Consumption Philanthropy

This article, via Mike H., looks at the gains and costs (mostly the costs) of what the author calls "consumption philanthropy," the recent trend of contributing to charity through purchasing products associated with things like Product Red.

It's a lot to think about. I admit freely that I am a big fan of the idea of consumption philanthropy, but it's the first time I've thought about the costs. Things like decreased motivation to contribute to causes, be it through time and money, are somewhat obvious side effects. Others, like the "wrong" cause being highlighted or the consumption contributing to the problems trying to be solved, would never have crossed my mind.

I guess that's really what the article is about, the decreased engagement with the problems facing the world. While I recognize it as a bad thing, I don't know that it can be blamed on this practice alone (nor am I saying I think that's what Eikenberry is trying to say), and I don't know if I agree the costs outweigh the benefits.

Her scenario about the non-profit book fair is one I am guilty of, though my reticence to further contribute is usually on display at museums or historical sights where I've paid an exorbitant (to a struggling college graduate) entrance fee. However, her other examples are more specific, and, I think, less universal. I've never bought something I didn't need because it went to charity, a la a SpongeBob Pink Pants toy, and I don't shop at the Gap because of Product Red. I buy what I need from the places I already shop, the charitable association only swaying me when considering things of equal value in terms of need or desire.

I understand, is part of her point. Whatever I wind up contributing to charity is a result of my own, self-serving needs. It's consumer and desire driven, selfish at its core. But I would argue that whatever the motives, it doesn't negate the result, which is that projects in need of funding receive some. In a way, it's almost a trap. People with no charitable inclinations, no bigger picture idea are almost tricked into entering into a kind of "one world" community through virtue of the fact that they have a pocketbook and a taste for graphic t-shirts.

Eikenberry seems to have a view of the world that many people participating in consumption philanthropy would otherwise be writing checks and planting trees if only their do-gooder drive wasn't mollified by their pink-topped Yoplait, whereas I am am of the more cynical impression that, rather than replacing activism, the idea of consumption philanthropy stealthily foists it upon unsuspecting shopper, expanding the overall reach of charitable organizations. It's a question of which beget which, the consumption philanthropy increasing apathy or apathy leading to consumption philanthropy as a sneaky way to touch more people (even if they don't notice).

Furthermore, the qualms about who and what gets the money, are, I think some what besides the point. She cites the breast cancer funding specifically, pointing out how it's not as deadly to women as heart disease or other kinds of cancer, but I think that's a tricky road to go down. I think it's almost impossible to state conclusively that one charity is more worthy of attention than another, because the things they hope to fix or ease are so personal. You can show me statistics point to heart disease as a leading killer, but that's not going to change my predilection to donate to cancer funds as cancer has touched my life in a much more prevalent way. Alzheimer's isn't fatal, but the emotional toll can't be measured. Project Smile or Project Linus don't deal with medical issues at all, but I don't think that lessens their importance in terms of the impact they have on the people they touch.

I'm not saying she's not right about some of these things, and I certainly agree they need more thought and discussion. I'll probably go home tonight, re-read the article, and change my mind about half the things I just said. But I also don't think we should dismiss the positive effects of consumption philanthropy, and so thought I'd say so.