Causes is a FB app developed to raise funds for non-profit organizations(NPOs) directed from various causes which can be raised my users. Users whom raised such causes were able to link the event to a registered (recognized by US laws and regulations) organization whom would be benefited from all donations collected through the cause.
The effectiveness of the app to the causes so far there were only 2 organizations which raised more than $100,000. This to me is a huge figure as raising funds online is pretty difficult job as there were lots of scams around since the start of the internet age. First we had chain emails to send to all of the user's contacts to raise fund for a leukemia patient or any dying person. People are very sceptical when donations come online from an unknown source.
The introduction of leaderboard for exceptional or successful individuals whom were able to raise lots of money for a cause proves to be some kind of double edge sword. In a way it spites users to be more enthusiastic in raising funds but it might also be not the true intention of users whom just want to be socially recognized through such "philanthropic" acts.
In order to be more successful in raising funds for a caused, I felt that the company, Causes, needed to make known or emphasize that and X amount of the funds raised would be to this charity organization and beneficial organization should make some form of publicity about funds raised through the cause raised in Facebook. This gives users in Facebook a form of credibility and are more willing and susceptible in donating money.
To conclude, I'm perfectly fine with the leaderboard as I don't really care of what the true intention of the user whom raised the cause but so long as we (the donors) know that the money that we "poured" in must go to people whom are in need of it.
Hello Jianhong. I totally agree with you. As long as the money is definitely going towards the needy, I wouldn't concern myself with the intention of the donor. Even if he might have done so with the hope of looking good and benevolent, the "donations race" created actually benefits those who need it.
ReplyDeleteJianhong, I totally agree with you. Although the leaderboards may allow people who just want publicity or fame to donate and this is not the true intention, but I think it's okie.
ReplyDeleteRecall the NKF and a lot of other charity shows in Singapore. They used to have huge prizes like cars and condominiums to attract people to donate. And well I think it works. I think the main idea of the donation is to help the less fortunate people and I think comparing the intention to donate and how much the donations are in the end, I think the latter is more important.
But perhaps causes can allow the person who create the cause to uncheck a button to remove the leaderboard for that particular cause? Then I think it would be a win win situation..
- Hong Jun
I understand that the leaderboard is a means to an end Causes wants to achieve. However, getting donations in exchange for fame is really not the way to go. It means that desire for recognition supersedes one's belief in the cause and willingness to support it. It means that money = strength of your support. This debases the value of a cause as we have known it till today.
ReplyDelete@Adhiraj: I guess there will never be a correct answer for this, I believe that the end justify the means but others may think that this is actually not a good thing.
ReplyDeleteSo I suggested that the leaderboard can be made optional for each individual cause. So in that way, everyone can choose whether they want the ends or the means.
- Hong Jun
Regarding that, i felt that generally people need to be motivated, someone need to stir their feelings in order for them to fork out the money to do charity. Look at the "beggars" along the road, how many people actually volunteer to donate?
ReplyDeleteyup, that is why we need the leaderboards?
ReplyDeleteAgreed totally. I hope causes could accept organizations other than the ones in US.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the use of a leaderboard (similar to Adhiraj's views)
ReplyDeleteThe thrust of Causes is (or should be) to get people to donate because they care, and not because they want to get into some leaderboard. There are many other applications where the leaderboard concept makes sense - in my opinion this definitely isn't one.
A simple thought experiment that I would propose is the following - let Causes give the users of either showing up on leaderboards or completely abstaining from it. Will people now choose to opt out? Or will they rather keep such scores? I'm guessing that very few will opt for this - particularly if their initial motive/urge to join the app was the whole "leaderboard" and "impact" measures.
Of course, all the above arguments make sense only from an ethical standpoint. In the end what matters is if this leads to a good outcome, ie, do charities get money through this?
Hmmm u got a point there like what u say so long as it leads to a good outcome and needy people get benefited from it.
ReplyDeleteLeadership board is some kind of recognition its like people's name appear in the volunteer work. In some sense people think its kind of fake but it gives some recognition for people in the leadership board. Probably in future if they were to organize their own charity event, this leadership board would have been a very good portfolio for him/her.
people check it out -> Singapore version of Causes http://give.sg/
ReplyDelete"In a way it spites users to be more enthusiastic in raising funds but it might also be not the true intention of users whom just want to be socially recognized through such "philanthropic" acts." - Jian Hong
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it depends on the priority. Is it for educational sake? Or is it to aid crisis? If it is the latter, then I think the genuineness of the donors does not really matter as long as the needy receive aid.
“不管白猫黑猫，能抓住老鼠就是好猫。” – 邓小平
Ha i like the chinese saying been hearing this alot since its is quite meaningful. .
ReplyDelete