Would as many people have “donated” to Ukraine in the wow community if they didn’t bait it with a pet? The correct answer is, no. That’s the point of the pet. To carrot you into “donating”. I put donating in quotes because donating in the traditional form is giving e.g. money without getting a pat on the back in return. In this case a lot of people needed that pat on the back. Hell, I’d wager the vast majority who bought the Ukraine pet didn’t give two hoots about Ukraine. They just wanted the pet.
This is psychology 101 stuff really. Charity drives have been doing it for decades. They do it because it works.
I wouldn’t call it a particularly painful truth, like I’m immune to “NERRRRRR, you needed a REWARD to do something NICE” prodding.
Yes. I wanted the reward of the pet for my money specifically, and in exchange something nice is happening with my money, which is as far as I’m concerned an extra added ‘oh, that’s nice’ feel-good bonus. Good job, me.
In the end, the people who get the benefit of the money aren’t going to care about the purity of the motives of the people who gave that money. What matters at the end of the day is that they received aid.
Great except some people do only donate for the pet.
The bottom line is if there’s a chance that it could help people who need it… I don’t care what your motivation is as long as they’re being helped right?
This would get people who would otherwise not donate to donate. Good
All this moral superiority philosophical bullcrap doesn’t mean anything when people’s homes are gone
again, the more hands the money goes through, the less makes it to the intended destination.
i didn’t think it was hard to follow.
donate to one of the charities which deal with their own admin fees…
or
donate to blizzard, who take some money for admin fees, so they can forward the remainder of the money for an additional chunk of admin fees to be taken.
No, that’s not how it works at all. When they say “100%,” it has to mean “100%.” There are zero admin fees on Blizzard’s end. 100% goes there. Not 100% minus what our lawyers needed to take. Contracts for this are written and signed for such things. I know this for an absolute fact as I had to help with the paperwork for a charity when I worked at the radio station and for a retail store.
There’s also other upfront expenses like logistics. And when you have multiple versions of them that’s money trading hands needlessly theoretically. Not that that’s happening.
Upfront expenses are purely on the contributor’s dime unless otherwise organized within the contract. It’s why you see some say “50% of the profits” instead of “100%.”
i can’t access the English language version of the store (in an English speaking country)
…but from the version I can access, the Ukraine pet pack says 100% of the price after incidentals.
My advice is to Remember and put that money away for later.
There’s only so much that can be done in an active disaster situation, and with civilian authorities on the ground as well as the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, and Hawaii National Guard on the case (not kidding, the 3rd fleet is stationed RIGHT THERE, remember), things for the moment are not underfunded.
When the people in these communities ARE going to need a hand is after the media coverage dies down. Look in on them again a year from now and pitch in, then.
100% is not 100% of what you pay for the pet (or donate) going to the charity. the “100%” when it concerns charities is always followed by “of profits” or “of proceeds,” which means whatever is left over after all their own costs.
