Generous Nation

Oftentimes on FLiP we talk about how philanthropy is moving into the forefront of American culture. See: The Mainstreaming of Philanthropy. Well, that trend is about to get a big boost. The latest Ad Council PSA campaign, Generous Nation, is about to launch via television and radio commercials, as well as in print and online ads. The campaign rally cry, “Don’t Almost Give. Give.” aims to tap into the reserves of American generosity often displayed only in times of crisis.

Elisabeth Anderson and I attended the first public viewing of the ads for this campaign late in September, and were struck by the same thought: Philanthropy has become cool. The fact is that we are sitting on the cusp of an ad blitz which is designed to change the very way Americans think about our field. Will philanthropy go from the back of our minds to our national past-time? While in the past the Ad Council has promoted particular messages (e.g. the classic “Loose Lips Sink Ships” and “Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires”), the current campaign is more all-purpose, touting the universal concept of being philanthropic.

The ads center on the theme that many people mean to do more, but don’t seem to get around to actually doing it. The ads assert that almost giving is the same as not giving at all; good intentions mean nothing when not enacted.

It is also interesting to note that, in general, Ad Council campaigns are planned after receiving a proposal from a non-profit organization or government agency (e.g., the United Negro College Fund’s “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste” and the US Department of Transportation’s “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk”). Generous Nation, in contrast, is an Ad Council first; it is sponsored internally, in its entirety, by the group. The Ad Council isn’t promoting a particular organization; it is simply working to affect the philanthropic actions of the country. Without a doubt this is an ambitious, determined project, which has unlimited upside potential.

The campaign is the brainchild of three executives who worked together for years at advertising giant BBDO, Philip Dusenberry, Ted Sann, and Charles Miesmer. The genesis of the idea was to keep philanthropy top of mind for Americans, even when mega-disasters are not on the front page of the news. As a fundraiser and the Editor of the FLiP blog, I’m excited to see the executives at ad agencies like BBDO taking notice of the philanthropic trends in this country.

So what overall effect with these ads have on giving? Will we see a marked increase in donations across the board next year? Will an increased awareness of philanthropy drive more people into the sector?

Check out http://www.dontalmostgive.org and keep your eye out for the “Don’t Almost Give. Give.” tagline. Let us know what you think.

Special thanks to Elisabeth Anderson for her contributions to this post.

Comments

[Jeff Brooks]

I have to disagree on the "Generous Nation" campaign. While nicely done, it's poorly conceived on many levels -- not likely to impact much behavior. See today's post at the Donor Power Blog: http://www.donorpowerblog.com/donor_power_blog/2006/10/giving_campaign.html

[Elisabeth Anderson]

Thanks for your comment, Jeff, and the link to your post. You write that the campaign is “not likely to impact much behavior.” This raises some bigger questions; while a measurable increase in giving as a result of the campaign isn’t probable, is there something to be said for influencing long-term behavior (vis-à-vis influencing thought, i.e. the way this generation thinks about philanthropy). Put another way, will altering thought now substantively contribute to acting later?

[Jessica Stannard-Friel]

Hi. Jeff, the post on your blog is really interesting -- you make some great points. I agree that the 18-34 demographic isn't likely to be the source of huge philanthropic donations, but I think there is still a lot of value in cultivating giving in this population. When I was a senior in college, my school placed an enormous emphasis on the Senior Gift -- the priority wasn't how much was raised, but rather what percentage of the class participated. They were trying to get us in the habit of giving, knowing that our $20 a year will grow over time as our salaries grow. As Elisabeth suggests, I think the same is true more generally -- hopefully, the campaign will contribute to the growing idea that giving is just normal, and that anyone can do it. Then, we can take advantage of both economies of scale -- I agree with you that it's not inertia that stands in the way of more big gifts, but the $30 I don't give because I'm lazy get really big when multiplied by all the other lazy people -- as well as the growing ability of this population to give as they grow older and their salaries grow. But they won't be philanthropists when they're 70 if they don't have a long-standing belief that giving is a part of life.

All that said, when big resources are on the line, as they must be in this case, I really like to see great research backing up the decisions made about allocating those resources. I'd be really curious to see what research drove the Ad Council in this particular direction -- their findings must have been really interesting.