Caring with cash

July 28, 2010 7:49 AM

Shared social responsibility - When customers could pay what they wanted in the knowledge that half of that would go to charity, sales and profits went through the roof ... Gneezy describes the combination of charitable donations and paying what you like as 'shared social responsibility', where businesses and customers work together for the public good. (via mr) [also see 1,2,3]
posted by kliuless (19 comments total)

Seems ripe for exploitation via fake charities. Monitoring would be crucial, no?
posted by spicynuts at 7:57 AM on July 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

it's been done
posted by felix betachat at 7:59 AM on July 28, 2010 [2 favorites]

Half of the proceeds from Lady Gaga's next album will be going to the Human Fund.

The Human Fund: Money for People.
posted by griphus at 8:02 AM on July 28, 2010 [4 favorites]

You'd have to cherry pick the cause to the product. Picking something like... humanitarian relief for Palestine is going to have some stuff associated with it that will alienate customers.
posted by codacorolla at 8:05 AM on July 28, 2010

Soylent is people. Just had to say that.

where businesses and customers work together for the public good

I can buy this on a small business level ... sort of. Otherwise, it just reads like a shift of responsibility to me. Instead of personally deciding where my charity bucks will go, I'll just let Radiohead decide for me, or Lady Gaga, or Mel Gibson ... just give me some product I can consume. mmmm, ice cream. And it tastes even better knowing I'm helping to send Bibles to El Salvador.

This is the kind of thing that gets me thinking we're just not paying enough taxes.
posted by philip-random at 8:08 AM on July 28, 2010 [5 favorites]

The Spicynuts Fund: Money for Spicynuts
posted by spicynuts at 8:09 AM on July 28, 2010 [2 favorites]

This is the kind of thing that gets me thinking we're just not paying enough taxes.

Yeah, I don't get why people loooove spend money on emergencies (which is most of what charity is) but never on infrastructure (which is most of what taxes is). Short attention spans? Distrust of gov't (largely engendered by conservatives, I might add)? Just being idiots?
posted by DU at 8:11 AM on July 28, 2010

The Human Fund: Cleveland just can't win
posted by leotrotsky at 8:11 AM on July 28, 2010

I know that whenever I buy a "pay what you can" CD from a band in a local club, I always pay more than it would have cost on iTunes or in a store.
posted by rocket88 at 8:14 AM on July 28, 2010

Some criticism from Andrew Gelman's blog.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 8:17 AM on July 28, 2010

Yeah, I don't get why people loooove spend money on emergencies (which is most of what charity is) but never on infrastructure (which is most of what taxes is). Short attention spans? Distrust of gov't (largely engendered by conservatives, I might add)? Just being idiots?

Because the idea of "charity" implies that you are doing something outside of what is demanded of you (i.e. taxes) to ostensible make the world a "better" place. I think it comes from the idea that problems in the infrastructure are inherently the problem of mismanaged funds rather than the lack thereof. Of course, it's both, but the latter is much more of a problem than the former.

My rather (fiscally) conservative uncle, who emigrated from the Soviet Union in his 30s and believes the free market is the greatest expression of human achievement, repeatedly says that he would love to pay more taxes. Why? Because he's from somewhere that the utter corruption of infrastructure management was completely in the open. He has a point of comparison: the former USSR, and understands what a genuinely awful infrastructure management looks like.
posted by griphus at 8:24 AM on July 28, 2010 [3 favorites]

I don't see how this is shared social responsibility. This is using the good karma of a charitable cause to increase your profits selling widgets.
posted by the jam at 8:28 AM on July 28, 2010 [2 favorites]

In other news, the air force is holding a bake sale to pay for a new bomber.
posted by sebastienbailard at 9:57 AM on July 28, 2010

Yeah, wasn't it Jesus who said something about separating God's matters from Caesar's? Not that charity + profit are God + Caesar, but I do see a profound miscalculation in trying to marry the two ... particularly if done by some mega-bucks multinational, which is ultimately answering to its shareholders.

Rest assured, the rich will continue to get richer.
posted by philip-random at 9:58 AM on July 28, 2010

Probably of more concern to this entire issue...is the extra amount you paid over 'list price' tax deductible as a charitable contribution? Because if not, you can pretty much give up on this idea.
posted by spicynuts at 10:01 AM on July 28, 2010

That explains why people buy lottery tickets! It isn't the microscopic chance of winning millions, it is that it supports the schools!
posted by birdherder at 10:46 AM on July 28, 2010

We could use more "Social entrepreneurship"
Great video about a company that is practicing Social entrepreneurship:
How to Make Money and Save the World

I don't see a problem with having a business plan that benefits a charity.
posted by wherespaul at 11:28 AM on July 28, 2010

Is there an Inhuman Fund I can contribute to? Oh wait, 99% of the stocks on Wall Street, that's right.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:48 AM on July 28, 2010

You make me like charity, instead of paying enough taxes...
posted by schyler523 at 6:30 AM on July 29, 2010