Bill Gates Needs Our Money
The Gates Foundation made news last week when they announced that they plan to cease operations some time this century. I think they should be commended for this, personally. I think many of the criticisms of foundations--too stodgy, too conservative, too arrogant--would evaporate if they put themselves on some sort of clock and funded groups as if they were trying to put themselves out of business.
But that wasn't the only news that the Gates Foundation made last week. They also announced that they would begin accepting donations from those who are interested. It seems that Warren Buffett's highly-publicized gift inspired others to do the same, and the people at Gates thought it would be hypocritical and elitist if they accepted Buffett's donation, while telling others they weren't welcome to support the mission. In fact, the example they cited in explaining the change was of a 7-year-old girl named Olivia who wanted to make a gift to the group. Said Gates CEO Patty Stonesifer, "Do you say no to a 7-year-old girl, but yes to Warren Buffett? One way or another, she did convince us to do some deep thinking."
I have no problem with this. Sure, the rich get richer, and undoubtedly, much of this giving is prompted by the relentless media coverage of the Gates Foundation, and the unadulterated praise heaped upon Mr. Buffett for the apparent selflessness and philanthropic savvy of his gift. But it does raise an interesting, and in my mind, troubling question for the non-profits of this nation, and that is, what does it say about the trustworthiness and brand image of our non-profits if even 7-year-old girls named Olivia would rather give to something as corporate and unsexy as the Gates Foundation, rather than trying to find a local animal or environmental group that appeals to her heart?
I think it's a relevant question, and a troubling one for our non-profits. Even the kids don't trust the charities, and would rather give to someone they think has the expertise to tell the do-gooders from the do-nothings.
Olivia, the face of the new philanthropy.
But that wasn't the only news that the Gates Foundation made last week. They also announced that they would begin accepting donations from those who are interested. It seems that Warren Buffett's highly-publicized gift inspired others to do the same, and the people at Gates thought it would be hypocritical and elitist if they accepted Buffett's donation, while telling others they weren't welcome to support the mission. In fact, the example they cited in explaining the change was of a 7-year-old girl named Olivia who wanted to make a gift to the group. Said Gates CEO Patty Stonesifer, "Do you say no to a 7-year-old girl, but yes to Warren Buffett? One way or another, she did convince us to do some deep thinking."
I have no problem with this. Sure, the rich get richer, and undoubtedly, much of this giving is prompted by the relentless media coverage of the Gates Foundation, and the unadulterated praise heaped upon Mr. Buffett for the apparent selflessness and philanthropic savvy of his gift. But it does raise an interesting, and in my mind, troubling question for the non-profits of this nation, and that is, what does it say about the trustworthiness and brand image of our non-profits if even 7-year-old girls named Olivia would rather give to something as corporate and unsexy as the Gates Foundation, rather than trying to find a local animal or environmental group that appeals to her heart?
I think it's a relevant question, and a troubling one for our non-profits. Even the kids don't trust the charities, and would rather give to someone they think has the expertise to tell the do-gooders from the do-nothings.
Olivia, the face of the new philanthropy.
posted by Trent Stamp at 10:11 AM
9 Comments:
While I can see you're point Trent, I think that Olivia probably would have given to a smaller charity but perhaps she can relate more to the work that the Gates Foundation does, or perhaps a 7-year old would not even know how to go about finding a local charity or one that needs the money more.
She probably saw the Foundation in one of it's many advertising campaigns and thought that she would like to help.
I don't think it's that troubling. Now, if there were hundreds of kids doing this then perhaps.
It is just ashame that smaller charities do not have the voice that larger ones do.
Smaller charities usually have higher expense ratios. The large charities can be quite efficient due to large volume. Unless everyone at a charity volunteers their time, they can eat up a lot of the donations through salaries at small organizations. Also, with all of the free publicity the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gets, they can have low fundraising expenses as well. It sure worked on Olivia. And to the parents of little Ollivia - nice job!!
My guess is that if Little Olivia had been exposed to the same volume of advertising for her local animal shelter, she not only would have given her money there but talked her parents into adopting a pet, and volunteering there. The sad thing about the Gates money is that it detracts from what can be done at home and diminishes the charities who do work hard to help on the local level.
When referring to the local charities that Olivia might have supported I was a bit surprised that you only mentioned environmental and animal groups. Isn't it possible that there is a local charity that helps people, like a foodbank or a shelter for abused women, that would appeal to Olivia?
I believe the Gates foundation goal is to help human beings in need in the US and around the world. Maybe thats what appealed to Olivia.
Frankly I don't find environmental and animal groups all that trustworthy myself.
... and just which microsoft division does Olivia's(if indeed she does exist) mother/father/legal guardian work for?
