A Kiwiblog charity?
This is only an idea, so feedback welcome on it.
I’m a big believer in helping charities. Hell, I worked for the Red Cross for four years and it is amazing at how much can be done for sometimes not a lot of money. One or two staff can get water supplied to camps of thousands etc. Kiwis are great at giving up so much time and money to help others.
There are many great charities. SPCA, Women’s Refuge are a couple I always donate to. And all the cancer ones. Plus of course you get phoned all the time now asking for donations to other charities and you give a bit more often than not.
Anyway what I have been thinking is it would be great if the community that forms around a blog, can be used to support one particular charity in a really significant way.
Blogs sometimes get a negative rap for various things so I thought it would be great to also show another side.
So here is my idea:
- See if people think the idea has merit
- Try and get a small number of volunteers on board to help organise things
- Ask people to nominate various charities for inclusion in a poll, to be Kiwiblog Charity for 2009. Probably have some criteria for shortlisting.
- Have readers vote on preferred charity from the short list. We’ll rotate it every year, so missing out is not permanent.
- Then over a year, undertake a range of activities for the charity, with some possibilities below:
- Kiwiblog donates 10% of advertising revenue to charity
- A free advertisement all year on Kiwiblog
- One or two dedicated fund-raisers a year on Kiwiblog, where we have perhaps a blog target of $x,000 to reach. Some sort of sidebar graphic that can show how much has been raised towards the target.
- A monthly post focusing on one of the charity’s projects.
- Possibly a couple of face to face events to raise money for the charity such as a celebrity debate or some quiz nights?
- Maybe even have Kiwiblog teams running in long distance races, with readers sponsoring people? Me completing a ten km run must be worth something
Let me know what you think of the idea. Would you take part if it was for a good charity? If we do it, how do we make it more fun?
Also if I do attempt to do this, I won’t have the time to organise everything myself. Would anyone out there want to be the unpaid charity organiser for Kiwiblog? Maybe something we can share amongst three or four of us – good to have a few to brainstorm ideas with.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Great idea DPF, if the Charity you choose is the SPCA then I am more than happy to do the job.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Great idea, Farrar.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I won’t choose the charity. Readers will!
April 7th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Sounds good. Let me know if there’s any way I can help.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I’m in.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
The idea has my support (as long as it’s not WWF or Greenpeace or similar).
April 7th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Excellent Idea! Good on Ya!
April 7th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I’d like to suggest a perfect classical liberal charity.
NORML
April 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Very happy to help David. Ditto re MajorBloodnok, no help to leftie fronts
April 7th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“There are many great charities. SPCA, Women’s Refuge are a couple I always donate to. And all the cancer ones. Plus of course you get phoned all the time now asking for donations to other charities and you give a bit more often than not.”
Why do you give to multiple charities, DPF? Steven Landsburg has a very solid argument (http://www.slate.com/id/2034/) that if you truly care about the welfare of the recipients, you should only ever give to one charity. The reason is that the best choice of charity (in your best judgment) will almost certainly remain the same regardless of how much you give. If you believe the most effective charitable use of $100 is to donate to UNICEF, then it will almost certainly be the same for $200, or $1000, or $100,000.
[DPF: Because they work in different areas. I do only give to one overseas aid agency but I also want to help abandoned pets at home]
April 7th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Nichlemn, great point. I too just stick to my guns (and look like a miserable sod when someone waves a bucket in my face), but good luck to the charities who can get their claws into the generous punters like Farrar out there.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Would be a great PR move too, this. Not that it matters, everyone wins.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
You look even more of a miserable sob by bitched about other people giving money away you know.
I give to MDA, soldiers Angels and the SPCA. Go ahead and drip at me too.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Funny you mention this as just yesterday I signed up to give a monthly donation to Plunket. I guess the future of this country is with our kids so if we can ensure they get off to a good start then there has to be a trickle down effect.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
fantastic idea David. Count me in to help out in small ways. i can stumble ten k’s if needed or whatever. as long as there is a fat can of fosters at the end i can manage anything.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
DPF
How about the National party. After today it’s hard to imagine their members will be offering up much in the way of donations.
[DPF: True.]
April 7th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
What Key really needs is his very own Salome for dealing with former ministers now in opposition.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Shudder
April 7th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Roll call please…
Jacob Van Hartog. Greenfly. AG. Rob Salmond. Roger Nome. Sonic. What, are there <i lefties in the house?!
I see the usual lefty suspects, who claim moral superiority over righties, have nothing to contribute to this thread. What a surprise.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
End of second line should have read: What, are there any lefties in the house?!
April 7th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Great idea DPF.
