[Leica] Charities And Donations, Eric & Art

[pcb@iac.co.jp (Paul C. Brodek)]

Hi Art,

I think the key to this issue is your phrase "need but can't afford."
There are undoubtedly lean and effective charities where most or all
staffers are volunteers, overhead is kept low, and a large portion of
collected donations directly benefit those in need.  There are also
charities with salaried staffs and high overhead, that consume a large
portion of donated funds with only a small portion directly
benefitting those in need.  Charity fund-raising can be a big
business; there are many charities that use less than 10% of collected
funds on programs that actually aid those in need.  (There is an
organization somewhere that tracks this and issues a charity report
card----anybody have a reference or URL?)       

Professional photographers earn their living selling their images, not
making images.  Making great images doesn't put any food on the table
unless somebody buys them, or pays for their use.  When asked to work
for free, they have a right to be critical about who is asking and
why.  Any of us who are paid for our skills and abilities have the
right to ask why we should offer our services for free.

If the individuals doing the asking are unpaid, volunteering their
time and energy, as are most everyone involved in the charity, the
photographer is being asked to contribute to the cause in the same way
others are.  If the individuals asking are being paid a salary to seek
out contributions, and a substantial amount of donated funds is used
to cover salaries and overhead, then a professional, salaried fund
raiser is asking a professional photographer to contribute in a way
most in the organization are not.  

In the first case, the message I hear is: "I and many others are
volunteering our time and skills to help, and we would like you to
volunteer as well."  In the latter case what I hear is: "I am paid to
solicit donations, we pay many people in this organization for their
skills, and we need the use of your skills to more effectively solicit
donations.  But we have decided not to budget any funds to pay for
your services."  This is then "we need you but we've decided not to
spend any money on you or your profession," rather than "we need you,
but can't afford to pay."  The implicit sales pitch is what I think
some on the receiving end find demeaning.  If money is that tight, why
not fire the salaried telemarketers and replace them with volunteers?
Why should the photographer be asked to work for free when others are
not?

It's one thing to not be able to pay the guy to do your taxes because
you had zero income.  It's another thing to tell an accountant you
"can't afford" to pay him because you spent too much money on your
landscaper, pool cleaner and personal trainer.  That tells the
accountant his services are worth less than the others.


Regards,

PB


On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:12:27 -0500, Peterson_Art@hq.navsea.navy.mil
wrote:
>     No, I must say I don't think it would be rude.  If you can't afford to 
>     pay the guy to do your taxes, then you can't afford it; and yet if you 
>     still need to have someone do your taxes, then you still need it.  And 
>     so, you'd have to ask him (or somebody) for help, and to do that would 
>     not necessarily mean you denigrate his value or worth as a bookkeeper. 
>     Those who need but can't afford may ask, and those asked may accept or 
>     decline the request.  And that seems the same to me for bookkeepers or 
>     any other workers, including photographers.  (Where would charities be 
>     if it were not for their "begging" for people's assistance?)
>     
>     Art Peterson

Paul C. Brodek
Kobe, Japan
pcb@iac.co.jp