Other than press releases on the web & some news coverage of Buffet's announcement it would be difficult to believe that a young girl would be aware of this organization. I find it hard to believe that a seven-year-old girl would determine on her own that she wishes to donate to the gates foundation. I'm afraid my gates/microsoft cynicism alarm is ringing loud and clear at another made-up net scam.
Sorry completely disagree with some of this commentary. The point of contributing to an entity as visible as this foundation is that it goes to support a massive effort to make a substantial, organized, and needed global change. Children have big hearts and when they see that this group is working on some of the biggest issues they hear about (like HIV/AIDS), they feel compassion.
When first introducing a child to the concept of charity where do you start? I think it is both local and global. Because not only do we need to think about the small steps we take within our own community, we should also think about the bigger steps needed in communities far worse off than our own.
I honestly am puzzled by the cynicism around Mr. Gates. Heaven forbid someone be successful and then dedicate themselves to then spreading that success around. Hate him because he makes money, then hate him because he gives it away. Whatever.
My 7 year old chose to give to an international charity working on clean water for kids because he read about it in Starbucks. He gave to a cancer hospital because he had a friend die of cancer. And he gave to the local food bank because he couldn't understand why people living here might not have a Thanksgiving meal.
That's the way kids think -- things that are relevant to them. And giving global does not diminish local... we need both.
Wow. I am totally unimpressed by this author's point of view:
"Sure, the rich get richer, and undoubtedly, much of this giving is prompted by the relentless media coverage of the Gates Foundation, and the unadulterated praise heaped upon Mr. Buffett for the apparent selflessness and philanthropic savvy of his gift. But it does raise an interesting, and in my mind, troubling question for the non-profits of this nation, and that is, what does it say about the trustworthiness and brand image of our non-profits if even 7-year-old girls named Olivia would rather give to something as corporate and unsexy as the Gates Foundation, rather than trying to find a local animal or environmental group that appeals to her heart?"
How incredibly cynical! I detect envy here... Gates/Buffett are doing somthing worthwhile, but "undoubtedly" it is self serving? The author is giving away his own viewpoint.. that HE is self serving, and projecting that on Gates and Buffett. Why should NOT a little girl support Gates' foundation? They get RESULTS... but the author apparently does not care about that, instead focusing on "brand IMAGE". Gotta LOOK GOOD.
Disgusting.
Perhaps Olivia sees an opportunity to be part of a "winning team."
Why do non-New Yorkers root for the Yankees and wear Yankees t-shirts and caps? Because Yankees are winners, and, somehow, when one wears a Yankees cap one feels like part of a winning team. (I ask Sox and Mets fans not to swamp this blog... it's just an example)
As a child, I did something similar to what Olivia did. Although I was active in my small community church, I sent $5 off to a TV preacher who was trying to build a grand crystal cathedral (I received a charm and a thank you card in return). I guess I wanted to be part of something bigger. Today, at age 41, I sometimes see that crystal cathedral on TV and smile; a little part of me thinks that I helped make that happen.
From day one, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation established itself as the forerunner in foundations. Olivia joined a winning team, just like Mr. Buffett did. Olivia is now part of every success story written by this worthy foundation.
Good for you, Olivia. Now go ask your parents to explain what "act locally" means.
Ang: Congratulations. As your boy grows he'll have had the experience of helping a wide variety of charities before possibly narrowing the field when he gets older. So he may get interested in a charity that isn't the latest big and sexy celebrity-touted, color-coded attempt at self-glamorization through giving, but that also deserves support. And your support of him made his support of others possible.
anonymous: You missed the point. A lot of non-profits are actually poorly run -- some staffers and volunteers would even shriek at the idea of organizations for their causes being run like real businesses. But to get the most whales saved, people fed, trees planted, babies inoculated, and so forth, YOU HAVE TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE. That means "a big heart" isn't enough to be the manager and pull down a quarter-million-dollar salary as president, or even to do it for free. You have to get results. Not just from raising money, which anyone sufficiently charismatic or connected can do, but in what you do with that money.
Listen to me: wasted money is worse than no money at all. Because that money is gone, and can't be given to someone else who will do a better job. Business leaders work with mission-critical issues, and know what the costs of failure are. The good ones get it right the first time. Babies being born today don't have time for aid agencies to screw around with partners who may not deliver necessary drugs or food on time or at all.
Charities need people who know how to cut through the crap and just get it done, and do it consistently over time. You'd want the shrewdest businesspeople in the world looking after whatever company you invested in, to give you the greatest return. So why would don't you want them managing whatever causes you believe in, for greatest benefit?
-artifex
Post a Comment
<< Home