This blog post is intended to be a discussion of charities and responsibility. We will discuss the commercialization and profiteering in relation to charitable action. This post is not intended to crucify any organization or to justify action, it is simply intended to create discussion about how complicated these issues are.

We will start on a simple example, the bands depicted above. They became a common item in 2004 with the live strong bands. These bands were sold as a “fundraiser for cancer” however less than 25% was actually donated individuals with cancer. At first I thought they were simply a way for people to wear their “support” of a cause as a fashion statement, without actually contributing to the issue itself. The issue however doesn’t seem so one sided and bad at a second glance. If fashion trends are going to naturally exist, then using one to promote how “cool” supporting charity is, may not be fully negative. This is also demonstrated when cancer donation statistics are viewed. Cancer donations increased almost 30% during the period of 2004-2006, the time that live strong bands were in style. Although these actions have little to no direct effect on their related issue, they may have a very large effect in raising awareness. It is interesting to way a companies

A more recent case of this sensationalized charity was the ALS ice bucket challenge. This case is another demonstration of a charitable cause that quickly became more about the trend, and less about the issue. It was estimated that about 1 in 20 involved individuals actually donated. Many individuals who participated also had little to no idea what ALS actually was. That said a huge quantity of money was raised by these actions. And although most individuals did nothing direct to help ALS, their simple support and enthusiasm created a significant increase in donations.

The final example I would like to address involves Good Will. Good Will too many peoples surprise is a fully for profit company. Their CEO gives himself 2.3 million a year as salary, and almost all employees are paid minimum wage. The company donates 0% of its profit. This seems especially problematic given good will’s logo, “Make a difference”. Many people donate thinking that part of the profit goes to charities, or homeless shelters however this is not true. That said, good will does provide some of the cheapest goods, and rewards time spent, instead of money paid. In this way good will does “make a difference” to lower income households.

I am also stealing another example from a fellow students blog post simply because the examples fit in perfectly. the student explains how both companies and consumers use social causes to justify their own action, even when unrelated. This pink ribbon like all the previous examples seems to corrupt the cause, however has raised a huge amount of money for breast cancer research.

It seems that we believe that charity must be completely charitable to be positive, however this may not be true. A number of  selfish business campaigns end up truly helping charities as an externality. intentional or not, the positive action is concrete. i wonder then at our responsibility educated consumers. Do we allow companies to paraid hypocritical slogans and to profiteer charitable action if it helps the intended charity?