off topic ALS Ice Bucket Challenge

[Hoss]

The whole idea that this challenge will take money away from other causes has been shot down pretty universally.

[Johnny DangerFace]

The whole idea that this challenge will take money away from other causes has been shot down pretty universally.

 

Why do you think they are independent? Iv never researched this but logically it would seem that there would be a significant relationship.

[darksabre]

The whole idea that this challenge will take money away from other causes has been shot down pretty universally.

 

It makes pretty good sense to me. I recently donated to the American Heart Association because a friend of mine has a parent who has been suffering. But I only have so much money to give, especially now that I'm only working part time. So even if I wanted to donate to ALS it comes down to either putting food in my own mouth or being charitable, I'm choosing not starving. What if I had already given to ALS when my friend brought his cause to my attention? I'd feel horrible that I had no money to give.

 

There are countless people out there who have given to ALS who will either not be able to give to another charity in need or will choose not to since they already did their "one good deed." People who donate to many charities are not going to pick up that slack.

[LastPommerFan]

My favorite thing in the world is people telling other people that they are doing their good deeds wrong.

[shrader]

It makes pretty good sense to me. I recently donated to the American Heart Association because a friend of mine has a parent who has been suffering. But I only have so much money to give, especially now that I'm only working part time. So even if I wanted to donate to ALS it comes down to either putting food in my own mouth or being charitable, I'm choosing not starving. What if I had already given to ALS when my friend brought his cause to my attention? I'd feel horrible that I had no money to give.

 

There are countless people out there who have given to ALS who will either not be able to give to another charity in need or will choose not to since they already did their "one good deed." People who donate to many charities are not going to pick up that slack.

 

And also, if charitable donations were endless, you would have already seen several other foundations create a gimmick of their own by now. That's not happening because they know there is no money to be had right now. How this theory has supposedly been shot down is beyond me. The impact on other charities would not been seen 5 days after every day blue collar guy decided to donate $20 to ALS. It is seen a few months or even a year after that donation.

[inkman]

My favorite thing in the world is people telling other people that they are doing their good deeds wrong.

Is a good deed being done if you are just dumping a bucket of water on your head and not donating?

[LastPommerFan]

And also, if charitable donations were endless, you would have already seen several other foundations create a gimmick of their own by now. That's not happening because they know there is no money to be had right now. How this theory has supposedly been shot down is beyond me. The impact on other charities would not been seen 5 days after every day blue collar guy decided to donate $20 to ALS. It is seen a few months or even a year after that donation.

 

Think of how much money Sabres Game Tickets take away from charitable giving. Taking food right out of the mouths of starving children. It's disgusting, really.

 

Is a good deed being done if you are just dumping a bucket of water on your head and not donating?

 

If 2 of the 3 people you challenge donate? 4 of the 9 they challenge? 12 of the 27 they challenge? 50 of the next 81? abso-f'n-lutely.

[dEnnis the Menace]

/Snip Mike Rowe/

 

That's a very interesting point of view and it makes a lot of sense.

[TrueBlueGED]

It makes pretty good sense to me. I recently donated to the American Heart Association because a friend of mine has a parent who has been suffering. But I only have so much money to give, especially now that I'm only working part time. So even if I wanted to donate to ALS it comes down to either putting food in my own mouth or being charitable, I'm choosing not starving. What if I had already given to ALS when my friend brought his cause to my attention? I'd feel horrible that I had no money to give.

 

There are countless people out there who have given to ALS who will either not be able to give to another charity in need or will choose not to since they already did their "one good deed." People who donate to many charities are not going to pick up that slack.

 

Well, you're assuming that all or at least most of the money being raised is coming from people who already give to charity, thus reducing the money they have to give elsewhere. This need not be the case. I can easily see a campaign of this magnitude persuading those who ordinarily don't donate to actually contribute, so if this is the case, the opportunity cost to other charities is negligible. People might also buy less pizza as a result, rather than curtailing charitable giving. I'm sure there's some unintended reduction in donations as a result, but I think you and others who dislike the campaign are very likely overestimating the impact.

 

Even if there is a significant reduction elsewhere, who are we to say that's a bad thing? Maybe ALS deserved more all along but hasn't been raising it? Where is the outrage if that was the case? As long as the campaign doesn't reduce overall charitable giving, then I don't see the problem.

[darksabre]

Well, you're assuming that all or at least most of the money being raised is coming from people who already give to charity, thus reducing the money they have to give elsewhere. This need not be the case. I can easily see a campaign of this magnitude persuading those who ordinarily don't donate to actually contribute, so if this is the case, the opportunity cost to other charities is negligible. People might also buy less pizza as a result, rather than curtailing charitable giving. I'm sure there's some unintended reduction in donations as a result, but I think you and others who dislike the campaign are very likely overestimating the impact.

