It can be hard to manage the fulfillment of a child sponsorship programme, but there’s no denying that charities such as Childfund and World Vision are making it work in Australia.
Not only do their programmes get permission from supporters to take regular gifts automatically from credit cards or bank accounts month after month – they bring the supporters closer to the action. Time and time again research has shown that people stop giving if they don’t hear from a charity where their money is going. Child sponsorship avoids that by sending tailored feedback about a given child – the sponsored child. It’s remarkable that we even need research to tell us such things. Supporting a charity shouldn’t be something that happens in a vacuum. Support is derived from making people feel they are making a difference.
In my experience, charities can be too quick to write off child sponsorship as a lucky coincidence of working in overseas aid. That not only denies masterminds like Ken Burnett the credit they need for pioneering such approaches, it is also a blatant cop-out. If a charity can’t replicate a child sponsorship scenario for their given cause (and many have – my old mates at Bluefrog in London have developed ‘Kennel Sponsor’ for Battersea Dogs’ Home, and ‘Room Sponsor’ for the YMCA), then they should have a think about some of the other attributes that they can pinch.
I was flicking through the Sydney Morning Herald a few weeks back and pulled out an interesting article from the career pages (I’m not looking for a job – there was a special report on the environment and science.) Owen Thompson had written an article called “Cancer Detective”.
Brilliant. Here’s a journalist who didn’t scoff or snore at the chance to interview a molecular biologist – he decided to dramatize what research was about. But before you label such scripting as sensationalist crap, let me give you some examples of how he managed to describe the dry stuff of DNA research:
“Maxine McCall is no stranger to the thrill of discovery. A molecular biologist with more than three decades of experience in DNA research the 56 year old says the prospect of learning something unique still brings the pronounced sense of excitement and satisfaction.”
Now I don’t know this guy but he either interviews well or he landed on his feet – this is what Maxine said…
“One of the great things about science is that when you do an experiment you find something that nobody else knows and that’s pretty exciting.”
Go Maxine!
“It might just be a little thing, and it won’t be every day, but maybe once a month or once every two weeks, but it’s a very rewarding thing to actually ask the question and get an answer.”
I think Maxine has not only eloquently described why medical research needs long term support, but also charmed me into believing she is the right person for the job. She hasn’t left me feeling that there is no hope of ever finding anything out. Medical research charities take note – find your Maxines, and make them your buddies. With someone like her by your side you can ask for donations, by linking her small steps to the bigger aim.
“Coloractal cancer is one of the cancers that if you detect early and have it surgically removed then you have good chances of staying well.”
Maxine’s own words.
I say… go forth and find your cancer detectives. Don’t make them heroes – I only idolize Maxine because she’s a fundraising pin-up. But do introduce them to your supporters in an engaging and personable way, and see what happens. (Don’t forget to introduce the beneficiaries, as well of course.)
As a happy spin-off you’ll probably find that suddenly more men become attracted to your cause. We do like a good problem:solution scenario after all.
opinionaid 