Thursday, May 10, 2007
An envoy appointed and a bit on CSR
A bit groggy this morning. Woke up at 5:30am to speak at a Rotary Club meeting early this morning.
I found this story within the news section of the GiveMeaning site.
It's long over-due and it will be interesting to hear Mr. Giujin's official statements.
In other news, I found this article through my Google Reader this morning talking about different approaches to Corporate Philanthropy. Though it is specifically referring to Australian companies, it's good reading for anyone in corporate philanthropy as it raises the question that I think needs more conversation around: "Are corporate donors dealing with the real needs of the sector or are they more inclined to fund high-profile, simplistic, and sometimes ineffective, feel-good projects?" is the question asked by Niall Mulligan.
The answer should be both and at first blush, it might seem unfair to generalize but I do see this distinct dichotomy that the author flags. There is a new breed of community engagement consultants who are emphasizing "high-touch" projects that can mobilize their client's employees in ways that a three-year capacity grant to a sexual assault centre can't do. When these high-touch projects are designed more around looking and feeling good then around an impact/investment ratio, there is cause for concern.
I've been harping on this theme all week - the "feel good versus the know good" which may in fact be the perfect play on words.
On point, I'll leave you with this link from - of all places - PerezHilton.com. It's a strange day when Clay Aiken has got something poignant to say about what was missing from Idol Gives Back"
I found this story within the news section of the GiveMeaning site.
It's long over-due and it will be interesting to hear Mr. Giujin's official statements.
In other news, I found this article through my Google Reader this morning talking about different approaches to Corporate Philanthropy. Though it is specifically referring to Australian companies, it's good reading for anyone in corporate philanthropy as it raises the question that I think needs more conversation around: "Are corporate donors dealing with the real needs of the sector or are they more inclined to fund high-profile, simplistic, and sometimes ineffective, feel-good projects?" is the question asked by Niall Mulligan.
The answer should be both and at first blush, it might seem unfair to generalize but I do see this distinct dichotomy that the author flags. There is a new breed of community engagement consultants who are emphasizing "high-touch" projects that can mobilize their client's employees in ways that a three-year capacity grant to a sexual assault centre can't do. When these high-touch projects are designed more around looking and feeling good then around an impact/investment ratio, there is cause for concern.
I've been harping on this theme all week - the "feel good versus the know good" which may in fact be the perfect play on words.
On point, I'll leave you with this link from - of all places - PerezHilton.com. It's a strange day when Clay Aiken has got something poignant to say about what was missing from Idol Gives Back"
Labels: causemarketing, charity, csr, idolgivesback, marketing, media, philanthropy
Comments:
<< Home
Thanks for the links, I read the philanthropy one twice, some good points made there. Do you happen to have a link to the actual yahoomusic interview that Clay Aiken did that perez clipped it from? I Can't find it.(I don't go to Perez, even if my life depended on it) it's supposed to be quite good. ( and non-musical)
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 11:36 AM
: 11:36 AM 
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]