 

Even if there is a significant reduction elsewhere, who are we to say that's a bad thing? Maybe ALS deserved more all along but hasn't been raising it? Where is the outrage if that was the case? As long as the campaign doesn't reduce overall charitable giving, then I don't see the problem.

 

I'm concerned that all this money is going to be mismanaged. I picture ALS Association turning into Darcy Regier after Pegula Day. Instead of meaningful and careful spending, the ALSA invests in the Ville Leino of research funding. So long millions of dollars that might have been better spent.

[Hoss]

My favorite thing in the world is people telling other people that they are doing their good deeds wrong.

 

Hey, I like you.

[biodork]

My favorite thing in the world is people telling other people that they are doing their good deeds wrong.

 

I don't think he was saying that; he was just explaining why he personally is choosing not to participate and expressing very valid concerns about the whole thing.

[LastPommerFan]

I don't think he was saying that; he was just explaining why he personally is choosing not to participate and expressing very valid concerns about the whole thing.

 

and encourage you all to ignore the gimmicks....

 

He's critiquing the way people give and where they give. He's calling it a gimmick. He is much more straddling the fence than others, which is why I didn't directly quote it. The newest fad for August 2014 is critiquing the way people do good deeds, and I love it.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Glass Case Of Emotion

[biodork]

He's critiquing the way people give and where they give. He's calling it a gimmick. He is much more straddling the fence than others, which is why I didn't directly quote it. The newest fad for August 2014 is critiquing the way people do good deeds, and I love it.

 

Well, in fairness, it IS a gimmick. It was started with great intentions and it's wonderful for the ALS community that it's raised so much money and gotten people to donate who otherwise probably would not have, but I'm guessing most of those donations were a one-off and won't help generate regular, consistent support, which you might argue is ultimately more helpful. If the same challenge were to go around next year, I'm guessing most of the people who participated this time would probably feel that they'd done their part already and not donate again.

[darksabre]

 

 

 

 

He's critiquing the way people give and where they give. He's calling it a gimmick. He is much more straddling the fence than others, which is why I didn't directly quote it. The newest fad for August 2014 is critiquing the way people do good deeds, and I love it.

 

What if a give a homeless man some money and he uses it to buy liquor and subsequently finishes his liver off and it kills him? On the surface I performed a good deed, but was it?

 

The ALS challenge has proven very successful at raising money without many people even knowing what that money is for. Is giving money with no discretion really a good deed? Or does it set a rather terrifying precedent? If my friends tell me it's good then it's good right?

 

How hard would it be to have an ice bucket challenge for pretty much any cause?

 

The critiques aren't about the charity itself, but the scary ease with which people just followed the piper without question.

 

Where the heck is sizzle when I need him!

[dEnnis the Menace]

Well, in fairness, it IS a gimmick. It was started with great intentions and it's wonderful for the ALS community that it's raised so much money and gotten people to donate who otherwise probably would not have, but I'm guessing most of those donations were a one-off and won't help generate regular, consistent support, which you might argue is ultimately more helpful. If the same challenge were to go around next year, I'm guessing most of the people who participated this time would probably feel that they'd done their part already and not donate again.

 

this. I typically donate only to a couple charities a year, and they never seem to be the same. This year, ALSA, last year: out of the darkness for suicide prevention, and the Sabres foundation, year before that: relay for life and habitat for humanity.

[biodork]

this. I typically donate only to a couple charities a year, and they never seem to be the same. This year, ALSA, last year: out of the darkness for suicide prevention, and the Sabres foundation, year before that: relay for life and habitat for humanity.

 

I have a group of about 4-6 organizations to which I donate on a regular basis (from monthly to annually, depending on the charity), in small increments but often to the tune of about $1000 by the end of the year. I've selected these few because they are causes I believe in and choose to support; not because they're in vogue or because someone told me I should. And if the challenge convinces someone they want to support that cause regularly, then that's awesome. I just worry that next year they drop off the map again as some other organization comes up with a better marketing tactic.

 

It reminds me a little of something I've seen in my area and find very annoying: a newer local charity group called Community Aid came together and decided to put their donation bins (the large metal containers that look like a mini-dumpster) DIRECTLY NEXT TO existing bins from the Salvation Army. I don't know much about this group, and as it turns out they support the local Humane Society and so I'd likely have chosen to contribute to their cause with that information. But the fact that they felt it necessary to compete with SA and almost poach their donations completely turned me away from them.

 

Edit: I'm NOT saying that is what the ALS group is doing... I'm saying I could see that happening going forward as other organizations recognize how successful their campaign has been and attempt to out-do each other in fundraising efforts.

Edited August 28, 2014 by biodork

[LastPommerFan]

Well, in fairness, it IS a gimmick. It was started with great intentions and it's wonderful for the ALS community that it's raised so much money and gotten people to donate who otherwise probably would not have, but I'm guessing most of those donations were a one-off and won't help generate regular, consistent support, which you might argue is ultimately more helpful. If the same challenge were to go around next year, I'm guessing most of the people who participated this time would probably feel that they'd done their part already and not donate again.

