05/06/2004: "Pledge drives and "matching" pledges"
Our local Catholic radio station is having a pledge drive right now, which is a good thing. But they're using a technique that I've never liked and am doubly peeved because a local Parish is using the same technique to raise money for their also worthy Parish Center.
The technique is the "matching" pledge. I'm sure you all know it. Some one has made a pledge for some large amount, but it requires that everyone else collaboratively pitch in a "matching" pledge. Usually for a hard-sell, they also put a time limit on it.
It just feels WAY too dishonest. Does this person actually plan to NOT pledge the money if there isn't the "matching" pledge? If so, what the heck is with that? Isn't it a part of our faith that we shouldn't be acting based on how others are living up to Christ's commands? Shouldn't they be giving even if no on else is willing to donate?
If on the other hand, the money is going to be given irrelevant of any "matching" donations, shouldn't the organizing entity avoid lying about it trying to sucker someone of their money? Even if the money is going to a good cause, aren't the means by which the money is raised important too?
To magnify why this bugs me is that there are plenty of techniques to raise money which although corny or "inventive", they don't involve lying. The "goals" technique (our goal is to raise $5K this hour) or the "free gift" technique (If you donate $200, you'll get this unique collectors CD!) or the "guilt trip" technique (think of the children!), or the "comparison" technique (that's only $1.11 a day! (breakdown $400 a year to $33.33 a month to $1.11 a day) combined with the "breakdown" technique (think of how much you spend every day when you buy your coffee and donut!). With all of these techniques and others, do you really have to resort to lying?
One of two things is true: I'm either a lone reed in the wind on this one or just over-reacting, because no one else seems to notice/care. Which is it? Isn't it just rediculous?