I’d donate. I have one that I support every month and in this climate my contribution might be small but I’m sure it all helps.
Charities have me marked and make sure they have someone outside my office door waving a bucket every bleedin week. Still if the coins make it home the kids nick ‘em anyway.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Good idea – and nothing wrong with multiple charities.
Hopefully this won’t be seen as a ‘rightie’ thing – bloggers and commenters of all political stripes could support it I hope.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
It’s an excellent idea.
Many charities are hurting at the moment, as donors pull back their donations (trusts and the like, are earning diminished revenue, which feeds into lowered donations). Most non-profit outfits helping out with issues like brain-injuries, blindness, epilepsy etc, are run on the smell of an oily-rag.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Great idea and definitely keen to help out. Have always been a big fan of grass roots organisations. Let me know.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
people might want to look at some the poorer charities – there seems to be a large divide between the charities with very high profiles and significant amounts of $’s (of course there’s never enough – this is relative) and the lower profile charities with very little money and in a catch 22 – you need some money and great grass roots support to get more money.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Eh? I wasn’t bitching.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I have the warm fuzzies. My preferences would be anything to do with ankle biters or animals (but no hugging polar bears).
You can have some money but I run for nobody.
How about something for Health camps for troubled little brats, I mean youths. They do good stuff with very little bucks.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Tory charity Nomestradamus, like sunlight to vampires for the lefties.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Nomestradamus,
I don’t claim moral superiority over righties, but I do claim to be right an awful lot. Do I count?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I’m happy to partake, on the basis that there is no compulsorary polar bear hugging.
Plunkett, Red Cross, SPCA top my list
April 7th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
“[DPF: Because they work in different areas. I do only give to one overseas aid agency but I also want to help abandoned pets at home]”
It shouldn’t matter so long as you are predominantly interested in the welfare of your recipients and not factors like the status effect of being able to point out how *many* charities you donate to. You may “want” a lot of things, but the only reason you ever buy more than one good is that utility functions are non-linear. For instance, you may enjoy both chocolates and apples, but you’ll always eat chocolates so long as they cost the same as apples but provide you with more utility. This only stops being the case because you slowly get sick of chocolates. In the case of charity, most problems are so large that your impact is extremely unlikely to swing a cause from being the first most worthy to the second most. But this is what you are doing by giving to multiple charities: the first donation says “In my best judgement, this is the most worthy cause I can donate to”, by donating to a different charity you’re saying “In my best judgement, *this* is *now* the most worthy cause I can donate to.”
April 7th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Damn good idea
April 7th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Count me in Charities will struggle to get their usual level of donations at a time when most will be under their biggest pressure to help out.
I see the Commission have just passed the 20 thousand mark for registrations This in a country of 4 million and a bit Thats one organisation per 200 people which of course includes all sorts of organisations but just goes to show Kiwis are joiners and contributors. the charities sector is probably worth 2 to 3 Billion dollars that the Gumnint doesnt have top find.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Happy to help out if you need a hand, DPF. Kudos for the good will.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Interested to know whether you want to make this domestic or include overseas?
There are some amazing ways to donate micro credit through a couple of websites now.
E.g $25 – 100 USD is often enough to allow a third world person to set up a business that feeds themselves and quite a number of extended family who have been orphaned through wars and natural disasters.
These are in the form of interest free loans which have an incredibly high payback success rate – in excess of 98% I understand. It would seem a ‘righty’ way in that you are fostering entrepreneurship and also leveraging money many times over. When the first person pays their loan back you pick another.
No money swallowed up by corporate type world vision type bureaucracy charities. Sure they have their place but would be nice to do something more 21st century and with less built in dependence on charity long term.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
kiva.org actually does group giving, but you probably knew that.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
kiva.org is awesome.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I think the sentiment and the intention to act is a wholly admirable one, DPF. However, it will be a good thing for the charities concerned if this represents an incremental level of gifting, and not a mere substitution of channels. Anyone remember the Community Chest? The intention there, as I recall, was to reduce the number of charities. I think it reduced the amount of money given.
I fail to understand the logic of giving to only one as proposed by Nichlemn. I want to support the neurological foundation, so shouldn’t support “Save the Children”? It sounds a bit like proposing that I could parcel out my love more efficiently if I chose just one of my five kids. I just don’t get it.
Anyway, as long as people do support the charities, whether privately or via a mechanism such as this, the good work gets done.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Only if the scheme is officially called Tory Charity.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Fantastic Idea.
My top 3 are Child Cancer, SPCA and Wellington Free Ambulance.
