Why Your Text Message Donation to Haiti Might Not Get There Until April
Cidu Bill on Jan 17th 2010
Wall Street Journal article
On the other hand, this will probably change once it becomes more widely known and customers get pissed off.
Filed in Bill Bickel, Haiti, cell phones | 18 responses so far
Caroz Jan 17th 2010 at 01:39 pm 1
Interesting. Some people might get annoyed at this, but does anyone think Haiti won’t need aid in April?
James Schend Jan 17th 2010 at 01:55 pm 2
This isn’t new at all. The Red Cross always pays for the current disaster from their general fund, and takes donations for the next disaster. It’s always worked that way, at least in my lifetime.
(And when you think about it, why would it work any other way? If the Red Cross had to wait for people to donate before they could take action, they couldn’t be nearly as quick to react.)
I always find it funny when a reporter writes about something that’s always worked that way and people get all worked-up about it.
Cidu Bill Jan 17th 2010 at 02:01 pm 3
Well yeah, except Sprint isn’t sending money from “their general fund,” but rather waiting to send anything. Entirely different situation, no? This is an additional 3-month logjam, which wouldn’t happen if you send money directly to the Red Cross (or Doctors Without Borders, or wherever). The reason this is news is that people are given the impression that their money will go t the organizations in a timely manner.
Charlene Jan 17th 2010 at 02:29 pm 4
Well, except that Haiti will need help as much in April as they do now, if not more. One million buildings aren’t going to be rebuilt in three short months.
Keera Jan 17th 2010 at 02:47 pm 5
I always assumed that when someone offers up such a donation phone number, it is in agreement with the phone company (their way of offering to help) so that the money is immediately forwarded, and then the phone company is “reimbursed” when I pay my bill. I’ll stop assuming that from now on.
S.P. Charles Jan 17th 2010 at 03:10 pm 6
That’s very true, Charlene — so if it’s your intent to give the Red Cross money in April, you can send the Red Cross money in April.
Chuck Jan 17th 2010 at 06:03 pm 7
Glad I sent my money through their website.
Bill Zilch Jan 17th 2010 at 08:35 pm 8
People act like the cell phone companies are purposefully holding onto the money. But how can they donate your $10 until you actually give them $10. They’ve already sent over quite a bit of money and the Red Cross is still encouraging text message donations. All news stories like these will just discourage people from donating.
Chuck Jan 17th 2010 at 08:55 pm 9
I don’t think the phone company is doing anything wrong. I just think it’s not the best way to donate money. How can these articles be discouraging? Is it that much easier to send a text message than to do it on their site? Don’t most people spend plenty of time on their computers already? If you want to help, you find a way. Just because text message donations aren’t the best route doesn’t mean that there aren’t ANY routes.
Suzii Jan 18th 2010 at 06:23 am 10
The WSJ is behind the curve. That story was from 1/16; as of 1/15, the phone companies had started finding solutions (100% immediate from Verizon, 80% immediate from Sprint …).
Father Bruno Di Frocco Jan 18th 2010 at 06:25 am 11
I’ll feel better when the cell company waives its texting fees for these donations. But overall, the donate-by-cell isn’t a bad idea. It makes it more convenient (and more immediate) for donors to kick in a few bucks. The immediacy thing is important — folks away from their computers might well forget to make that donation when they get home. By the way, I tried to make a donation at the Red Cross website (and later at the Salvation Army site) on the night of the quake and couldn’t get in. After a long wait, I quit and went to Catholic Relief Services. That’s who got my donation.
Suzii Jan 18th 2010 at 07:41 am 12
Hey, Fr. Bruno, the texting fees, as well as the processing fees for the operation that manages the donations, were waived even earlier — as of 1/14, according to Consumer Reports: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2010/01/update-donating-haiti-relief-red-cross-text-donations-better-business-bureau-wise-giving-alliance.html
(btw, my source for the previous post was the New York Times: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/verizon-speeds-up-text-message-donations-to-haiti/)
Tim Jan 18th 2010 at 10:05 am 13
I don’t think there’s any deception involved, but I think the idea behind “texting to donate” is because people want the money to get there immediately, instead of a few months delay.
arvy Jan 18th 2010 at 07:48 pm 14
And to tie a couple of threads together, you can always donate at this site:
http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/
Mark in Boston Jan 18th 2010 at 11:12 pm 15
The money will still be needed a few months from now.
Fnord Jan 19th 2010 at 11:30 am 16
This article is terribly misleading. The Red Cross knew when they set up the program that they would not get the money from phone companies immediately. They still want you to use the service. Donating by text, even with a built-in delay, is far better than saying “I’ll donate when I get home” and then forgetting about it.
The phone companies’ delay never had any effect on the services going to Haiti. The Red Cross is paying for its relief efforts out of its existing International Disaster Response Fund; they assigned $10,000,000 to the Haiti response even before the 90999 thing was set up. (The texted donations have now hit that ten million and then some.) Even if it takes weeks for the telcos to physically transfer the dollars, there is at this time no danger of that fund running dry.
S.P. Charles Jan 19th 2010 at 02:29 pm 17
I think the real issue here is that the phone companies should make it clear that the money won’t be going anywhere for a few months; then people can decide whether they’d like to donate the easiest way with the knowledge that their contribution will be delayed — which isn’t necessarily a terrible thing — or spend a minute or two more to donate in such a way that the money gets to where it should be a lot sooner. Informed choice.
By the way, I’m not sure the “Red Cross uses money on hand and replenishes its funds with the current donations” scenario completely applies in a megadisaster such as this one: I’m sure there’s a limit to how much money they have sitting around.
zbicyclist Jan 20th 2010 at 08:15 pm 18
A disaster is a marvelous fund-raising opportunity. Can’t let that go to waste.
Fund raising operates on the margin. If the organization has to spend $2 to get $10, they are still $8 to the good. But it’s better if they can use all $10.
Send a check directly to the organization. No credit card fees, no text fees, no trusting AT&T and Verizon accountants. If you can’t do it until you get your next paycheck, that’s fine — as long as you do it.