Do you think a portion of the proceeds going to a Global Fund is acceptable? Or should all proceeds be given to the fund? (Especially is Oprah and Bono are promoting it)
This is an interesting question to answer because there are so many ways to look at it. on the one hand, a true 100% non-profit charity would take all of the money that they would take in and give it straight to the cause they are trying to support. While this is the optimal way for an organisation to provided support to a cause, its effects are very limited. After the initial fundraising push, the donations and incoming money tends to fade away and eventually the charity stops collecting money and dies off.
The way that the (RED) cause is structured is more like a business partnership than a charity.
The (RED) campaign is structured in such a way that all parties involved(RED, GAP, Apple ect.) will benefit from one another. This flips the conventional charitable structure, of one party donating to another, on its head. With this new business-like structure, all parties benefit in hope to prolong the life of the charities ability to collect money. This is a new concept on charity that I have never heard before but it is very intriguing.
This new model for charity carries much more incentives for businesses to become more involved and stay involved for longer than a traditional charitable structure which in turn leads to more money generated for the cause of choice. While this is great, it means that not all the money being made is not making it to the people that need it and it is this point that causes so much controversy.
Do you think it is morally sound to turn a charity into a business partnership with the hope of more money being donated or rather leave it to be just a charity with a theoretically shorter lifespan?
http://mo-blog-kjohnson.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment