Christine the Lioness up'n wrote this

I’m not sure how we got on the AIDS topic… but I’m going to pitch in my two cents regarding the strippers’ breast cancer donation.

The reality is (having worked for a non-profit organization myself for many years that relied on the continued support of major donors), the bulk of the money these organizations raise as a non-profit entity, comes from major donors who donate every year and have for a long time. The minority of the funds they raise come from new donors (having donated less than 5 consecutive years). It is the money that comes from major donors that the organization can rely on– the money from new donors differs during each campaign and therefore is just sort of “gravy.” It is completely understandable that if a major donor did not agree with the way the strippers raised the money– and did not want to be associated with an organziation that could be seen to be “promoting” that by accepting and therefore encouraging the strippers to do that, that donor has every right to voice his/her/its opinion. The organization, knowing that they could potentially lose a major donor by accepting the donation from the strippers, also has a right to do what they feel is necessary to please the major donor, as to not lose the larger donation. It’s that simple.

Now, should the major donor maybe reconsider that raising money for cancer research is more important than his/her/its perceived connection to an organization that accepts money from strippers? I think so. In my opinion, the “major donors” here are putting themselves above the good of cancer research. But do they have a right to be selfish? Of course they do.

The alternative is that the strippers could donate that money anonymously, so no other donor will have to accept a connection to an organization that promotes “stripping” if it doesn’t want to– and the organization will still receive money from both sources. I hope that was given to the strippers as an option, and if it wasn’t, then I’m sure those girls can find another worthwhile organization that would be thrilled with a $3,000 donation.

February 10th, 2007

Christine the Lioness mentioned

Look at it this way. Let’s say you were really passionate about saving stray dogs. And PetCo was your biggest supporter. PetCo raises lots of money for your little organization, lets you post flyers in their stores, helps you save many more dogs than you could with just the funds from other little businesses and people who give you donations here and there. Then, a rock band comes to you and says they want to do a concert to raise money for your organization. It will undoubtedly help their image and get people to come because it’s a good cause. But when PetCo hears about this and says to you, hey– our name has been closely connected with your organization for a long time and we don’t support this band whose members have been arrested and use drugs, etc. They tell you that they will be forced to distance the PetCo name from your organization if you accept that money (part of the reason the situation is like this is because the rock band made a big deal out of saying it was raising money for you, instead of just raising the money and quietly donating it– they used your organization’s name as a tool to help raise the money). What do you do? If you’re a good businessperson, you tell the rock band that you can’t accept their small donation in lieu of losing a major donor. And yes, PetCo’s continued support of donations in the thousands is more valuable than this rock band’s possibly one-time donation of hundreds. So yes… beggars can be choosers. Major donors do have lots of choices about who they want to donate money to, so that gives them the right to push their own agenda and have some control over the organizations they donate to, and while I applaud the strippers for their benevolence, they’re living in lala land if they really think everyone in the world thinks stripping is a fine and dandy occupation to have. America is a conservative country (generally speaking) and there are very few people who hope their daughters will someday grow up to be strippers. That’s reality. It surprises me that anyone is really all that surprised by this situation.

February 11th, 2007

Christine the Lioness got all philosophical

I totally agree with both Chrisotpher and Carly’s last comments. It would be great if people could look past the fact that the money came from a source they don’t necessarily approve of, but is still legal, and the more people who help, the better it turns out for the cause. In an ideal world, that would be the case. But it simply isn’t reality and the organization themselves are the only ones who can weigh the pros and cons enough to figure out if standing up to the corporation would be worth it. Apparently, they decided it wasn’t.

Regarding donations that are too small… well… such a thing does exist. It costs an organization to launch a campaign, hire staff to manage it, etc. I’ve worked on campaigns that target major donors, and I’ve worked on mail and phone campaigns that target lots of smaller donations. The most efficient use of time and money is to cultivate major donations. So while I can’t imagine anyone turning down a small donation, I understand why certain people feel that securing or processing smaller donations isn’t worth their time. I think that attitude carries with it some problems (like a small donor can eventually turn into a major donor and may not if their small donation has been poo-poo’d). But like any business strategy, some organizations tend to think that’s the way to go. Obviously, they take the risk of pissing people (like carly) off in the process.

February 11th, 2007