It’s in our blood, our DNA, and our blueprints as human beings. The desire to win, to beat our adversaries, and to emerge victorious. We hate to lose, we don’t like taking no for an answer, and the thought of being unsuccessful sends chills up our spines. So much of our society today is centered around the ideas of monetary and social success. Two of the main outlets by which our society measures success are sports and the media, specifically television shows. These two areas encourage and exemplify the ideas of competition and success. There is no sport in which the sense of competition is not present, nor where a winner in some respect is not crowned. Every professional and college sports league has some type of playoff, culminating in a championship game, in order to crown that particular year’s winner. The majority of professional sports playoff series feature many advertisements and sponsors. One of the caveats of sponsoring or advertising in professional sports is that part of the advertising money goes towards philanthropic efforts. As such, the professional sports leagues use the idea of competition to entice these companies to buy advertising space, while donating some of the money to charitable organizations. Can we consider the donation of this money philanthropy? Does the fact that this money derives from competition, and the desire to be bigger and better than another advertising company detract from its ability to change lives? The average amount spent on a Super Bowl ad in 2013 was $3.75 million! (http://qz.com/49855/super-bowl-commercial-is-4-million-big-advertisers-make-that-much-in-the-time-youll-watch-the-football-game/) Furthermore, before a championship like the Super Bowl, both teams have championship apparel that is produced in the hopes that they will win. Only one team will win, and it is not uncommon for the apparel of the team which is not crowned champion to be shipped by the ton to underprivileged countries, in the hopes that it will help those individuals who are less fortunate (http://www.christianpost.com/news/nfl-donates-super-bowl-loser-s-gear-to-poor-kids-31069/). Is the donation of this apparel, which is deemed “useless” by American consumerism, a form of philanthropy? I would call this charity out of pity, necessity or even publicity, but certainly not selfless philanthropy.
In our media as well, television shows consistently pair the ideas of competition and philanthropy. One of my favorite shows seems to have perfectly struck this balance. The Celebrity Apprentice, now back for its 6th season, features 14 celebrities competing to win the title of “Donald Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice.” These celebrities are split into two teams, and compete in various fundraising events. The team who raises more money in the context of that specific week is safe, while the weakest member of the losing team, as deemed by his or her own team is fired, and eliminated from the show. The catch here is that each celebrity is playing for a charity, and all the money from a specific week’s competition goes to the winning team’s weekly “project manager.” This past week was the first episode for this season, and upwards of $600,000 was raised and donated to Project Manager Trace Adkins’ charity, The American Red Cross. Undoubtedly, this money will go to help those people who receive aid from the organization. However, the question that I want to raise is: “Would this money have been donated to this particular charitable organization had this event not taken place?” Personally, I believe that the money would have gotten to the organization, but not at this magnitude, in this timely of a manner. What do you think? Are the charitable donations as results of competitions considered philanthropy, or are they merely fortuitous byproducts of something completely unrelated?
I love this post, but I think that there are a couple of issues at hand. First there is the question of philanthropic motives and then the question of whether these means of philanthropy are valid/meaningful. In terms of the Super Bowl, I disagree with your assumption that it is charity out of pity. I don't think that we are in the position to make that call because saying that is a strong accusation. To be honest, they may just see an easy opportunity to help. They could've taken all of those, now false, shirts and thrown them out, but instead they distribute them to kids who otherwise wouldn't have any clothes. And even though this may not be the most meaningful act for the coordinators of the NFL and its affiliates, if you ask all of those kids who receive the clothing, they would tell you otherwise. To them, it is new clothes on their back and the pictures/sayings don't really matter. In response to your questions on reality television and philanthropy, I think that it is genuine because these celebrities are taking time out of their lives to participate to raise money. Doing through a media source is not always necessarily for their benefit because media can help spread their message and help in getting more donations.
ReplyDeleteTo comment on your post Max; this reminds me of something that I have bought up the first day of class when I mentioned that "Philanthropy is not philanthropy unless one is giving with good intentions", and not for fame publicity etc. But throughout the weeks we have learned that despite what we believe ones intentions are, these individuals are still giving, and with this they are contributing to making a change, s basically it is philanthropy (which ever direction you may look at it, because with their contributions some change is able to be made); I am basically agreeing with Sam. You stated above "As such, the professional sports leagues use the idea of competition to entice these companies to buy advertising space, while donating some of the money to charitable organizations" and I definitely do not see anything wrong with this. These advertising companies are going in to this competition knowing that a portion of their money will go to charity. They can easily opt out and not participate, but instead they don't. Also competition has been an effective way of giving. For example the NBA all star event although it is a very competitive event they use this time EVERY YEAR to host numerous philanthropic events to give back to various demographic groups of youth and has been successful since the early edition of the "Stay in School" since the early 1990's.
DeleteI also agree once again with Sam in terms of the NFL donating its "losing apparel" to countries of need being considered philanthropic. The NFL has a partnership with the International Christian agency (as taken from the website you have provided). This is clearly something planned out for the greater good and should be considered nothing but... good. I have come to believe that as long as you are donating when your money, time and effort could be spent else where: you have good motives. We shouldn't think nothing less of these celebs, advertising companies and professional athletes no less than we think of Dorris Buffett.
