Heh. I couldn't agree more. It's a pet peeve of mine.

You know, I think I can see where this is going: a "Fear Factor" style reality show where people pledge money based on the asinine and disgusting things the contestants do.

I think our culture has tripped over that line that separates the curiously eccentric from the damned idiots.

I think it is less the people being persuaded by the gimmick as the gimmick persuading the MSM to give the charity raising event publicity.

I'm on one out of 1362 local boards for a charity that raised over $429 million in 2005 (2006 numbers not out yet). The charity is part of the fraternal organization of Thrivent Financial. I bet you haven't heard about us, but in part because we don't tend to do the "gimmicky" fundraisers. We also have trouble getting the MSM to cover our charity events. Related? Probably.

Is this a trick question? Perhaps because they make make more money with plaintive appeals for cash and gimmicks than plaintive appeals for cash alone?

Perhaps because they make make more money with plaintive appeals for cash and gimmicks than plaintive appeals for cash alone?

Sure, but why?

I think it is less the people being persuaded by the gimmick as the gimmick persuading the MSM to give the charity raising event publicity.

That makes a certain degree of sense, although presumably the gimmick could be a rally or a picnic or something rather than some feat of physical endurance.

I remember a political sourcebook thing from LI's YLS that said have a car wash for a very small amount (or even free) and just take pledges from people per car washed and it would maximize revenue. Don't remember a reason being cited.

Jeff,

The car wash idea has been proven time after time int he real world. Give a car wash with "free will donation" as the cost and you make much more than setting a dollar amount. A few will "stiff you" with only a couple of bucks, but you more than make up for it with those who pull out a Jackson.

James,

The rally and picnics just don't get coverage (as I know from personal experience). At best, you can get some coverage in the throw away suburban paper. Think Anne Nichol Smith. Why did she get so much coverage? Is she closer to the guy eating a bug for charity or holding a picnic for charity? We've also done the "lock up" for charity, where a "local celebrity" gets put in the Sheriff's jail until enough donations are made to get them out. Even those don't get much MSM publicity.

BTW, I know of a church that recently held a fund raiser that was very successful in the church. They took the Pastor, President of the congregation, Head Elder and the Youth Director and had a donation jar for each of them. After two months, the sponsors of the jars with the least and most amount of money "wins". The winners got to kiss a goat at the next voters meeting. People would donate either to get someone to kiss the goat or because the jar's sponsor was in last place and out hustling for donations. Gimmicky? Absolutely. But even in the close confines of the church this generated more excitement for donations to help the youth group than anything else. More than bake sales, car washes, etc. People responded to the good nature ribbing and competition. These four prominent people in the church also worked much harder to get donations (at least when they were in danger of being last). It just seems to be a bit of human nature.

the ingrained protestant work ethic ie do not give something for nothing