Wouldn’t it be more effective to have webcams to show the actual recipients of charities? I am thinking a live, 24/7 broadcast from the earthquake areas in Pakistan, or of hungry children, or of other causes.
Seems like you might get a lot more funds if people could see it live for themselves, and not just snippets in the news or on commercials. Have representatives of the charity on hand to take turns narrating the scene and answering questions people might type along with their donations.
Sally Struthers used to show letters written by kids to their patron donors, wouldn’t it be more personal to have a child look into the camera and smile, or see the kid/sick person/old person get food or medicine?
Granted, there might be some technical considerations to take into account, but wouldn’t a live webcam broadcast be more incentive for people to donate?
Live pictures are often not as cooperative as edited or syill ones. Something going wrong eiher technically or with the people receiving the aid could damage the charity. There might also be questions of exploitation and whether webcam technology is the best use of donated funds. Not that I’m saying such questions would be valid if raised.
Actually, I was thinking more in terms of an inexpensive webcam (you can buy them for under $50) and a laptop computer. Granted, it is not like they have a local Starbucks with WiFi nearby, but assuming this technological hookup could be done, cheaply…
I just thought it might be valuable for people to log in around the world, any time day or night, and have a glance at the devastation. It is one thing to see a 1 minute CNN broadcast, but it is another thing to log in at 3:00 A.M and see dawn and people who are cold and hungry and in need of basic supplies. Intellectually, many of us know that, but the visceral image might make it seem more immediate and worthy of a few extra dollars we might not normally have donated.