This TED Talk debunks the pernicious idea that charities should maintain a low overhead ratio. He shows how “overhead” can actually help charities do more good for more people in the long run.
Jean-Luc belts out the best music video you will see all week.
So it turns out you can spy on a computer monitor by listening to it. It’s called Van Eck phreaking, and it’s cray cray.
Want to lose a friend who’s a writer? Ask her, a month in, how it’s going. Better still, ask her to describe what she’s working on. She’ll try, because she has to (“Well, it’s about this friendship between these two, um, friends . . . ”) all the while listening to the magic leaking out of the balloon, and she’ll hate you for it.
Have an intrepid weekend, hypothetical reader!
Brian D. Buckley 
Interesting video. Although I can’t disagree with any of his points directly, I still don’t really like the idea. I don’t like the idea of marketing to people that they should give to feel good about giving. Charity shouldn’t be about what you get out of it, but what others do. When we have to market that to people I say the problem isn’t the system but people’s attitude. The problem is there isn’t a quick fix to that.
Still, I won’t say I can’t be wrong. I just think if we have to convince people that charitable giving is a good thing then there is a larger problem than the overhead of a marketing department of a charity. Why do we have only 2% in giving if there are so many ‘smart business people’ who donate $100,000 of their yearly income? He sets that up as if so many people would actually do it.
I’m also incredulous on how a charity can be a profitable investment, and therefore able to use the stock market. You invest in the above convincing people to be charitable?
Anyways, just some thoughts. Thanks for keeping the blog going. I don’t post much, but I do enjoy it. 🙂 Time for work.
“…if we have to convince people that charitable giving is a good thing then there is a larger problem than the overhead of a marketing department of a charity.”
The larger problem that you’re talking about is basically part of human nature, I think: people act on what they think about most, not what happens to be most ethically right. It isn’t all bad. But it does mean that marketing works – and if it works, why not use it for good? 🙂