FUNDRAISERS I UNDERSTAND:
1. Selling things for exorbitant prices. For example, candy bars or raffle tickets or car washes or fancy dinners. The person spending money gets to have something they want and they get to feel good about getting it. The more money they spend, the more and better stuff they get. So there's incentive to spend more. And, hey, that chocolate bar doesn't count against their diet because it's for the children.
2. The more ____ I do, the more you donate. For example, a child reading books over a month. The more books read, the more money donated. The fact that the donations are on a sliding scale is motivation for the child to read more books. And donors feel good about themselves for helping motivate children to read. I'm a little surprised by the run/walk fundraisers, since I don't see how it benefits anyone to know that a stranger walked a certain amount of distance. Perhaps donors feel good for motivating people to exercise? Perhaps they like the gamble of it?
FUNDRAISERS I DON'T UNDERSTAND:
1. Dance Marathon. IT seems to be a strange mix of both. The dancers need to raise a certain amount of money to participate, making it sound like #1. If you pay enough, you can go to this awesome dance. But the dance itself is difficult. People talk about "getting through it," they talk about how hard it is. So "you get to dance for 24 hours straight" doesn't really seem like a reward. It seems like a job. Which makes it sort of like #2. Except why would anyone donate on a conditional scale for a 19 year old to dance all day? What does that serve? When dancers say, "It's hard work, but we do it for the children," I don't understand how the dancing is for the children. Why is there dancing?
Why is there Dance Marathon? Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment