One of my housemates is very passionate about a charity
called Giving What We Can and he along with some other people has set up a
Giving What We Can Warwick group here on campus. The idea of this charity is a
very interesting one and one that I can never quite make my mind up about. They
want to make giving to charity easier by encouraging members to donate 10% of
their income to the charities that they believe will be the most effective in
helping those living in poverty. This is done by providing information about
the most cost-effective charities and by constantly doing research into what
charities can be deemed as cost-effective.
After my housemate told me about a talk by the founder last
year I have felt cautious of the structure of the charity. I felt that the “warm
cuddly feeling” of giving to charity was being taken away by turning everything
into numbers. Over the last year he has got increasingly involved and
passionate about the charity and I have become increasingly suspicious of the
techniques. I have been mainly concerned with the fact that it is not really
possible to calculate the impact of charities that support political change as
you cannot measure the number of lives saved. But then this year the Giving
What We Can Warwick group ran a donation campaign by agreeing to match any
donations up to £4000 with money out of their own pocket. After reaching this
target they then announced that they would be matching up to another £2000.
This target was reached bringing their total to £6000 matched so that is a huge
amount of £12000 raised for Against Malaria Foundation!
The whole thing is documented in these two videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAnVna8ynA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAnVna8ynA4
When I heard that they were going to match every donation
made I forgot all about my reservations of choosing the most cost-effective
charity and began spreading the word through facebook statuses and by word of
mouth. During this period of time I found myself constantly selling the idea of
how cost-effective Against Malaria Foundation are with £5 providing a mosquito
net for two people for 5 years. This matching scheme signifies my largest
donation to charity that does not provide me with a product or a specific
experience in return.
Research has shown that offering to match charity donations
increases the amount of giving (Eckel & Grossman, 2003). In a study by
Eckel and Grossman (2003) participants were given a list of charities to offer
a donation to and they used a rebate subsidy and a matching subsidy that shouldn’t
affect the level of giving as it presented the participants with the same net
cost of giving to the charity. However, the results showed that the donations
were significantly higher when the donations were matched. This provides
support for the persuasive technique of matching donations given to a charity
to increase the amount of giving.
This is one persuasive technique I don’t mind being affected
by!
References
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2003). Rebate versus
matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?. Journal of
Public Economics, 87(3), 681-701.
Very interesting!
ReplyDelete