[Leica] Re: Charities And Donations, Eric & Art

["Michael D. Turner" <mike@lcl-imaging.com>]

Paul C. Brodek wrote:

> 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?
>

Agreed. Negotiate a fair price or...decide for yourself whether it's worthwhile
to work for free in a situation where others are paid.

>
> 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.
>

Sorry, I take issue with the above. If you have zero income, you don't need to
file. If you have a small income, you might earn EIC--could be up to $3756
refundable credit! You can afford to pay me to get this for you!!

But you did make a good point: it's _much_ harder to get paid for services than
for goods.

- -Mike