Question for all:
do you care about where your money goes?
2:44am Monday, Aug 6
I would like your opinion on this and I would greatly appreciate if you took the time and responded to my questions. It is all human based research for a project I am working on:
If you desire a high demand expnensive, aspirational product, would you be more inclined to purchase it if you knew where your money was going and what it was doing?
Think of it like a concert: would you feel more gratified to attend a concert that is making no "profit" in the sense of more money in their pockets, but making "profit" in the sense that they are of service and benefit? (you can look this word up in the dictionary). Or, do you not really think about what your money does and where it goes? Would you not appreciate those artists more? Would you not appreciate them more for what they were contributing towards social justice and supporting local communities in underserved areas in the world? Would they not outdo the other artists and start creating a competition for attention for actually sharing wealth?
Would this not be a philanthropic innovation in making "profit" in gaining attention for what you are doing and who you are supporting? Does this not make a new meaning of wealth?
Wouldn't it be cool if everytime you bought something that caught your attention because it was "cool" it felt like a donation? Wouldn't it be cool to know that you got what you wanted and your money went to someone who isn't as priviledged as you to afford a full meal or clean water or a shelter or medicine to survive?
Wouldn't that be just SO COOL? Wouldn't it? Wouldn't a mind behind this get a lot of attention in the press, the media, the entire fuckin' new movement of being socially concious?
I know you still buy what you buy without thinking about where the money goes and who's getting a fancier car and another collection of homes; we can't do anything about it so we buy things to satisfy ourselves, right? I don't blame you, we are human and we impulse buy and we are in a consumerist society. What the hell can we do about it?
Well I'd like to hear all your opinions on this. I don't want to know what can WE do, but about what can these nice people who are living very comfortable lives, doing great work and have a great heart, who want to do something "new" and start something to gain more attention; would this not be an interesting route to pursue for them? Profit making in the socially-concious media sense for bringing people together and giving money to the poor...non-profit in the "business" sense.
Please respond. The more support I get, the closer I can get to my objective...and I have a strong belief in it.
29 comments
Ghazaleh Etezal wrote
at 8:04pm on August 6th, 2007
I'd also like to add that leave aside the idea that "oh, the money might not be going where it's saying it's gonna go". The intentions are that the people who would start this would have enough money already and actually be activists and really about these people they are helping.
I can't go into details about it but lets also say that it's about art and creativity too....as in, the product.
Brian McClurg (University of Guelph) wrote
at 9:14pm on August 6th, 2007
ur right it is a consumer based society and economy.
i can't speak for everyone but i believe it's valuable to be aware of what ur purchases accomplish and for who.
given that cash rules everything around me,
it's naive to think that corruption has not laid hands on your purchases.
this notion of social, environmental, economic and artistic consciousness amongst CEOs and business-oriented organizations is ideal.
but straight up ... until then, if one is truly concerned with a lack of funding amongst a place or group of people they're better off to appear with cash in hand on their own.
"wat diff does the cost make
if it do what it do
that wat it made for
aint that wat u paid for"
-snoop dogg
Brian Slawson (UF) wrote
at 11:04pm on August 6th, 2007
Do you mean like the Project Red campaign?
http://www.apple.com/uk/ipodnano/red/
Here is a geeky academic thing to do - read Thorstein Veblen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorstein_Veblen
You probably won't agree with much in his arcane 1899 book, Theory of the Leisure Class, but it might be an interesting counterpoint. He coined the term "conspicuous consumption" describing the social motivation behind consumer culture.
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/%7Eecon/ugcm/3ll3/veblen/leisure/index.html
On the topic of design/economics I also like Virginia Postrel's Substance of Style. Very easy to read. I posted about it on DesignRelated in my inspiration section.
