I ran across an interesting article the other dayoriginally published in a newspaper in Danbury, CT andposted on their online news feed athttp://news.newstimeslive.com/story.php?id=77951&category=Local.
The article deals with the practice of including addresslabels used by some charities as a part of their annualappeals. The writer, Fred Lucas, found that there is morecriticism of the practice than there is support. Donorsmay send in a small donation more because of a sense ofobligation than a genuine belief in the cause, only to findthat their name is then sold to other charities. He foundthat most charities in his area do not use this form offundraising, something the charity watchdog CharityNavigator calls, ?phenomenally wasteful use of a charitableresources?. On the other hand, the representative of theEaster Seals campaign is quoted as saying, ?a lot oftesting has shown this to be a very successful program.?
What I found ironic, wasn?t anything that was stated in thearticle itself, but the fact that when I viewed the site itwas posted on, I was greeted by a banner across the top ofthe page offering me free smiley faced icons. Grant it,these banners are rotated and if the reader clicks on thelink I showed in the first paragraph, you may see smileyfaces or you may see another ad. (When I checked the lasttime there was an offer to scan my computer for adware andspyware free of charge.)
The irony is that a legitimate news service sees nothingwrong with advertising a free offer, presumably to generatesome pay per click income. I did not look into the freeicon offer but I know from past experience that the mainpurpose of such offers is to get my email address so that Ican become a prospect for various marketing campaigns.
I don?t have any problem with this form of advertising.Free sample offers are a tried and true way to generatesales. They are a form of reciprocation, a powerfulpsychological motivator. In his book ?Influence: ThePsychology of Persuasion?, social psychologist Dr. RobertCialdini, includes reciprocation as one of the seven mainways that people are influenced. Reciprocation is apowerful marketing technique because it is ingrained in ourculture, and in most cultures, as an acceptable form, evenexpected form of behavior.
What bothers me isn?t the use of reciprocity as a marketingtechnique. What bothers me is the double standard to whichcharities are often subjected. Why is a tried and truemarketing technique accepted without question by theprivate sector being questioned as a dubious practice bythe charitable sector? The principles used by business tosell products and services should be available to thecharitable sector. After all, the people who make donationsare the same consumers who are expected to make intelligentdecisions in the market place.
Ron Strand is a member of the faculty of the Centre for Communication Studies at Mount Royal College and President of Strateo Consulting Inc., a marketing and communications consulting firm. His website is http://www.strateo.ca.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ron_Strand
