What makes us give?

It must be an interesting challenge running a charity in the digital age.

There was a time when the organisations dedicated to charitable causes would have been - alongside the churches many were affiliated to anyway - pretty much the only vehicle whereby funds could reliably be directed to those in need. Unless you knew the needy person/family personally.

Appeals, by mass mailouts, or advertising, which each came at a cost and therefore cut into the funds available for organisations to carry out their stated charitable purposes, were ubiquitous. Fifteen or 20 years ago television viewers were confronted nightly by appeals to sponsor impoverished children in farflung locations.

Such appeals are a lot less common now, especially on telly. It’s surely not because need has lessened; any glance at the news will tell viewers displacement and deprivation are everywhere.

In the digital age, though, it’s easy to put need directly in front of a wide audience, and barely a day goes by when we don’t read about a Givealittle page, or some other crowd-funding venture, spring up to address a need.

That begs the question, of course, what actually inspires giving, and how it’s changed in the digital age. The anecdotal evidence certainly seems to indicate that a cause that gives the old heartstrings a healthy tug is more likely to get people giving. It’s an emotional response, which more often than not means animals, or children, are involved.

In the last week, the story of a foster dog, Lukey, badly mauled by another dog in Waimate, has brought donations towards extensive veterinary treatments streaming in. As of Monday, $8500 had been donated via Givealittle, with funds also coming in via two further sources.

It’s safe to assume Lukey’s treatment will be covered, and that’s surely not a bad thing. People have obviously responded from the heart.

But while such causes have no problem coaxing out the credit cards, others clearly don’t have the same impact. Two currently on the Givealittle site, one seeking to provide lunches to more than 50 Upper Hutt children identified as coming to school without them, and one seeking donations towards Middlemore Hospital’s new mental health inpatient unit, have struggled for donations. The latter has drawn just $240 in nearly three months.

These two causes, and many others, are arguably more pressing than Lukey’s in a long-term sense, but somehow not as cool; they just don’t have the same emotional appeal.

Which probably tells us why registered charities, addressing need on an ongoing basis, have to come up with ever more innovative schemes to continue to do so, or face having to lay off key staff, or close local branches, to survive.

It’s a reminder to us all, too, that giving should be an intellectual as well as an emotional exercise. There are worthy causes out there all the time.

The fact they don’t generate a massive emotional response doesn’t make them less worthy of our giving.