Charities asking less could gain more

In the space of four hours recently, four charities appealed to me, in TV ads, to contribute $19 a month. Two were in aid of sick children; The ASPCA was another; The fourth was for cancer research.

Much as I emotionally support all their causes, I am in no position to subscribe — and that is what they are asking me to do — even one $19 per month, never mind four.

Lots of people — a sadly significant number — are in my boat: Wishing to help, but bailing bills on a rocky sea.

Look at the math on this: One $19 subscription would run $228 a year. (Yikes!) Four of the same, $912. (Double… quadruple YIKES!)

I would bet that a lot of people balk when they learn that even the lower — or multiples on the way to the highest (i.e. x2= $456 and x3 = $684) of those total commitments is what they are being asked to pledge.

Who loses? The animals? The needy kids charities? The research program?

Imagine this: Instead of asking for $19, Charity X asks for $9 a month. That’s a mere $108 per annum commitment — a much more affordable sum for a significantly greater number of people.

If more people individually give less, doesn’t the charity come out ahead? Not just in donation terms, but also in feel-good ones: By asking for less, you’re helping a greater number of donors feel good that they’re aiding the cause. And the cause is truly benefiting, too.

Why $19 a month?

I think it’s curious that separate organizations all just happened to come up with that $19 a month pledge amount. I wonder what their thinking — their ‘logic’ — was… and how many other groups also are appealing for that, or a very similar, amount?

Am I missing something? Is my math logic — that lots more could afford to subscribe at, say, $9 a month, leading to a far greater total income than could be gained from an audience of $19-a-month pledgers — off?