In the latest issue of Details magazine (June/July 2005, p. 99), columnist Jonathan Sabin plays the devil’s advocate and argues that rubber wristbands – such as those ubiquitous yellow ones that have helped the Lance Armstrong Foundation raise so much money for such a good cause – should be banned.
Who would have thought that one man’s solution to cancer prevention and survivorship would be another man’s problem with marketing and philanthropy?
“Today nearly 50 million are looped around self-righteous wrists as the cheesy trinkets metastasize like the cancers they’re supposed to help cure,” writes Sabin, taking an unseemly, cheap shot – in my opinion – at not just one of the most popular charitable organizations going right now, but at the business of direct response fundraising as a whole.
In the same article, Sabin claims “the problem is that we’ve become a nation of philanthropic exhibitionists.”
I can think of worse things to show off than one’s benevolence.
Indeed, with all due respect to Jonathan Sabin, I think the real problem is the fact that there is so much disease and poverty and injustice in the world.
I think the real problem is that there are not enough people who are willing to give selflessly of themselves on behalf of others less fortunate.
If Americans take pride in their generosity and are wearing these wristbands as status symbols, so be it.
If fundraisers have a way of bringing in more charitable gifts, good for them and their beneficiaries, good for those who are counting on them to provide as much financial assistance and emotional relief as possible.
Why rain on Lance Armstrong’s seemingly endless parade of inspiration, courageousness and goodwill?
Sure, many people, young and old alike, enjoy wearing these wristbands as much because they’re a hip, new fashion statement as a way to help others. But that doesn’t matter.
What matters is that by offering such a cool tchotchke, nonprofit organizations of all kinds are able to amass more individual contributions (because the demand for wristbands is so strong), a higher average gift (because people are willing to give more when they’re getting something extra in return) and a glut of free publicity and promotion (because such body ornaments are attracting so much attention).
What matters is that more money is being raised to help more people in need, people who really couldn’t care less if donors want to wear silly rubber wristbands in their honor, as long as the reason for this jewelry gives them a reason to hope and believe in the future.
Google+
Follow
While I agree with your defense of philanthropic ideals and admire the Livestrong foundation’s ability to generate contributions, it’s the ease of how to contribute that sometimes overshadows the purpose of the contribution. The backlash of the Livestrong bands is the fact that they’ve become a fashion statement more than a statement of social responsibility. Also, the ease at which they are earned is counter-intuitive the very idea of philanthropy. I contribute to many organizations but not because of the trinket – but because of their purpose and reason for existing. The dark, unspoken reason many people contribute to the Livestrong foundation is that they do it to impress others – not to fight prostate cancer. To me, philanthropy involves anonymic sacrifice and commitemnet to an ideal higher than money or stature. And most of the great philanthropists of all time are heartened by the good generated from their generosity, not by recognition for the gift.
I don’t believe a small yellow band could equal the worth of that.