The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Texting can donate to more than telecoms

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Gabbie Wade:

Texting can donate to more than telecoms (April 13, 2007)
Short-term gain, long-term pain (March 28, 2007)
Americans ignore strife for sideshow (February 23, 2007)
WHO owes Indonesia bird flu protection (February 9, 2007)
Innocence Project uncovers major flaws in American legal system (January 26, 2007)

by Gabbie Wade

Friday, April 13, 2007

Over the past few years, there have been numerous major natural disasters, which have required billions of dollars in donations from the public. After such a disaster, how often do you find yourself thinking, "I would love to contribute some money" but, ultimately, don't act on this thought?

After such a disaster, I always want to donate something, either time or money, but I admittedly have yet to do so. Information about how to easily contribute has never been given to me, and I have always found myself wrapped up in other, truthfully less significant, projects. It may seem pathetic and lazy, and it is, but I have never quite had enough motivation to act on my noble thoughts.

But what if there was a very simple way that anyone with a cell phone could give money to help in such a disaster without much effort?

Last month, a program called Text2Help, which was first used after Hurricane Katrina, was promoted at a wireless industry trade show. This program allows cell phone users with certain companies to simply send text messages to donate to the American Red Cross. The program is effortless; you send a message to the code "2HELP" to make a $5 donation to the Red Cross.

So, what's the catch? For each message you send, you still must pay the standard text-messaging fee that applies to your specific program. Many people are therefore criticizing the program as a ploy used by wireless companies to make money.

In my mind, this is not such a bad thing. Yes, it would be fabulous if profit were not the No. 1 motive in big business and wireless companies would allow donors to send these texts free of charge. And yes, the amount that you are allowed to contribute could be raised so that, in order to make a larger donation than $5, you would not be charged multiple text-fees.

Some participating companies are AT&T, Alltel, Boost Mobile, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless and the Dobson Communications Corporation. Currently, they all charge the standard text-fee and cap the donation at $5. If more people learn about this program and get involved, however, things may change. Individuals pushing to donate more could potentially change the future of the program. Companies could be persuaded to allow these texts without charge.

Even without these changes, the program was very successful post-Hurricane Katrina; the Red Cross raised more than $100,000 through cell phone donations.

At this point, this new innovation seems like a great step toward getting more people to donate money when it is needed, even if the amount of money is not huge. Most wireless plans include text-messaging fees in monthly plans, so very few people would really feel the burden of a 15-cent fee. Not to mention, in order to donate money via mail you must purchase a stamp. Therefore, this hassle-free method of donating could be seen as superior because many people are much more likely to donate a small amount of money if they can do so using a cell phone rather than using the mail.

Although $5 does not seem like a great contribution, most of the individuals who would take advantage of this program are probably people who would not donate otherwise. If enough of these people hear about this easy-to-use program, however, the donations could be very helpful in a crisis. In such a disaster, every small donation counts.

Gabbie Wade (gwade@wisc.edu) is a freshman intending to major in journalism.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 10:39pm):

FTA: "Information about how to easily contribute has never been given to me, and I have always found myself wrapped up in other, truthfully less significant, projects. It may seem pathetic and lazy, and it is."

On the contrary, the activities *you* are *doing* are likely very significant. Who cares if you don't get name recognition for it? There is a temptation to want to do something when disaster strikes in some distant place. But, the most important thing is that you remain active in whatever you do locally.

In general, national organizations like the Red Cross do more good than harm. But they also waste huge amounts of money, and are susceptible to fraud. In fact, they severely mishandled their Katrina donations. Check out:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/24/national/main1438713.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600654.html

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from supporting any particular charity or whatever they normally do. But, this scheme of texting donations seems rather vain. You watch some tear-jerking, emotional special on the news about some disaster, and you're supposed to feel guilty. But, we need realize that disasters happen, and bad stuff hurts to people. These are the facts of life. And when those things happen, the communities that endure are the ones that a have thriving local pulse of people who are connected to each other. So, instead of reaching for the phone when you see something shocking on TV, why not donate to a local charity you are familiar with and trust? It least give yourself some accountability over your donation. Or better yet, go be the change you want to be (paraphrasing from Ghandhi).

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.