<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Charities quite simply destroying themselves</title> <atom:link href="http://blog.bwagy.com/charities-quite-simply-destroying-themselves/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://blog.bwagy.com/charities-quite-simply-destroying-themselves/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=charities-quite-simply-destroying-themselves</link> <description></description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:28 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Ben Young</title><link>http://blog.bwagy.com/charities-quite-simply-destroying-themselves/comment-page-1/#comment-3037</link> <dc:creator>Ben Young</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 23:25:36 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.bwagy.com/?p=871#comment-3037</guid> <description>@Stacey It is the result of systemised processes - they know they get the most out of people that have already donated so once you have they chuck you in a system that pesters you forever.  Knowing that on average you will donate more.  It&#039;s the same around the world unfortunately.  Causes such as Kiva avoid this and in the long run it is those that cater to our needs that will get the funds.@Rich They are probably right - under their operating model.  If they changed the value proposition as Kiva have that may change.  As the highly engaged / motivated will give much more.  It&#039;s a result of average service offering to the masses.  As you say if they segmented the market more.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Stacey It is the result of systemised processes &#8211; they know they get the most out of people that have already donated so once you have they chuck you in a system that pesters you forever.  Knowing that on average you will donate more.  It&#8217;s the same around the world unfortunately.  Causes such as Kiva avoid this and in the long run it is those that cater to our needs that will get the funds.</p><p>@Rich They are probably right &#8211; under their operating model.  If they changed the value proposition as Kiva have that may change.  As the highly engaged / motivated will give much more.  It&#8217;s a result of average service offering to the masses.  As you say if they segmented the market more.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Rich@getfrank</title><link>http://blog.bwagy.com/charities-quite-simply-destroying-themselves/comment-page-1/#comment-3036</link> <dc:creator>Rich@getfrank</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 02:42:20 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.bwagy.com/?p=871#comment-3036</guid> <description>I thought the same, and put that to World Vision - &#039;Starving children&#039; vs. &#039;Seeing value added communities built / smiles etc.&#039;They responded that they had tried &amp; it didn&#039;t deliver, the old business adage that there&#039;s more money in a pain killer than a vitamin seems to hold in charities as well.Handing over a $1, kills that guilt.I still believe there&#039;s a solid % of the market, and with the ability to segment your approach they&#039;d gain more, was interesting though to here that when taking the whole market in one shot/branding approach World Vision has to shoot low to bring in the most.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought the same, and put that to World Vision &#8211; &#8216;Starving children&#8217; vs. &#8216;Seeing value added communities built / smiles etc.&#8217;</p><p>They responded that they had tried &amp; it didn&#8217;t deliver, the old business adage that there&#8217;s more money in a pain killer than a vitamin seems to hold in charities as well.</p><p>Handing over a $1, kills that guilt.</p><p>I still believe there&#8217;s a solid % of the market, and with the ability to segment your approach they&#8217;d gain more, was interesting though to here that when taking the whole market in one shot/branding approach World Vision has to shoot low to bring in the most.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Stacey</title><link>http://blog.bwagy.com/charities-quite-simply-destroying-themselves/comment-page-1/#comment-3035</link> <dc:creator>Stacey</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 02:29:53 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.bwagy.com/?p=871#comment-3035</guid> <description>I definitely think there is not only something in the cheeriness of the charities you mentioned, but also something on a human level which connects with us. A few years ago, I gave a fair sum of money to oxfam,  the result of a slick marketing campaign. Ever since then, every month without fail, I get a letter in the mail, which I transfer straight to the recycling, shaking my head that there goes that money I gave thinking it was a goat for a family in Africa. I haven&#039;t given to them since, but do make sure I give to charities with faces of volunteers. Even greenpeace hires people to talk you into donating, and I think this misses the point of giving to a deserving cause. You do it because they need you to.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I definitely think there is not only something in the cheeriness of the charities you mentioned, but also something on a human level which connects with us. A few years ago, I gave a fair sum of money to oxfam,  the result of a slick marketing campaign. Ever since then, every month without fail, I get a letter in the mail, which I transfer straight to the recycling, shaking my head that there goes that money I gave thinking it was a goat for a family in Africa. I haven&#8217;t given to them since, but do make sure I give to charities with faces of volunteers. Even greenpeace hires people to talk you into donating, and I think this misses the point of giving to a deserving cause. You do it because they need you to.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced)
Database Caching 1/10 queries in 0.004 seconds using disk
Object Caching 307/308 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via Rackspace Cloud Files: N/A

Served from: blog.bwagy.com @ 2012-02-12 23:10:16 -->
