The guilt fac­tor proves ef­fec­tive

The Guardian (Charlottetown) - - EDITORIAL -

A couple of re­cent let­ters to the ed­i­tor on the sub­ject of char­i­ta­ble or­ga­ni­za­tions and their ad­min­is­tra­tive costs piqued my in­ter­est. I have do­nated to a num­ber of char­i­ties over the years and many of the direct mail so­lic­i­ta­tions in­clude cal­en­dars, greet­ing cards or other such in­duce­ments, which I really don’t want or need. Th­ese items are in­cluded as a gift to make the re­cip­i­ent feel obliged to re­spond ac­cord­ingly (or guilty if you don’t). I’m cer­tainly not what one would call well off, but do­nate what I can af­ford to what I con­sider wor­thy char­i­ties be­cause of the good work they do; not be­cause of any recog­ni­tion in the form of the above men­tioned gifts.

This past year I must have re­ceived a half dozen cal­en­dars, plus pack­ages of as­sorted greet­ing cards and other para­pher­na­lia - e.g. key chains; even a nickel in one case. What also both­ers me is that once you make a do­na­tion the or­ga­ni­za­tion(s) con­cerned con­tinue to send re­quests sev­eral times in the same year. The ad­min­is­tra­tive costs such as print­ing, mail­ing, etc., must be sig­nif­i­cant, but ap­par­ently the gift and re­peat so­lic­i­ta­tions tac­tic pays off be­cause it’s be­ing go­ing on for years now. No doubt the “guilt fac­tor” also works. David MacCal­lum, Char­lot­te­town

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.