<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Reflection On &#8220;Idol Gives Back&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://randomthings.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/a-reflection-on-idol-gives-back/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://randomthings.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/a-reflection-on-idol-gives-back/</link>
	<description>Development, the internet, and technology with a bit of randomness thrown in</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:40:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joe Hunt</title>
		<link>http://randomthings.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/a-reflection-on-idol-gives-back/#comment-8738</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Hunt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:33:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://randomthings.wordpress.com/?p=130#comment-8738</guid>
		<description>Is it the cause, the pitch, or the show that leads people to give?

I think the answer to these questions is still, as the originator quoted, “People give to people not to projects.” The show provides the viewer with AWARENESS of the cause, enables them to develop an AFFINITY for the cause through the performers that represent it, and the IMMEDIACY to act/donate. 

My bet is that those same people will not continue to support the cause. The show provided an environment that brought all of these elements together and enabled the viewers to participate. 

Celebrity pitchmen/women also provide awareness and a human connection for people to associate with a cause. I think research demonstrates, at least in the healthcare area, that causes associated with celebrities are more successful fundraisers.

The quote “People give to people not to projects” still applies whether celebrity, successful alum, or your local board member friend. People are more likely moved to give as a result of association with another person/personality, even if they don’t actually know them personally, because making a human connection with a person you respect and who genuinely believes in the cause is the most powerful appeal…unless of course, you or your family or close friends have been touched directly by a circumstance that would provide affinity with a specific cause.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is it the cause, the pitch, or the show that leads people to give?</p>
<p>I think the answer to these questions is still, as the originator quoted, “People give to people not to projects.” The show provides the viewer with AWARENESS of the cause, enables them to develop an AFFINITY for the cause through the performers that represent it, and the IMMEDIACY to act/donate. </p>
<p>My bet is that those same people will not continue to support the cause. The show provided an environment that brought all of these elements together and enabled the viewers to participate. </p>
<p>Celebrity pitchmen/women also provide awareness and a human connection for people to associate with a cause. I think research demonstrates, at least in the healthcare area, that causes associated with celebrities are more successful fundraisers.</p>
<p>The quote “People give to people not to projects” still applies whether celebrity, successful alum, or your local board member friend. People are more likely moved to give as a result of association with another person/personality, even if they don’t actually know them personally, because making a human connection with a person you respect and who genuinely believes in the cause is the most powerful appeal…unless of course, you or your family or close friends have been touched directly by a circumstance that would provide affinity with a specific cause.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bilou</title>
		<link>http://randomthings.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/a-reflection-on-idol-gives-back/#comment-8737</link>
		<dc:creator>Bilou</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:05:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://randomthings.wordpress.com/?p=130#comment-8737</guid>
		<description>Hypocrisy will always exist, but if the overall costs can be kept to a REASONABLE amount, celebrity endorsements are worthwhile, since they get the message OUT.

Apply the same principle as any other event.  Events overall are W-A-Y too costly to justify them as fund raisers if the only purpose was to raise funds.  They must raise awareness, generate publicity, affect change.  If it doesn&#039;t act as / get seen as an investment in future goodwill, volunteers AND fund raising, there&#039;s no point in doing it.

I remember as a child wishing that Jerry Lewis wouldn&#039;t smoke while doing the telethon.  A few years later, he stopped.  THAT was hypocrisy to me.  The stars should have done their performances for free or at a drastically reduced rate, sans the five star hotels, limos, etc.

The common folk are always the one who hold up the base of the pyramid, though, in any institution.  Too bad annual giving professionals are afforded so little respect when they actually bring in so much.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hypocrisy will always exist, but if the overall costs can be kept to a REASONABLE amount, celebrity endorsements are worthwhile, since they get the message OUT.</p>
<p>Apply the same principle as any other event.  Events overall are W-A-Y too costly to justify them as fund raisers if the only purpose was to raise funds.  They must raise awareness, generate publicity, affect change.  If it doesn&#8217;t act as / get seen as an investment in future goodwill, volunteers AND fund raising, there&#8217;s no point in doing it.</p>
<p>I remember as a child wishing that Jerry Lewis wouldn&#8217;t smoke while doing the telethon.  A few years later, he stopped.  THAT was hypocrisy to me.  The stars should have done their performances for free or at a drastically reduced rate, sans the five star hotels, limos, etc.</p>
<p>The common folk are always the one who hold up the base of the pyramid, though, in any institution.  Too bad annual giving professionals are afforded so little respect when they actually bring in so much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