Though to be honest, it dosen’t really matter whom the charity is; only that they do some demonstratable good in society.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Great idea!! My nominated charity would be the SPCA, followed by WSPA.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Anything to do with helping kids and/or, families that struggle, then I’m in.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I would be supportive. I would even run 10kms if you people sponser me.
Being a product of a decile 2 education environment, I am all for giving young achievers a little help with advancing their education (so long as it is in worthwhile vocations). I would like to see a scholarship fund set up for young scholars from disadvantaged backgrounds. It would be seen as rewarding excellence rather than mediocrity for a change.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
How about a celebrity roast to fund raise?
April 7th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I think its a good plan.
As for charities: if their is one that is anti foetal alcohol syndrome (or anti injury to foetuses that will be born)
or the ones that are essential services but not govt funded much : St John (and/or other ambulance service) and Coast Guard. Plenty of other good ones too of course
April 7th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Grizz
Great idea. I would be in for that. A scholarship to a private school would be a great idea.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
But But….how will the State be involved?! No one helps their fellow man VOLUNTARILY!….;-O
I feel confused and scared…Someone from Government wave a gun in my face and make threats… for the common good please!!!!!!!
(Im in a for a dollar or two) ;-0
April 7th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Tory charity. Surely an oxymoron. We know better that ‘they’ eat babies and push old ladies under the wheels of buses.
Anyway, it is the roll of the State to look after the less fortunate. Only the State can decide on the fair distribution of any largesse going because the State giveth and the State taketh away and if you piss the State off watch out.
This suggestion is a con and will be rightly rejected as an attempt to divert attention from the truely magnificant legacy of the Clark Labour Government where everyone received their due accorging to the tenants of socialism.
How can I help David?
April 7th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I’d be keen to run a race on the kiwiblog team for charity
April 8th, 2009 at 12:42 am
All the students who wish to leave their compulsory unions *could* therefore nominate that their fees go to this charity, as under the current law if they object to being forced to join and successfully are allowed out, they don’t get their money.
Cunning! This could make a bit of cash for this charity.
April 8th, 2009 at 3:42 am
“It sounds a bit like proposing that I could parcel out my love more efficiently if I chose just one of my five kids. I just don’t get it.”
That’s unlikely to be the case because you will get diminishing returns. The child in most need of assistance is likely to no longer be the child in most of assistance after you exert a lot of effort into helping him or her. For most charities, returns are approximately linear, so that won’t be the case.
I suggest people read the article I linked to. Here it is again: http://www.slate.com/id/2034/
April 8th, 2009 at 8:12 am
I have read Landsburg’s article and still don’t connect with it. Speaking only for myself, I am unable to reduce my human response to an exercise in rational economics. Just as I continue to love all of my kids regardless of which is in the most immediate trouble, I continue to respond to whichever charities have a need that I feel able to meet. Humanity is not the same as economics. No wonder they call it the dismal science.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Great idea. Last month I organised an event to support SPCA & hospice – the first time the 2 charities had worked together. We had a fantastic response and raised thousands for the 2 so if I can help count me in
April 8th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Nichlemn, you speak a lot of rubbish, sure that article is in a way theoretically correct, but there is no harm in giving to multiple charities if they are all worthy. If one were significantly more worthy than another then there may be a point, but its not a big deal. It also implies that it is possible to be objective about whether starving children in africa or children with cancer in new zealand are more important. These are moral things that dont have a right or wrong answer, most people see that both answers are “right”, give to both. Most people would conceed that humans are more important than animals so would put human charity above SPCA, but if no-one gave to the SPCA as well, there would be lots more suffering animals, and that would be bad.
The one advantage in diversifying, is that if everyone diversifies, then it stops the problem of the possibility of some areas being underfunded, and others being overfunded. The article is right that giving to one charity wont affect their need for more, so you should keep giving to the one, however if EVERYONE did the same then it WOULD change that the need for more.
This wouldnt happen because different people would have different ideas for priorities, but it doesnt matter if that diversity is inter person or intra person.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Animals and cancer – no running though, just the money please…
April 14th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
This discussion is all great. However, I would suggest the emppahis should be encouraging more people to give but to leave the choice of charity or community organisation to them. Afterall there are now over 20,000 organisations registered on the Charities Commission register and there tens of thousands more community organisations who need support in different ways. On that point, the discussion and comments have been focused on the giving of money – which is great. At the same time charities/community organisations need gifts in kind and they need gifts of time – volunteering. Right now in this recession period, there are some organisations such as budget advisory services who especially need volunteers who have the skills and life experiences assist their work with those who are affected by the recession – laid off or few work hours and so on. You can find over 1800 volunteering opportunities on http://www.volunteernow.org.nz or approach a local volunteer centre or go direct to your favourite community group or charity to ask how you can help.