Natural disasters always result in an upsurge in charitable donations and attention towards charities as a whole. The stories coming out of the countries affected, like those coming out of Haiti now from the earthquake, tend to cause people to sympathize in a way that softens their grip on their wallets. Organizations like the Red Cross have been active for anywhere from years to centuries based on this social tendency. Without something to sympathize with, people don’t tend to see the urgent need for a charitable donation.
But in recent times especially, even that has not worked so well for organizations looking for donations. Pity-seeking montages of empty shelves, barren dinner tables, and thin, sickly, poverty-stricken people on behalf of food banks and pantries across the country have been airing on CNN and your local news station ever since the “recession” washed ashore. The situation of food banks is not improving that much — people have increased their donations, and there are more can drives and the like going on in communities as a general rule, but there is still a severe food shortage.
That’s why the huge, record-breaking public reaction to Haiti’s plight is so puzzling. The Hope for Haiti telethon that took over TV a couple nights ago brought in a record-breaking $57+ million, with 83 million viewers. Texting-based campaigns (which sound like a genius move, since everyone loves texting) from charities like the Red Cross (90999) and Yéle (50555) are a runaway success, with estimates like $22 million for the Red Cross alone. What happened to the recession? What happened to “store your money away in a safe, drop that safe behind a hidden door to a pit of spikes, and don’t you dare even look at that credit card”?
Some might say President Obama happened, but there’s more to it than that. Doomsayers are not dead yet, and besides, people are going to stay conservative for a while, out of fear of a second plunge.
I think the only feasible explanation is the fact that charity this time around has made two major changes: it’s star-studded, and it’s small. Would you watch a multiple-hour telethon to raise money for a recent natural disaster if it didn’t have the likes of Beyoncé and Christina Aguilera? You might, but the average American wouldn’t. If Americans can’t sit through a 45 minute speech from their own President, they definitely can’t pay attention to Anderson Cooper for two or three whole hours no matter how many random Haitians he may be able to televise. Emotional appeals make no difference if no one’s paying attention. Putting someone’s favorite celebrity or favorite performer on a TV special and promoting it is a good way to get people’s attention — from there, you can build up sympathy as much as you need to, and you might even squeeze $10 or $20 out of Mary J. Blige’s #1 fan while you’re at it.
Unfortunately, Americans are as generally lacking in generosity as they are in attention span. The average American would scoff at the idea of giving a large donation to people they have never heard of that are practically an entire ocean away in a strange foreign country. That’s why the texting campaigns are so effective — they’re easy and they’re small. An avid texter can text “haiti” to 90999 in probably less than a second, and they’re probably not going to miss that $10 if they’re already paying $99/month for their mobile plan.
But are these things truly charitable? Is it a generous gift if you’re bribed with a minimally gyrating Shakira yodeling “I’ll Stand By You”? Probably not, but money is money and that $10 can probably go quite a long way. Charities, to be successful, seem to need to change their model — the 5 minute montages of emotionally charged disaster images don’t seem to work as well as they once might have.