http://www.vpostrel.com/tsos/index.html
Ashkan Rashvand wrote
at 12:41am on August 7th, 2007
I am a supporter of socially conscious causes but it all boils down to how a society is divided into clusters. I’ve seen people wear so many ribbons and bracelets that I don’t know what’s worth supporting in terms of immediacy. One might say Product Red/ Bono while the other might say Chris Martin/ Make Trade Fair. What happens if in time we are no longer bombarded by ads, but by socially conscious causes? My fear is that the 21st century will provide so many propositions for good causes that non-profits will lose their integrity. Lets have faith in people though, for what else do we have left. Lets hope that being socially conscious is not a fad. These are interesting articles that I came across. Good luck.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-23-gen-next-cover_x.htm
http://schmeiser.typepad.com/the_rage_diaries/conscious_commerce/index.html
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/14821.asp
Brian Slawson (UF) wrote
at 9:40am on August 7th, 2007
are you thinking about something like mandated nutritional labels but for the other consumer products like a cup of coffee or automobiles -- a sticker on my car letting me know $2000 (or a percentage) of the cost goes to the healthcare of the workers? revealing the economic "structure" of a product? by the way, its remarkable that you have read veblen, i don't think many people have done so.
Brian Slawson (UF) wrote
at 10:05am on August 7th, 2007
regarding local artists- i am reminded of - http://www.etsy.com - sort of an ebay for hand-made goods.
Todd Fraser (Toronto, ON) wrote
at 11:58am on August 7th, 2007
I didn't read anyone else's comments.
The idea that I am spending $5 in exchange for the ownership of a product is a pretty bottom-line basis. If the expectation is that the receiver (vendor) is supposed to use that $5 or a portion of it to hand off to someone else, then why am I not doing the same from the beginning?
Initiatives like the (RED) product line are a nice example of this sharing of profits, but they are merely additions to an existing product line. There is no real significant sacrifice being made by the vendor. If this sufficient but needs to be more widespread (every vendor participates) then I believe there is a possibility of a difference being made.
Response continued in next reply...
Todd Fraser (Toronto, ON) wrote
at 11:58am on August 7th, 2007
The problem with a solution that calls for 100% of sales to be directed to those less fortunate, is that it destroys the system that a large portion of the world is based on. In the same way that I provide my effort/time to work and receive compensation in return, the vendor spent time/money to develop their product, and the artist (that you mention) spent well...a lot of things to create their music. Now, if these artists have already received their compensation, then yes, the funds from a concert (aka additional compensation) can probably be redirected. Much in the same way that a company that has $1 Billion of profit sitting in a bank can redirect some of their profit funds.
Maybe the solution is some sort of "investment" strategy for everyone to contribute to (like a RRSP) and... well, I haven't really thought out any details. Now I'm just kinda blabbering. Good post, G!
Scott McLean wrote
at 5:55pm on August 7th, 2007
i think you'd have to elaborate on what sort of things you are talking about buying. I keep envisioning groceries, but I work at a grocery store.
but I would not be swayed to purchase something that would donate a % of those sales towards a charity or charitable organizaition. In case you're wondering why, its because they can end up spending a large portion of money on creating events or promotional material instead of just getting all the money to where it needs to go.
that's all i got for now.
Ghazaleh Etezal wrote
at 8:28pm on August 7th, 2007
And just so you know, this wouldn't be a grassroots thing. this is people who have lots of money and would be investing money into this for it to RUN and sustain; not to get richer by it. Sure, it would get them press because of it and they'd get more attention and be valued more as successful professionals who are making a contribution.
Scott McLean wrote
at 8:37pm on August 7th, 2007
sounds like they are profitting from increased public perception, which is why so many align themselves with charities.
Ghazaleh Etezal wrote
at 8:47pm on August 7th, 2007
Is that a bad thing though?
Is philanthropy bad? Does there always have to be a catch?
And, in this case, it wouldn't be like APPLE doing this, it would be very rich people but not bill gates...You can listen to CBCs Idea podcast series on philanthropy; it's very interesting...http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/podcast.html
Anyway I still have to work on how I can propose this so it doesn't sound like another lame tree-hugging approach that most people would be like "oh, you're one of those people who wanna save the world". So, thanks for all the input everyone. I'd still like to hear any other thoughts.
Bryn Ludlow (Toronto, ON) wrote
at 11:02am on August 9th, 2007
You can't question philanthropy until Capitalism doesn't exist- tax exemptions. Plus, there are so many philanthropists out there already and they are not going to stop. This is only philanthropy like any other philanthropiic venture unless you describe what the cause is for donating to, who it will benefit, what the product is, how people can get it, etc. It is COOL, but it needs a lot more.
