³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

« Previous | Main | Next »

It's for Charideee!

Post categories:

| 09:35 UK time, Monday, 2 July 2007

A couple of big-hearted individuals took it upon themselves to join the queue at Apple's stateside stores...and their shiny new iPhones on the internet for charity.

Now everyone is doing it. There's even a up there going for the world record and raising funds for Hurricane Katrina rebuilding at the same time.
A direct appeal goes out to Paris Hilton et al: "Just think of all the publicity you will get from setting the world record for most expensive cellphone purchase on Ebay!!!"

I find rampant consumerism repulsive in any form. I also hate charity stunts. David Clayman and Johnny Vulkan were the original two who wore T-shirts to promote their causes as the media descended on the snaking queues only to find a new 'worthy' angle. Clayman was representing , which encourages big corporations to donate their expertise to nonprofit organisations.
Vulkan was queuing for , which works to raise funds for children with AIDS in Africa.

But the tale has a twist. Perhaps realising the publicity potential of this stunt, is presenting the first iPhone for Keep a Child Alive and it is currently going through the roof for thousands of dollars on ebay. Spike Lee actually bought it, which is mentioned further down.

Queuing for a whole day for a phone? Nah. Don't get it. Queuing, then sticking it up for auction to raise money for good causes? Hmmm. Still not sure, actually.

It's certainly raised awareness, and cash, for both organisations. But something just doesn't sit right with me. By putting the phones on ebay, aren't we encouraging more rampant consumerism rather than turning it on its head?

But surely it's okay, it's for charideee!

I've never liked charity auctions. Spending obscene amounts of money on, oh I don't know, a signed football or a dinner with a celeb says more about the person who enters into such a transaction than the cause behind it.

It says "Look at me! I'm rich, and I'm a philanthropist too!" But that just isn't true. Real philanthropy is performed without the expectation of personal gain. Okay, so the guys queuing may have known this, including Alicia/Spike, but do the people bidding for the iPhone? What do they really care about? The charity, being seen to care about the charity or the phone?

This stunt hops on the back of consumerism to raise the profile of two organisations working with people for whom the iPhone is an irrelevance as far as their lives are concerned. One nonprofit organisation supported by the Taproot Foundation is , which works "to help poor, homeless, and disabled people achieve health and self-sufficiency, and to fight against the root causes of poverty and homelessness."

Like Shelter over here if you need their help, you need the fundraising. But there's fundraising with dignity and then there's gimmicks. And sometimes to my thinking it all gets a little out of hand.

One final point. As previously noted here at Ouch! iPhones have a fundamental design flaw. Their touch screen renders them useless to blind and visually impaired users.

• Visit

Comments

Wheelie Catholic has a post up about how a conversation lead to two of Ruth's friends donating the money they had put aside to buy iPhones to a charity that provides much-needed wheelchairs. I thought this was a great little story; a simple but significant gesture which will make an enormous difference to someone.

Goldfish, that's what I was on about, only I think I got myself a bit tied up in the arguing of it, because I was overtired when I wrote it. Note to self - do not post if what swims in front of your eyes isn't making sense to you :-)
I put the whole argument to my son and his mate. His mate came straight out with "Why not just donate the money straight to the charity?"
Exactly. As Sir Bob Geldof said on Live Aid: "Would you kindly just give us the money".

  • 3.
  • At 01:18 AM on 06 Oct 2007, Johnny Vulkan wrote:

Hi Seahorse

Johnny Vulkan here, the guy from the line. I just got sent this and thought I'd add a bit of context.

The reason we chose this stunt was primarily to gain attention for the charity - knowing that camera crews would be there all week. We generated over 200,000 online links, 100 million media impressions (global TV and Press) and a huge increase in sign ups to the charity which has a huge ongoing benefit to the charity.

The auction was really just a finishing touch. Alicia actually funds the day to day costs of the charity and has done for many years - meaning that all proceeds can go to the cause and Spike is a long term friend of the charity so in both cases their intentions were and are very honorable.

I agree, attaching charities to consumerism is not without controversy but with 1.5 million charities in the US competing for attention we will go where we can get some coverage. We also cannot take on capitalism and consumerism at the same time as we take on fundraising for the charity - if we could change that cultural habit we would - but for that we need a few more volunteers :)

The good news is the phone eventually sold for $100,000 - which will literally keep thousands of children alive. The other good news is that thousands more people have become aware of the cause which makes our job a little easier.

Happy blogging :)

Best wishes

Johnny

This post is closed to new comments.

³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ iD

³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ navigation

³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Â© 2014 The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.