Enough with the poverty porn please.

'Tis the season of sad-assed poverty porn. For only 19 dollars a month I can save homeless pets, give wounded servicemen a chance at full life, feed a starving child, help a hospital ship sail around the world saving people. Scenes of starving kids in central Africa, seal clubbers in Alabama (or wherever they are), and pleas for money. Everyone wanting 60 cents a day, or 19 dollars a month. I wonder how much of that 19 bucks goes to support these poverty porn ads?

This shit will go away in time for the political commercials for the June primary here in CA - and political porn is just as bad.

You would love TiVo or some other DVR perhaps?

For less than 19$ a month you can save yourself hours of grief every month.

Yeah. It’s actually a bit hard for me to fully sympathize with people who complain about commercials. Even my grandma would mute them, and my grandpa would change the channel.

Now that stupid donation popup on Wikipedia? That gets a lot more sympathy.

Actually, this article from the Washington Post suggests that Wikipedia doesn’t really need your money. It points out that the Wikimedia Foundation already has enough cash to run the site for a year and a half, and it’s becoming increasingly corporate-like, with a paid staff of 240 (while the articles are written by volunteers). So don’t feel guilty about ignoring Wikipedia’s pleas of poverty.

This is true of some conventional charities too.

And it’s difficult information to research. You can look on sites like charitywatch.org to find how much a charity spends on costs or advertising relative to the amount of money raised. But it’s difficult to find which charities are amassing a Scrooge McDuck pile of coins because they are raising money much faster than they can spend it.

I thought it would end on Christmas Day; they’re probably running the ads through tomorrow so people can get their charity tax deductions in time for the new year.

Back when I was working in the not-for-profit world, there was an ongoing debate over whether fundraising should show images of poverty-stricken, abused children, or whether it should show happy, thriving children who’ve benefitted from the programs.

As you might guess, research shows that both models are effective, but on different groups of givers. And since the groups don’t crossover very much, organizations tend to stay with the type they’ve always used.

Eighteen months’ operating funds is not exactly a mountain of cash. And obviously they still need revenue, if they wish to operate beyond that date.

“You’re in the arms of an angel…”

Even Sarah McLachlan says she can’t watch her own “save the animals” ads.

There’s a genre of actual porn where the family starts producing porn to pay the rent. That’s what I thought this was about.

My cats hide when they hear that song. They hate the forced cuddles they get. “No, YOU won’t ever be like that, my lovie. NEVER!” Ungrateful sods.

Reading the title, I thought this thread was going in another direction…

“Poverty porn” Did you (the OP) coin that?

It’s stuck in my head now. Every time I see one of those commercials, I think “poverty porn.” I’m not sure yet if I’m thanking or blaming you for that.

Can I still feel bad about that fat and clearly past kittenhood calico I saw in a pet store window who meowed at me when we made eye contact?

Because I intend to.

January is normally a dead month when it comes to advertising. Direct response (1-800 But Wait There’s More) spots that wouldn’t see the light of day in November are all over the place in January because the agencies are on their Christmas break and the sales guys take off too. The networks have to fill the breaks with something, so they scrape the bottom of the barrel at this time.