This post discusses what opportunities a giving game could bring for the target audience of people who have no intention to ever donate, where participants receive actual cash money right before starting. Building upon my personal belief that people are inherently decent at heart.
This post is a thought-experiment on which I would love to receive feedback on. While I am likely very wrong, I also secretly hope as a human interaction designer to be very right. Let me start this off, with a story of street fundraisers, as a way to illustrate the problem that I try to approach.
Feel free to skip the story and go straight to the section with the title "Giving gamble: a twist on the giving game".
For the sake of simplicity, I would like to focus on the potential donors who are working adults and who are financially privileged. This means that they can easily afford to make small donations. People in the target audience are also not currently donating anything yet to other charities, nor do they have an intent to ever give to a charity.
In Ghent (Belgian city where I live), I often encounter charity fundraisers near supermarkets in the car-free zone of town. These fundraisers try to talk to anyone who wants to listen, in order to try to convince them to sign up for monthly donations to a charity. Personally, I have a lot of admiration towards these fundraisers, because they are faced with the very demotivating task of trying to get potential donors to talk to them.
Observing their work from a distance, I notice that the fundraisers get avoided a lot. People see the badge around the neck of a fundraiser, and will most often try to avoid eye contact; walk the other way; pretend to be in a hurry; come up with all sort of excuses of why they can't talk at that particular time.
Street fundraisers know this, that's why they are in the car-free zone of town where it's harder for people to avoid them. The better the fundraisers blend in, the more people they are able to talk to.
From a personal perspective, I think it's quite obvious of why people try to avoid the conversation. Because they know that if the fundraiser is able to start their story, they will feel the moral obligation to sign up. So, not letting the fundraiser start their explanation, avoids being confronted with the uncomfortable dilemma of "should I donate?". Besides, saying "no" is for many already a hard thing to say face-to-face, even in more indirect questions!
Knowing this internal dilemma, fundraisers are incredibly creative in getting people to talk to them. They hide their badge. They help to carry your bags. They get your attention with super random questions, all while staying as like-able as possible, smiling, joking and complimenting their way on to your path to the supermarket. One of them even asked me out of the blue "if I am about to spend Christmas by myself?", to then spin my answer back to talk about the loneliness that refugees experience when they arrive in Belgium without their family.
At least from the perspective of the charity, this practice of talking to people face-to-face has proven to be successful, as the charity gets over time more financial aid through fundraisers, than it costs to hire them.
When I talk to family or friends about charities, I noticed that loads of them belong to the target audience who avoid street fundraisers in daily life. Which puts me in the sweet spot between fundraisers who do amazing work, and the people who avoid them. Being interested in why they avoid the fundraisers, I had quite a few conversations about how they feel when they are being approached. To put it lightly, they seem to collectively dislike being approached because of a combination of the following reasons:
The problem, in other words, is that they go into the defensive when they are asked on the spot. And seeing how most people avoid the conversation with the street fundraiser, I assume that a non-willing potential donor, only needs one interaction with a well-trained fundraiser to know that they won't talk to them ever again. This method is often perceived as intrusive and unattractive for donors. In other words, people who said "no", once, already have their default "no" ready to any future pitch of any other street fundraiser.
When doing some desk-research on this negative effect fundraisers caused, I stumbled upon a study the VUB did. The focussed on reputational loss for charities when they hire street fundraisers, and this came in their conclusion:
The respondents confirmed that their negative perception of this fundraising method influences their overall attitude about the organization, which is rooted in the emotional and time-related pressure, the untrustworthy and intrusive appearance, and the presumably questionable intentions of the fundraisers. As such, our study has relevant theoretical and practical implications, showing as it does that nonprofit organizations have to be aware of a reputational loss caused by face-to-face street fundraising.
From the conclusion in a study from the VUB: The impact of face-to-face street funding on organizational reputation
To zoom out as a human interaction designer, I see these interactions to not only be harmful reputational-wise towards certain specific charities. But more towards charities in a general sense. The people I heard complaining about street fundraisers, couldn't even remember what charities the fundraisers were representing. Which makes me to believe that the avoidance becomes a strategy on its own, where weighing the pro's and con's of donating no longer come up. And while street fundraisers do amazing work for raising the funds for their respective charities, the flip side of that work is the rise in defensiveness within everyone that said "no" to them.
Voilà, the introduction! I think the perceptions some people have of street fundraisers makes a very practical example of people's attitude towards charities. Trying to get these naysayers to not jump to their defensive corner of the ring is incredibly hard. Especially when trying to restart a conversation about potentially donating. But I hope to have found a way to break down this boxing ring and set a more gentle stage for the question: "Will you donate?"
Giving Games are educational activities designed to introduce participants to effective giving.
During a typical Giving Game, each participant is given $10, introduced to the featured charities, and asked to make an initial choice based on short fundraising pitches. The facilitator then goes into more detail about the work of the nonprofits, and how to maximise the potential impact of charitable giving.
In particular, the facilitator explains core concepts like cost effectiveness, evidence, and how the overhead myth is incorrectly used to assess the performance of nonprofits. At the end of the Giving Game, participants decide where to donate.
Because giving games, fix quite a few issues:
If you want to organize such a giving game, and you don't have the funds yourself, you can even apply for funds through giving what we can. If you want to organize this for students, they do charity elections too!
Giving games are a great way to introduce the concept of effective giving. They are also very social as you do them in group. The impact report of the giving games in 2020, say that 8% of people on average took the pledge after having participated in a giving game.
