Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise of pity marketing

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: The rise of pity marketing

#61

Post by rpdillon »

randunel wrote: post #42
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than allow my compassion to be decimated, or chipped away bit by bit, I simply outsource my compassion. I never take pity on individuals, whether they are begging at the train station, a grocery store, or somewhere on the Internet. No pity for individual situations. I absolutely cannot and will not trust someone's claims and I absolutely cannot judge their worthiness for charity. I give generously to charitabl…

> I give generously to charitable organizations that do the most good. This is my religious obligation, and it's also the best way to maximize my bucks. And they maximize your bucks with outlandish purchases for executives and "fund raising" parties for their selected few. I stopped caring for large NGOs when I found out how deeply corrupt their management is, including middle management. If you want to help, don't g…

When I was in the military, I learned about the Combined Federal Campaign, which aggregates charities and allows federal employees to contribute through payroll deductions.

https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/offerings

One tool they offer is a calculation of AFR, which is the Administrative and Fundraising Expense Rate. It basically measures the overhead you're talking about. You can look it up for any charity that's part of the CFC at the link above.

The EFF's AFR is over 30%. The Red Cross's AFR is a touch over 9%.

Re: The rise of pity marketing

#62

Post by MichaelZuo »

roenxi wrote: post #56
Retric wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehh, the Red Cross’s budget is 3 Billion and they spend 670 million on disaster relief and 360 million on admin. If your goal is to support disaster relief then they are an inefficient use of your resources. However, they also run blood drives and then sell the blood which is part of their overall budget independent of donations. $921 million is just salaries for people running blood drives, with similar expenses for…

In fairness, internal combustion engines are an inefficient use of resources. They just happen to be the best option. It is basically impossible to design an organisation that directs resources to economically unproductive people. $700 / $3,000 going to the right spot could be reasonably effective. I mean, at least the Red Cross won't take a fraction of the money and use it to fund ruinous, murderous and pointless ra…

Spending only $700 out of $3000 on the stated mission is doing a decent job, since when?

Re: The rise of pity marketing

#63

Post by tomnipotent »

randunel wrote: post #42
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than allow my compassion to be decimated, or chipped away bit by bit, I simply outsource my compassion. I never take pity on individuals, whether they are begging at the train station, a grocery store, or somewhere on the Internet. No pity for individual situations. I absolutely cannot and will not trust someone's claims and I absolutely cannot judge their worthiness for charity. I give generously to charitabl…

> I give generously to charitable organizations that do the most good. This is my religious obligation, and it's also the best way to maximize my bucks. And they maximize your bucks with outlandish purchases for executives and "fund raising" parties for their selected few. I stopped caring for large NGOs when I found out how deeply corrupt their management is, including middle management. If you want to help, don't g…

> Look up the red cross or any other large organisation

American Red Cross - 90% of funds spent on program; 3% on admin/staff

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/530196605

Feeding America - 98% of funds spent on program; 0.3% on admin/staff

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599

United Way Worldwide - 95% of funds spent on program; 2.6% on admin/staff

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/131635294

St. Jude Hospital - 95% of funds spent on program; 3.9% on admin/staff

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/951643325

Charities an both be effective and useful while also paying executive staff handsomely, these are not mutually exclusive. There's no rule that says non-profit/not-for-profit employees have to live as chaste or castigated monks.

Re: The rise of pity marketing

#65

Post by brabel »

noduerme wrote: post #50
brabel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One has to ask: Are my kin only kind to my efforts out of some sense of mutual support rooted in guilt if they don't respond? I am not sure what you expect from your relatives... do you expect them to tell you objectively whether you're good? Are they experts guitar critiques?? Even if they were, do you think asking them for feedback would get you the most honest answer? Do you have children? Would you tell them ho…

I think you're reading me wrong. I'm saying that I've accepted exactly this: I was never as good as I wanted to be as a musician. I did always judge myself more quickly and more harshly than anyone else would. I did accept that it wasn't going to be a sustainable career. I'm writing, in all earnestness, to say that I'm glad my 80 year old mom is still my biggest fan . For what it's worth, my father told me when I was…

Sorry... comments on the Internet are always without any context so everyone just goes into the direction they see given their own context (which is what I did).

Re: The rise of pity marketing

#66

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

tomnipotent wrote: post #63
randunel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I give generously to charitable organizations that do the most good. This is my religious obligation, and it's also the best way to maximize my bucks. And they maximize your bucks with outlandish purchases for executives and "fund raising" parties for their selected few. I stopped caring for large NGOs when I found out how deeply corrupt their management is, including middle management. If you want to help, don't g…

> Look up the red cross or any other large organisation American Red Cross - 90% of funds spent on program; 3% on admin/staff https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/530196605 Feeding America - 98% of funds spent on program; 0.3% on admin/staff https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599 United Way Worldwide - 95% of funds spent on program; 2.6% on admin/staff https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/131635294 St. Jude H…

There's also the very real issue where to attract anyone with skills and talent, any non-profit will need to achieve parity of compensation with comparable for-profit officers. If they try to be altruistic and pay a pittance, or get volunteers, they simply aren't going to attract or retain good leadership.

Re: The rise of pity marketing

#67

Post by asu_thomas »

vector_spaces wrote: post #23

It's an interesting phenomenon, but I feel that the article begs us to pass judgement on this behavior, and that makes the article less interesting to me. The West and much of the rest of the world have built societies with few strong kinship bonds. Not everyone has a family they can lean on for support, and we tend to lose friends as we get older rather than make new ones. So, yes, of course people will resort to el…

> The West and much of the rest of the world have built societies with few strong kinship bonds.

Lies. The West had boundless kinship bonds as deep as they were wide, in fairly recent memory. The West brazenly wrecked them in the name of the profit motive.

This pity culture stuff is utterly despicable and no self-respecting individual should have any patience for a society where such blatant decadent is excused.

Re: The rise of pity marketing

#69

Post by treis »

andsoitis wrote: post #16
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #6

Are we sure all the examples cited were manufactured? Isn’t it possible that in a lot of the examples, someone had a bad day and other people responded with kindness?

why would you lament your failure or your mishappenings by broadcasting to the world?

I think it's a natural reaction. "No ducking way is only 1 person showing up going to make me quit" sort of thing. Not everyone reacts that way but certainly some do.

Why share that reaction on social media? I don't really get it either but I assume the same motivations that lead them to share everything else

Re: The rise of pity marketing

#70

Post by treis »

I really don't like this article. It's not pity. Say there's some comic or some author legitimately struggling. A lot of people will see someone in that situation and want to help them.

And it's not pity. It's because they're ducking tired of the money they spend ending up in some billionaires pocket or returned to the shareholders. These posts are an opportunity to see your money go to actually help someone.

Like maybe it's the difference between them having to work some shitty job or getting to have their hobby pay their bills. That's a good feeling and that's the value people are chasing. Even if they tell crappy jokes or write boring books... who cares?

It's not like some marginal comic eeking out a living telling bad jokes is such a tragedy. Whatever economic waste there is in letting some marginal comic eek out a living on bad jokes pales in comparison to billionaires.

Post reply on HN