Premium
Fundraising lists shame us into giving more
No one wants to be associated with stinginess, and so you (resentfully) dig deeper than you had intended, or pledge a higher amount, even though you know that it will put a big dent on your budget that will take time to repair.
The other day, an acquaintance sent me a link to join a group that had been set up to fundraise for an ailing mutual friend.
All fundraisers I’ve come across list the name of the giver and the amount given, the purpose, I’d imagine, being to ensure transparency.
This one was different though. It had only the names of the contributors and the total amount that had been raised so far. The amount each person had given was not indicated.
I was pleasantly surprised. And relieved.
Surprised and relieved because such lists tend to place undue pressure on someone to give more than they can afford or want to give at that moment. If you have paid attention, you will have noticed that the first five or so people on such lists give big, big amounts, the idea being to challenge, (dare I say shame?) others to reach deeper into their pockets than they had intended.
Think about it.
You will be hesitant to have your name associated with the measly 200 shillings you had intended to give if the people on the list have parted with between 20,000 to 5,000, and to complicate matters further, the generous individuals are people who know you.
No one wants to be associated with stinginess, and so you (resentfully) dig deeper than you had intended, or pledge a higher amount, even though you know that it will put a big dent on your budget that will take time to repair.
And since we’re talking about fundraisers, we might as well talk about fundraising for funerals, something that tends to trigger generosity in many of us since we love our dead.
Sometime back, I overheard a colleague complaining about being under duress to contribute to the funeral expenses of a relative of a colleague she had never interacted with.
The person she was having this conversation with pointed out that there was no one holding a gun to her head, that she had the choice not to give, only for her to explain that the list of contributors had been pasted on the department’s WhatsApp group, and was being updated in real time, so she was afraid of being judged, gossiped about or called stingy if she gave nothing.
I also recall a time when a close relative complained to me bitterly, (albeit in whispers) about having to contribute towards the burial of another relative who had not talked to the extended family for years, and never contributed when other family members were in need or even make time to attend get-togethers in support of others.
She still contributed, however, because she was fearful of being judged by everyone else, besides, we have been socialised to honour our dead, even those people that we didn’t like.
And so we mourn them with our money, even though we part with it shingo upande.
And that is why I think a list that just shows the names and total contribution is only fair because you are given the liberty to give what you can afford.
As for transparency, just ensure that you appoint someone trustworthy to collect the money.