State Farm All-Star Saturday Night, which featured the Western Conference defeating the Eastern Conference by a score of 140 to 125 in Houston, delivered a total $555,000 to charity.
DeleteAs part of the event, NBA Cares and State Farm made a joint donation of $500,000 to four charitable organizations. With the victory by the Western Conference, $350,000 will be donated to Boys & Girls Clubs of America and Share Our Strength’s No Kid Hungry campaign. Meanwhile, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and Make-A-Wish America will receive $150,000 with the Eastern Conference’s runner-up finish.
In addition to the overall donation as part of the event, six teens were awarded a combined total of $55,000 in scholarships from the Taco Bell Foundation for Teens as part of the Taco Bell® Skills Challenge
THIS WAS TAKEN FROM THE NBA CARES FB PAGE
Max, I would absolutely call this type of giving philanthropy. I feel that we have learned that basically any giving can be considered philanthropy, whether if it is donating your hair or money. However, I agree that the intentions in these instances are often not pure. The NFL gives because it is simply logical, while the Celebrity Apprentice donates because it is how the competition is set up.
ReplyDeleteSometimes the best philanthropic efforts are also those that have benefits for those that are giving. This past week one of my classes had a videoconference with Binghamton University graduate Cyrus David. He is a very successful entrepreneur that focuses on start ups. He has made a few of his own and one of the ones he helped get going was Sojo Studios, which is a social gaming company. This gaming site is similar to the more popular Zynga, but instead of keeping all of its profits like Zynga, it takes 50% of the profits and applies them to help build things like schools and hospitals by giving the money to non-profits. Now this is a business model of theirs, and has been very effective for them. Since they can promote and advertise the help they have been providing to people in need, Cyrus told us that the users of the games were much more willing to buy things. This helps their company make money and helps the non-profit organizations with their funding.
Sojo’s efforts are similar to the approach that Donald Trump has from my understanding of the show. The celebrity contestants agree to be a part of the show because they are allowed the opportunity to raise money for a charity they support as well as gain some publicity. In return Donald Trump gives them money for their charities if they win, but his show also makes a lot of money from the network. So it seems like a win-win situation for those involved as well as the charities. I believe efforts like these are the best way to target a wider audience in their philanthropic donations.
Hi Max,
ReplyDeletePersonally, i see your two examples as very different topics. The first, the Superbowl, I see as one of the most capitalistic events of the year. Commercials are all geared to consuming products of large companies and rarely does a philanthropic or civil organization make their names heard. Large groups of people who watch the Superbowl are not even watching the game itself. “I’m just watching for the commercials,” is a statement you hear fairly often. This means a great number of people are looking for a company that entertains them enough in a sixty second period as a means to decide which deserves their money. This is a very surface level approach. Many of these organizations do very little to give back to society. Sure you may love a bag of Doritos or a Bud Lite, but in context of world needs your time could not be wasted any more effectively. Further, I see the competition of the Superbowl as a non-issue. In many ways it is holistically a money making scheme. The “discarding” of clothing that Americans just would not want is quite sad. Therefore I do not consider this philanthropy, merely displacing things that we don’t want and that is not inherently benevolent.
The Celebrity Apprentice is slightly different. Although I do believe that many of the celebrities competing in this event are doing so to gain publicity, at least there is a greater effort to determine world needs and donate to an aspect of the needs in the world. As you pointed out, this occurrence yields a much more substantial difference to society than the Superbowl’s discarding of unwanted sportswear. Regardless of how much I disagree with him politically, if a guy with a bad haircut has to yell at a bunch of celebrities to motivate them to fundraise money and call their rich friends, then I see it as something to keep around. $600,000 is a lot of money and I’m sure this is a sum of money any organization could use to benefit their target demographic.
I think an important consideration is the entire industry of advertising and commercials especially for a philanthropist group. For them it wouldn't really make any sense to run a 2-3 million dollar commercial. I think this goes back a couple of weeks ago to a tweet of mine about athletes' charities. Many charities do little to help their community even with immensely wealthy athletes. While there are some that devote themselves to their charities the vast majority do not. I'd rather see athletes use more of their fortunes on donations rather than cars and houses.
ReplyDeleteMax,
ReplyDeleteI really like this post because I agree that sports or really any competition is the best way to raise money or to be a form of philanthropy. However, in terms of the Super Bowl, I think it is important to realize that we cannot determine the intent of the producers that give money to charity, especially with the apparel. For all we know, this could have been an initial thought to give away the loser's apparel to underprivileged countries. I do consider this as well as donating the money from advertisements as a form of philanthropy because we do not know their intent, and it would be unfair to take away from the good that they are doing.
As for the tv shows such the Celebrity Apprentice, I think this is also a great form of philanthropy. Again, it is driven by competition and the desire to win. I do believe it is done out of the good of these celebrities because each person who comes on this show is taking time out of their lives to come play for charity. Having so many celebrities all come together for the cause of their own philanthropies is a great thing and should be highly respected. Shows like the Celebrity Apprentice are produced primarily to give money away, and hypotheticals about what could happen if the show did not exist cannot be considered because we do not know the philanthropic spirits of each of these celebrities.