Ghazaleh Etezal wrote
at 9:07pm on August 9th, 2007
Thanks Bryn
I just can't really go too in depth about it because it will give it away and it's somewhat confidential - eventhough the approach is entirely my own. If I were to completely explain everything then all it would leave it to is , "Okay, so lets see if it works." I just want to see people's responses on the premise of this approach without going in too much detail about it, so it leaves room for all perspectives.
Nick Yeo (Toronto, ON) wrote
at 11:13pm on August 9th, 2007
Hmmm...so many good comments...but I haven't read anyone disagreeing with you yet, and since you want all perspectives:
I think that this attitude of feeling good about purchasing a commodity because it contributes to a particular social cause is a false feeling. Not only is it false, but it also breeds an air of superiority. Consider that we're talking about "high demand expensive aspirational products" - which are presumably out of the reach of the regular person. There is an inherent additional value in such objects, because they are desired as they are now more than their function.
But back to the superiority - which isn't wrong. Rather - these purchasers are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. There shouldn't be a need to justify the act of philanthropy - what you're suggesting essentially is playing on people's guilt. They are guilty with the knowledge that people are suffering elsewhere.
TBC
Nick Yeo (Toronto, ON) wrote
at 11:26pm on August 9th, 2007
Metaphysical mumbo-jumbo aside, I'm essentially questioning your argument that social consciousness should be COOL - and it shouldn't BE cool. Social consciousness is a state of mind - being aware of the bigger picture. Purchasing an object doesn't equate to becoming more aware - you're simply self-affirming your beliefs.
But until people realize that doing the right thing for the right reasons is what matters, then all you've really created is a better delivery system. Right thing - wrong reason.
Ghazaleh Etezal wrote
at 11:26pm on August 9th, 2007
But isn't it a win-win?
Are people not getting what they desire and at the same time being educated about how they should REALLY be spending their money? That lets say you pay $500 for an aspirational commodity - which you have done so before - but this time around you can actually see your proceeds go somewhere. This cycle would be the ground of raising conciousness while providing service. So, lets say if this thing grows, people begin to think more responsibly about their role as consumers in the social realm of humanity.
You know, it's really trying to say that we in the western world consume without thinking. But how can we consume like we do and also feel good about the consumption after we see the dramatic effect our wealth can make on a community.
It makes you value your money a lot more doesn't it?
Nick Yeo (Toronto, ON) wrote
at 11:33pm on August 9th, 2007
See - my issue is that why should value enter into the equation?
Money is merely a means to an end - just as volunteering on a weekly basis is a means to an end. But because these acts cannot be quantified in other measurables. My $500 buys me a painting, and them a goat, a well and some trees. What it doesn't do is give me the extra value of feeling good about myself. That warm fuzziness that keeps me going is separate from consumption.
Alex Semenikhine (Seneca) wrote
at 12:39am on August 10th, 2007
hah alright I think I'm tempted enough to respond to this.
SOme questions for Ghazaleh (I hope this is not frowned upon):
What is the target audience?
a. Average folk
b. Rich folk
c. Politician
d. Really really rich folk
What is the campaign about?
a. Helping the poor
b. Educating about the poor
c. Something else, please elaborate
Assuming it's a.
Who are these poor people? Are they mentally challenged? Children in Africa? Elderly? Homeless?
Assuming it's b.
Why should an average Canadian/American care about poor people? The average wage in Canada is 28k/year I believe? That's enough to put despair into a lot of lives.
Assuming
Ghazaleh Etezal wrote
at 1:07am on August 10th, 2007
Lets say there was choices...where to put your money and you can actually read about these places and see their efforts.
lets say they are targeted areas but a handful of them; elderly, poor, catastrophe victims whatever...
Lets say this is a place for people to come together to help through consumption of valueable pieces not just for what they represent but for what they stand for.
This would be for people who appreciate the commodity, the contributers, the people who are involved and the places/people they are supporting.
So, you could be rich and buy things in an instant without thinking about how that affects how you live for the next two months, or, you could believe in it and value it so much, that you WANT to contribute and be involved. The GOAL is to help the poor AS WELL AS educate about the poor AS WELL AS raise conciousness within our society: being an exemplar of responsible privileged citizen.
