Well, I’ve just checked with a few people and apparently it isn’t me. According to my daughter I score “zero” on the cool-o-meter. So it must, therefore, be the world of charity.
At the weekend, business woman, Mary Portas observed in the Observer that: “Our cultural G spot has moved. It used to be greed. Now it’s giving.”
Only a couple of years ago, when I mentioned that I did work for charities it brought a quick, embarrassed silence to the conversation. Now the same people look at me as if I’m some sort of saint (if only they knew!).
Charity, it seems, has become like rehab – everybody who’s anybody is going there.
So what’s happened? Well for one thing the rich and famous are still at it. This morning the papers were full of Madonna adopting a second orphan from Malawi. Comic Relief has just had its best year ever. Everywhere you look someone famous is involved in a little judicious giving.
In an article in the New York Times, Naomi Levine, an expert on philanthropy at New York University, said young people, “more than ever want to do something.” Judging from the calibre of the people who want to come and work with us, this is definitely true.
Of course, social media is playing a role in this as well. Earlier this year Hugh Jackman (better known to many as Wolverine) offered to giveaway $100,000 to whichever charity could make themselves most appealing in 140 characters:
This is exciting stuff. Anyone could play and many of us did.
Politicians are also doing their bit (albeit unwittingly) by making such a public display of greed and incompetence. Enough to drive anybody in the opposite direction.
Then of course there is the recession, forcing all of us to re-examine our values. Finally there is the environment. The once cranky idea that you don’t just consume but need to put something back is now mainstream.
These may be hard times but, in many ways, people want to give back more than ever. Now that’s cool.
Tags: Charities, Charity, comic relief, Fundraising, Giving, Hugh Jackman, maryportas, Observer, Twitter
I don’t think “charity” has become cool, but instant campaigns by super-activists or ‘celebs’ certainly have. This is happening to a large extent *despite* charities. More people are less accepting of what they see is incremental change. I commented somewhere else recently that in the not-to-distant future, individuals – or groups of individuals who come together online – will ask “which charity (or anyone) wants to help us change X”. “Open source charity” – global networks of individuals who identify projects & then develop simple, direct ways to contribute to making the change they desire… is “cool”.
Thanks for the comment, Steve.
I agree with what you say about many campaigns happening now because motivated individuals make them happen. Social media is largely responsible for making that possible. Now people have the tools readily available, they don’t *need* charities to run a campaign – they can do it themselves.
The question is, is a small amount of tactical change, driven by motivated individuals, as effective as long-term, incremental change, as delivered by charities?
Many people seem to think that too much money given to charities goes towards ‘admin’, but a lot of the core running costs of charities cover the infrastructure that enables them to continue to deliver incremental change strategically and sustainably. The feasibility studies they undertake, and the analysis and reporting on their impact, might seem to some to be a ‘waste of money’, but they can also mean the difference between making a lasting, positive difference where it’s most needed and making changes that individuals might desire.
But really, this post had it’s roots in a conversation we were having when we got into the office that morning about how we all remember being treated like ‘the poor relation’ a few years back when we mentioned we worked in the charity sector.
I vividly remember how thrilled I was to get my first fundraising role and how shocked I was that most of my peers at the time seemed to think marketing dog food, editing car magazines, doing travel PR – or doing virtually *anything* else – in the ‘commercial world’ was preferable to working for a charity. It seemed that most people thought working for a good cause seemed rather dull, a little bit worthy (somehow not in a good way!), and for people who couldn’t get a ‘better’ job.
These days, the reaction when I tell people couldn’t be more different. Often, they seem almost envious. More and more people seem to want to know how to get a job working for, or with, charities (I’m constantly being asked).
We think attitudes have shifted significantly, and that can only be good for good causes – charities or not. More people want to do good, so we hope more good will be done. And – you’re right – that’s really cool.
I moved from the commercial world to the charity sector because I felt that my job (effectively communications) would be more interesting and rewarding to me if it was contributing to a good cause rather than just filling the ether with more of the same.
I think everyone’s feeling a bit of that – now that the same information can be found repeated everywhere by many people in a variety of contexts, it feels good to have it invested with a bit of feeling and a bit of good. It just makes everyone feel BETTER, doesn’t it?
It’s content for a purpose, not just for content’s sake. And there’s lots of other ways of achieving that, but charity is an accessible, popular way of feeling like there’s a contribution to be made even if all you can do is RT a message or change your avatar colour.
I think I will try to recommend this post to my friends and family, cuz it’s really helpful.