 

So if I may summarize: consistently giving to a charity year after year is more helpful than a one-time doantion.

 

so your conclusion is one time donations are bad? If not, then what is your point?

 

What if a give a homeless man some money and he uses it to buy liquor and subsequently finishes his liver off and it kills him? On the surface I performed a good deed, but was it?

 

The ALS challenge has proven very successful at raising money without many people even knowing what that money is for. Is giving money with no discretion really a good deed? Or does it set a rather terrifying precedent? If my friends tell me it's good then it's good right?

 

How hard would it be to have an ice bucket challenge for pretty much any cause?

 

The critiques aren't about the charity itself, but the scary ease with which people just followed the piper without question.

 

Where the heck is sizzle when I need him!

 

to the first bold, yes. You did a good deed.

 

to the second. This is how humans make decisions. It's hugely beneficial ability because we are able to essentially cloud-process huge amounts of information and the synthesize it through our social networks (in the literal, and now digital sense) and make more better decisions than we ever could on our own. We do need skeptics to keep the system in order.

 

Some of the critiques are about the charity. Lots of people (including Rowe) saying that this is an issue because "other causes" will have less.

 

Marketing is marketing, I don't have a problem with it. If someone you don't give two hoots about challenges you, you'll ignore it. But, if Josie challenged you because her Horse Trainer Friend challenged her, you'd think about it. Social networks are awesome.

[biodork]

So if I may summarize: consistently giving to a charity year after year is more helpful than a one-time doantion.

 

so your conclusion is one time donations are bad? If not, then what is your point?

 

No; I make one-time donations on occasion, but they are usually for disaster relief and that sort of thing. And if others prefer to take their $ and pick a new cause each year, then that's cool, too (just not my MO). My point is that ALS fundraising will likely go right back to normal next year because the challenge is a short-term fundraising effort, and unless they manage those extra funds very wisely by setting up an endowment or something of that nature, in the long run they'll be back to needing to raise awareness (again) for the cause.

Edited August 28, 2014 by biodork

[LastPommerFan]

No; I make one-time donations on occasion, but they are usually for disaster relief and that sort of thing. And if others prefer to take their $ and pick a new cause each year, then that's cool, too (just not my MO). My point is that ALS fundraising will likely go right back to normal next year because the challenge is a short-term fundraising effort, and unless they manage those extra funds very wisely by setting up an endowment or something of that nature, in the long run they'll be back to needing to raise awareness (again) for the cause.

 

Absolutely. so what? Why even make this point? it's like going to the Sabres Stanley Cup parade and saying, "yeah, the Sabres won the Stanley Cup, but they probably won't win it next year." Seems like an excessively downer statement in the face of something so good. It almost seems meant to make people feel bad about the good thing that's happening.

 

PS- you're just carrying an argument that many others have similarly made, my comments/questions are not really directed at you personally. :)

[biodork]

Absolutely. so what? Why even make this point? it's like going to the Sabres Stanley Cup parade and saying, "yeah, the Sabres won the Stanley Cup, but they probably won't win it next year." Seems like an excessively downer statement in the face of something so good. It almost seems meant to make people feel bad about the good thing that's happening.

 

PS- you're just carrying an argument that many others have similarly made, my comments/questions are not really directed at you personally. :)

 

Sorry, not trying to be a downer! I guess my thing is that if their goal is to raise awareness, they've only done so temporarily. Maybe that's all they needed and it doesn't matter, but I would think long-term support would be better. :shrugs: Could just be me. :)

 

Edit: corrected typo

Edited August 28, 2014 by biodork

[LastPommerFan]

Sorry, not trying to be a downer! I guess my thing is that if their goal is to raise awareness, they've only done so temporarily. Maybe that's all they needed and it doesn't matter, but I would thinking long-term support would be better. :shrugs: Could just be me. :)

 

Long term support absolutely would be better. It's not just you. But the existence of better doesn't make good bad. :)

[biodork]

Long term support absolutely would be better. It's not just you. But the existence of better doesn't make good bad. :)

 

I agree. And if their goal was just to raise a sh!t ton of money then they absolutely were successful and will be in great shape down the line if those funds are well-managed. I just hope they realize this year is an anomaly and not their "new normal".

[Hoss]

At worst, the ice bucket challenge raised a record amount of money and made millions more aware of the cause. But let's complain.

[drnkirishone]

At worst, the ice bucket challenge raised a record amount of money and made millions more aware of the cause. But let's complain.

at worst it has made 10s of millions of dollars that could be embezzled and misused and created the fundraising version of pop up ads. But lets just look at the positive and attack anyone not 110% thrilled with it.