fixed sum. Chuggers work the same way. I can tell when someone thinks I'm a mug and is trying to manipulate me, and I do not like it. :mad: I deal with a charity that doesn't try to play me.

sponsoredwalk · 29-08-2010 03:47PM

Little Acorn wrote: »

My question is why if it has made a massive difference, then why do they not publicize on tv all the difference that it has made?

Little Acorn wrote: »

Imo, they should also have ads that solely show the positive effects that donations are having. Something along the lines of "so far this year we have raised x amount of money, and this is what it has been used for">>followed by video and explanation of an entire village or large area that has being helped, and not just an individual's story. The ad could end with something positive like, "many others need your help,we are dedicated to change, and if YOU would like to become part of this movement for change, and help make a difference to these lives, then dial this number"

If you go back to the first page of this thread you'll see a link in which it
shows charities having to find deals with tv stations so that they can get
ads up on tv to advertise to people that they are in need. I think it'd be a
good idea if they'd show some of their achievements as opposed to the
easily charicatured ad with starving people that we just ignore on tv.
The point is that they don't have an infinite resource for paying for
ads & they've got to advertise what's in need but yeah I think you have an
amazing idea here :cool:

As another poster indicated, studies have shown people will be more
inclined to do something if they are actively engaged rather than passively
left to their own choices. I'm not saying that this is a good thing,
personally I hate the techniques charities/companies use, but the fact is
that this works, what they do works. I'm not going to criticize charities
for doing something that works, even if I disagree with what they do
because they are ultimately doing something really good.

If they had a booth like the one you hypothesized then I 100% bet that
people would just avoid that area because they know where the
"chuggers" are. This is the psychology that charities have to deal with,
it's unfortunate but true. I do think the successes should be advertised so
that people know how actively engaged when they contribute and be
combined with what they do now so that they'll get more input from
people and, hopefully, less threads on boards criticizing them :pac:

sponsoredwalk · 29-08-2010 03:48PM

recylingbin wrote: »

You sound like the type of person who wants them to be poor enough so that you can garner kudos by breaking your back organising a table quiz in some cúnt pub, full of assorted cúnts and notmal people who have been guilted into attending, so that you can raise enough money to go on a free holiday abroad.
You never see these cnuts organising anything to raise money so that they can hand out free syringes on sheriff street.

Nice contribution to the thread, we've all learned something from this very
informative post & appreciate the conclusions you've come to based on
absolutely no information whatsoever.

If I were to analyze the psychology behind why you'd randomly
talk about a table quiz where people are dragged against their will I'd
write a huge post lol so I'll leave it up to you to mull over, it'd be an
informative reflection period

sponsoredwalk · 29-08-2010 03:51PM

starbelgrade wrote: »

Just because you keep repeating something over & over again, doesn't make it true.

That's right, and this mode of thinking goes both ways, don't forget that.
In fact, because what you've said is a general principle I have decided long
ago to base my opinions and views on what the evidence tells me, not
something I've made up and told myself is true because the philosophy I
find gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling would predict.

You've told us some ridiculous things about charity doing nothing yet I've
given you a quote and a link to show what you've said is incorrect, will it
make you change your philosophy? No...............................................
Instead you attack me in a vague way trying to insinuate that I am
repeating, ad nauseum, something in order to give it some validity. Think
that all you like but remember I don't base my views on a topic for which
evidence exists on what my pre-conceived notions tell me, I base my
opinion on the facts, just the facts please ma'am

starbelgrade wrote: »

It seems that this & your obvious ability to use Google, are about the only things that you've brought to the debate.

So, in other words because I can google evidence to back up something I
already knew you think that is a bad thing? In other words having
evidence for why you believe X is a bad thing?
This is not surprising seeing as you like to believe something that actually
is contrary to the evidence, reality is sometimes a bit disconcerting
I understand but there comes a time in which we must be honest.

starbelgrade wrote: »

I disagree that role of development aid is a neccessary, or even beneficial one.

Well thats a nicer way to express your views and is different to what you'd
said a moment ago, now it's just development aid & not the whole concept
of aid, is it? How is a village with no drinking water & no knowledge of how
to create the facilities that would bring water supposed to get water
there? These things don't come out of nowhere, especially when the entire
world makes you export the goods you produce instead of giving it to your
own people, or use the money you create for your own people. No, we
make them use money they make to pay back the interest on the loans
we gave them, not the loans, the interest. Tell me how a continent like
Africa is supposed to survive when they must do things like this?

Also, you're still ignoring the question...

asked you, specifically, how donating to a charity that gives a new
home to children of parents who have died because of aids is naive - as
you implied was the case.

How does something like this fit in with your philosophy about charity?

starbelgrade wrote: »

This is not some excuse I pulled out of my arse because I don't like chuggers - I've never even seen a chugger - and the sooner you get your head around that fact, the better.

I know you never mentioned a chugger

I was replying to more than
one person a moment ago, you're not the only one who believes things
that conflict with reality in here...

starbelgrade wrote: »

You disagree with my opinion - I get that. God knows that you've stated it enough & at great length, ad naseum. However, the reason that I don't donate to charity is - rightly or wrongly - as a matter of principle. You can "pooh-pooh" that all you want - and I suspect that you will continue to do so, judging on your form - but that doesn't mean that your opinion of why I have my own opinions on the matter, are correct.

Yes, you're correct, it doesn't mean I'm right. This isn't even a part of
discussion where opinions are relevant though, this is just shocking that
you'd use & believe opinions when this is a factual discussion. There should
be facts about the impact of charities, shouldn't there? If this is the
case then what are they? How do they fit in with your philosophy?

This is not even a discussion on which there is debate, there is debate on
what extent they've impacted sure but not whether they've done
anything. You're telling us that charity has done nothing except give
people a "feelgood factor" and is naive, I've given you a link where the UN
have laid out the successes they've had over the years and you
"pooh-pooh" that away, remember I know what I say doesn't have to be
correct - however it's based on facts & not what I want to be the case

The UN should be reporting the misery caused by the work charities have
done, would they not, if we believed what you believe? If the facts are
wrong I think you should let the UN know of your discovery so that we can
stop the scourge of charity.

If you're disagreeing with me you're disagreeing with facts, I have barely
even given my own opinion on this discussion because I have to dredge up
basic facts, we can't even talk about the interesting things here...

Since 1987, WaterCan’s programs have reached over one million children,
women and men in the world’s poorest regions, breaking the cycle of
poverty and disease and increasing opportunities for health, education,
gender equality, and economic growth.
http://www.watercan.com/

This alone contradicts your whole argument, how has nothing been
acheived if over a million people got clean water since 1987 by this
one charity?

Wertz · 29-08-2010 04:28PM

Sooner give it to the local Simon community than concern judging by the vitriol of their shills in this thread...

Concern

Comments