I think the social pressure associated with charity:water campaigns is increasing and as a result, the service is loosing authenticity.

I dedicated my birthday to a few years ago, but now it feels like it's becoming a popularity contest. An ego stroke to raise as much money as possible, to publicly show how much people support you. And how many followers you have.

Contributors see that someone else donated $100 instead of $30 and feel like they dont want to look cheap by only donating $30.

People say "instead of getting me a birthday present, donate!" But most people who donated to my campaign wouldn't actually have bought me a present.

Clearly more money to charity is a good thing. But how do we make it more authentic? Discuss.

Yes, there is a typo with "dynamics" .. But you can't edit on Branch (which is frustrating). So we'll just roll with it.

I hear you, but I don't think it is anywhere near that sour. Part of what helps is establishing a standard donation amount, e.g., $35 for your 35th. People can go above and beyond, but anyone giving you $35 is still offering up a high five.

I think the biggest challenge is freshness. As in, how to distinguish one campaign from the next. I would love to see the tools continue to evolve to allow for more and more personalization as to the impetus for the fundraiser.

Frankly, I think c:w gets way more interesting as it looks beyond birthdays. Two years ago I held a campaign over the holidays and dedicated it to those around my dinner table. This elicited such a cool response from donors who gave as a tribute to folks around theirs.

I should also say my initial comments come from many opinions I've heard over the past few months. I'll try to get those people involved, but I could never get them to be public about their thoughts because of being afraid to be seen as people who dont support charity. Hoping talking openly can make it easier to share those feelings.

One question is, what if the only person who saw the donations (or amounts) was the person running the campaign? Why do I need to know that someone donated $500 to a friend. How does that help me, as another contributor. Maybe it's helpful to see a contributors name, but it feels like the only thing that comes out of adding the number is ego boost to contributor and social pressure on everyone else.

I'd bet good money that the haul under such a system would come in much lower. Social pressure works.

I look at it a bit differently - at least within my social circle I believe there's "excess charitable capacity," that is, many folks have more money they could be giving to causes that matter. When I get someone to donate to c:w (or donorschoose, or other orgs I care about), I see it as unlocking that potential no matter how weak or strong the social tie btw us happens to be.

As for displaying the amount of donation, in a world where people think nothing of spending $4 for a coffee or $15 for a cocktail, I'll happily try to find ways to make $50 or $500 charitable donation seem like "the norm." I'd have no problem with allowing the donors to optionally hide their amnt donated if they wish.

Truthfully, I give less to c:w than I used to, and I believe this due to campaign over-saturation. The double-edged sword for c:w is that donating your birthday has become normal (which is great), but this also means I'm seeing requests for donations on a regular basis, so the campaigns are easier to pass off as noise. When they were more sparse, donating felt more special. I would love for c:w tackle a product that allows me to focus on personal philanthropic goals (through c:w) and (1) serve me campaigns by people I know best (I'll give more), and (2) show me/encourage my progress towards the goals I choose to meet.

In my experience people give for a few reasons:
> They are directly asked by an acquaintance or the leader of an organization/political candidate
> An organization that they tend to support is in a crisis, under attack or facing a critical deadline
> Compelling stories
...and a few more.

As an example, Rachel Beckwith's story was a compelling reason for people to give and it wasn't created by c:w initially. They need to begin to tell more stories beyond the birthday and celeb outreach though.

They could likely pull together a donor match as well like Ashoka is currently doing: ashoka.org

They have a nice hook with a great cause, 100% of the money going to it, etc so they will be fine.

There are a lot of people who want to contribute, so in the spirit of inclusion and trying out this new interaction, let's see what happens! :)

Thank you guys all for your thoughts. Please know we're listening at charity: water and appreciate the candid feedback. We've been talking about this lately too. Would love to hear more thoughts.

Another side to it as well is that, there are still a lot of people willing to give especially in Africa. But, there no appropriate channels [so many people aren't even aware about innovative givings like 'Donating your birthday'], instead, the church is where all of the money goes.

The real issue, to me, comes down to whether event generated income can be displaced by sustained contributions. World Vision and Compassion seemed to find a viable model with their ability to support children, but even that is moving towards more attention-based methods. This area seems ripe for a radical re-conceptualization. Many individuals in the West have a need to feel connected to their contribution (i.e. investment) and creating models that enable ongoing connection will deepen those relationships and make them more sustainable.

Here's what I like about charity:water - bringing smart branding to charitable work and showing old, staid, play-it-safe organizations how much smarter marketing can make a huge difference.

Here's what I don't like: their mission.

Charity:Water operates under a few assumptions that I'm deeply uncomfortable with. The main one being this: people should have affordable, clean water any place people live.

This assumes that people should live everywhere. And they shouldn't. People should be in much fewer places, but we are basically on every single patch of land that we can possibly live on.

And if charity:water succeeds, there's going to be lots, lots more of them. With clean water comes urbanization and vastly increased population density

Brady,

I understand that there are some very valid concerns about environmental impact and the ills of urbanization, but I am uncomfortable with the notion that donors should dictate where recipients live in order to receive assistance. Shouldn't an organization like Charity:Water respect the dignity an individual's choice to live and seek to assist where those open to assistance are?

So, I feel kind of guilty even posting this here, because obviously it's a tangent and should be "branched," but every time I click "branch" it just explains to me what branching is but doesn't branch. Oh well.
This kind of help comes with consequences. Real consequences for everyone.
I'm probably a bit more hardcore on these things than most folks are, but - I also don't think the government should offer flood insurance for coastal areas. I don't think it should launch planes into the air to put out wildfires to save subdevelopments in areas that were known to be prone to wildfires.
And I don't think we should build water systems in places where nature didn't provide it. Because then the population there will dramatically increase.

youtube.com
This is a great story to listen to on this point. The places where charity:water is providing clean water already have healthy populations. Healthy populations of plants and animals. Just because some group of people decided to move someplace doesn't mean they should live there. The world has too many people and charity:water as a feel good operation that's providing jet fuel to its growth.
That's a real consequence for all of us and for the most marginalized minority of all: future generations.

Hey Bradley,

I'm the creative director at charity: water, and want to thank you for your kind words about our brand.

When it comes to the poorest societies in the world, people often don't have the financial resources to pick up and move, and providing clean water (water makes people wealthier) actually gives them that chance.

In Rwanda (one of the most densely populated countries in Africa) we're working with the local government to build water projects strategically near big roads and towns.

In turn, the government of Rwanda is proactively leading a relocation effort to move people into towns so they can be near power lines, good roads and soon, clean water.

Hopefully this helps ease your concerns a bit.