Friday, February 22

Part II of the donation jar "expose"

Okay. My apologies to Eric Rucker at KTVZ. Yesterday, I said that I wasn't sure if he was an idiot or just a lazy reporter after he did a cupcake piece on donation jars.

If he wants to start a debate on whether or not nonprofits are being inefficient by only asking for loose change without collecting names and addresses in order to cultivate a relationship... that's great. I'd love to see us discuss the pros/cons of cash donation jars from that perspective.

But television reporters who bang the same drum like Eric did on February 19th are no different than my local television anchor who keeps trying to convince me that their investigative reports team has uncovered some meaningless scandal.

However, after I saw Eric's "part II" of his expose on donation jars, I felt that I owed the guy an apology if I openly questioned his intelligence. Go here to view the rivoting follow-up "Donation jars help those in need."

1 comment:

dani_hamilton said...

I always like to get someone's name and contact info when they donate- it keeps the ball in my court to make the next move! But, previous research tells us that people need to see a charity's name up to 7 times before they give! Perhaps these coin jars are just our first, extremely painless way to encourage giving, with simple pocket change. Then, as they hear more about our charity groups, they are more inclined to give, and to dig deeper if asked.

The con would be encouraging only small donations, or to give meager amounts when they could give more generously. It's the same rationale behind avoiding large fundraisers close together on the calendar. John and Mary Donor may not purchase $50 gala tickets if they've recently purchased $10 raffle tickets, since 'they just gave to that org last week!'