Asking grown-ups I know well, to participate in edutainment, feels weird. The invitation in itself would feel like a condescending thing to do. I think giving games work best if people sign up for them themselves, but then I wouldn't attract many of the target audience I set out to reach. Hearing how negative they sound about giving, I would further assume that they would walk away after the giving game with a sense that if they weren't there, money would still have been donated. Or the money that was sponsored was already meant to be donated anyway. The personal importance of participating wouldn't convince me in an earlier stage in life, so I am assuming it wouldn't convince them.
Giving games have a playbook and are easy to set up, however they lack a few key elements:
Ideally, people collectively walk away from a giving game and have a next giving game planned, but this time with their own money. Then it would no longer be called a giving game, but a giving circle. Philanthropy together describes a giving circle as follows:
A giving circle brings a group of people with shared values together to collectively discuss and decide where to make a pooled gift.
Individuals multiply their impact and knowledge, have fun, and connect with their local community.
~ What is a giving circle by Philanthropy together
If you ask me, giving circles are the holy grail! It gives the opportunity to be social, while giving to charity. You are not just deciding it on a lonely rainy Sunday from behind your computer screen. You want to have fun donating, and you want to be surrounded by people that do the same. No matter how much you are able to donate, it brings a sense of normalizing and democratizing donating behavior, which is a massive step forward in my book.
The problem is getting there with the people who won't be enthusiastic about a giving game, or have built up enough negative emotions towards the idea of charities in general.
The problem I see with starting up new giving circles, is that it is weird and uncomfortable to ask people that you personally know to donate their own money. That's the reason street fundraisers are paid, because their work is quite uncomfortable to do. From a social perspective, to put it simple: it's awkward! You don't want to lose friends or good connections with family in order to convince them to donate. Even if people do sign up, you still won't know through social conventions, if they do it out of kindness towards you, or if they do it out of a genuine interest.
But what if you organize a giving gamble? It would work the same way as a giving game, but instead of giving everyone 10 digital dollars that are not actually in the participant's hands, you give everyone actual money from your own bank account. Imagine doing this with colleagues or with family. For working adults in Belgium, I find 10 dollar to be a bit low, so let's say 50 dollar each. Not a promise on a piece of paper that they will receive the money, but actual cash.
The reasoning for this, is that I am a firm believer in the good in each individual person. Not giving them the cash in hand, feels to me like I would start off the giving game in a quite cynical way. As it shows, my pessimistic perception of the participants. Giving them the cash I was planning to donate, means elevating each voice in the coming debate by trusting each participant fully. Trusting people to be able to decide for themselves, is a core principle of "GiveDirectly". In a way, I am now proposing the same principle, but now on the donor's side.
Rutger Bregman puts it beautifully in his book "humankind: a hopeful history":
Humans are fundamentally decent. More recognition of this view would likely benefit everyone, as cynical expectations of others lead them to become cynical actors themselves.
Let's imagine a big room where everyone joins together at the start of the get-together. When they enter the room, each participant is given 2 envelopes: 1 empty and 1 with 50 dollar in it. When everyone is present and has received their envelopes, you explain you have been saving up for quite some time to donate to charity. And because you know this gives you a great feeling, you want to give everyone in the room the same potential feeling of doing good in whichever way they would want to. You further explain that the money in their envelopes is now officially their money to keep, and that everyone received the same amount.
You explain the concept of a giving game and that you have pre-selected a few very effective charities. Furthermore, you also mention that if people in the end of the game, decide not to donate, that this is absolutely fine. Each participant can decide for themselves where they will put the money to use.
Next, the giving gamble follows the same structure as a giving game: Charities are introduced through the concepts of effective giving; small and big group discussions are held; and there is room for questions.
Finally, you bring out 3 voting boxes for everyone to see, each representing one charity. You explain, that only 1 charity will win, and that all the money from all the boxes will go to that charity. You ask everyone as a way of voting to put one of their envelopes in one of the voting boxes. They can decide if they are convinced by a charity, or if they keep the money to do something else with. In other words, they can decide if they put in the envelope with or without the money.
As a moderator, you re-iterate that it is completely fine to keep the money and doing something else with it. If the participants don't really believe the fact that the money is fully theirs, you can even say that you won't think badly of them, if they keep the money. For all you know, someone might want to give it to the homeless person down the street; make ends meet at the end of the month; or do some more research before donating it. If someone finds the whole experience of the giving gamble to not be very convincing, it is fine to keep the money and spending it on a night out. I think giving the participants the full control over their envelopes is key. That's also why there are 2 envelopes, to keep everyone's decision anonymous.
Remember, the giving gamble is not to morally oblige people to donate to a charity that you picked. The goal of the giving gamble is to give everyone the opportunity of making a donation in an as-honest-as-possible way with their own money.
I imagine this happening most effectively within groups of individuals that belong to the target audience group and that actually know each other, as you'll need social cohesion in the group for this to work. With the focus on empowering as many participants as possible to decide on the best option for them, this might still mean not all the cash ends back up in the boxes.
However, if the feeling of having done a really great thing as a group is big enough, I believe the path to create the same experience with the same group again is not so socially awkward to ask around for. Of course people will have to come with their own 50 dollars, but hey, if they don't feel convinced on the day of the game itself, they can keep the money in their pocket.
I would also be very interested in how much % of participants would later make the pledge, or start their donating behavior in comparison to the more traditional giving game. Instead of having the socially awkward question of "Would you be interested in joining a giving game where we play with digital dollars?", I think asking the question "Would you donate, if you were to receive money?" will be a much more lively experience.
Lead the way, you want other people to become.
Follow-up posts that I was thinking of:
(This is also my first post on the forum, yey!)
