Is Crowdfunding Creating Unfairness
My headline above was essentially the one I saw when opening the Chronicle of Philanthropy, and it caught my attention. How could someone’s generosity to help support someone, even someone they don’t know, be inherently unfair?
The guest opinion writer laid out some interesting arguments. One argument stated that those who have the greatest resources also have the greatest connections, which successful crowdfunding banks on to put the word out regarding the need. As the article indicated, crowdfunding can sometimes be a popularity contest. Those with the biggest networks succeed. Also, those with greater resources generally have the best technology capability to maximize communication efforts, even when things are not normal in terms of everyday life. Think of the fires in Hawaii and the people who lost their homes. They don't have their base infrastructure at their disposal. If you've lost your home and need e-mail communication and banking records, these could be significant obstacles for those who do not have their records or access to basic information.
In addition, the author quotes from several sources that indicate less than 12% of the campaigns meet their goals as required by the online platforms, and as many as 16% of the fundraising efforts through crowdfunding receive no donations at all. Part of the challenge, according to the author, is that the fundraising platforms not only require a great deal of information, but they also promote the idea of sharing a great deal of the pain through their sites, including pictures and stories. Some people may want privacy or are grieving and may not want to do so within the public's eye.
The author comments that larger nonprofits that serve the greater community and are on the front lines may have a larger opportunity to better serve the greater community’s needs rather than one-off fundraising crowdfunded opportunities. Places like food banks and community foundations can distribute the money more equitably, says the author.
I think there's legitimate discussion in this particular argument. Here's my problem. I'm never a believer in telling someone else how they should give. The fact that someone sitting on their couch in Boise, ID wants to support someone's GoFundMe page in the horrible fires of Maui, Hawaii shouldn't be looked at as a negative. The fact that someone wanted to do anything at all should be seen as a positive. While I can't negate some of the author’s particular concerns, the overriding factor for me is that freedom includes the ability to make choices based on one's own preferences, particularly as it pertains to philanthropy.