Thank you for asking questions.
Alex Semenikhine (Seneca) wrote
at 2:56am on August 10th, 2007
So the basic idea is to make people so aware of where their money is going they're going to actually check.
Is this VERY similar to food ingridients? Now a lot of the packaging includes "0 trans fat" or whatever? But now the idea is to do this with "By buying these Potato Chips, you're saving a life in Africa!" I help children in Africa sticker on certain products sorta?
Has this been done with "10% of the money Indigo makes on this day is going to go to charity!" sorta thing?
I'd suggest looking into some Tony Robbins, he has this idea of "pleasure/pain" in regards to buying. The basic idea is to introduce pain in the consumer. Charities do it by showing a skinny starving child and then give a consumer a way to relieve the guilt - "Donate graciously"
That's the way to go. Show something really touching and heart throbbing and then the sticky label to show that THIS product helps :) Ta ta!
Alex Semenikhine (Seneca) wrote
at 3:03am on August 10th, 2007
It just occured to me that if we really wanted to help children in Africa, it'd take about 10% of the USA military budget or so to succeed.
The very budget that grows every single year and is gonig to continue growing. The point I'm making is - it is not up to the average broke joe that is screwed over by his/her mortgage, to save children in Africa. It's the job of the government to stop investing billions into military development and start using that money to feed the starving children. So perhaps a better campaign would be anti-war and anti-government. But as the joke goes:
How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
NOne, we both know feminists never changed anything. lol :)
That's really my big issue with charities and organizations that expect the middle and lower class to jump out of their skin. The rich should stop avoiding taxes and using charities to avoid taxes even further. Maybe then we're going to see positive change. :) off-topic perhaps?
Ghazaleh Etezal wrote
at 6:25am on August 10th, 2007
you know, it's not a w WorldVision type of thing and I don't want you to think that it is like something else out there; that was the whole point of the post.
The idea isn't to make you feel guilty, really. I guess I see it clearly because I know how it would be working and the only way people can comment is by comparing it to something that already exists and putting that down. So, it's good that you're thinking about it in that way. Again, this project would be started off by people who are making a consdirable amount of money and will probably mainly sell to people who also make a considerable amount of money.
Thanks for the comments. (the war military stuff is beyond our control and more of a debate over a beer at a bar with a group of people which always leads to nowhere and makes people angrier)
Ghazaleh Etezal wrote
at 10:54am on August 10th, 2007
I'm continually doing research and I came across a website that is the closest I've come for finding an example - and guess what, ofcourse it's in Europe.
My idea is more or less along the same lines, it's just about purchasing a commodity, which is what makes it appear deceptive to you guys. I believe that with a strong statement, a powerful commitment, an effectively designd website and a union of people who want to contribute - from the leisurely wealthy to the middle-class - to have a place to go for "profit"... in the active definition of the word.
Francisco Pereira (Toronto, ON) wrote
at 2:53pm on August 10th, 2007
To me, it really depends on the product your talking about. If we are talking about a product that is a commodity (ie. a concert, an iPod), I think people in general would be more willing to help a good cause and be willing to buy something that has an added value, such as "helping a bigger cause", like the case of the RED campaign.
But when it comes to products that actually affect our lifestyle and may need for us to modify our consumption and behavior patterns I think that it is a lot harder. In this case there are fewer people that would actually be willing to make sacrifices and stop buying an specific brand, or boycotting a company that is harming the environment, or doing something that we think is unacceptable. At this level I think people are moved based on their believes rather that by the media. .............
Francisco Pereira (Toronto, ON) wrote
at 2:53pm on August 10th, 2007
Going a bit deeper into what I think your trying to research, I think that the role that massive media plays into this, at least for now, is creating "cool products" and trying to make help at a very superficial level.. No real change will be made with this. To really change and have people go out of their ways it will take a lot more than just a trend, or a cool product.
When it comes to changing a society the 1st step towards that is building awareness. I think to me one of the best examples of people doing something together at global scale has been Live8. Even thought we have failed at keeping the momentum going and doing much more after it, I think that it was the 1st time that I know of, that many people doing something together for the same cause.