<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Can Cause Marketing Work to Distract the Donor?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.prprescriptions.com/2010/01/12/can-cause-marketing-work-to-distract-the-donor/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.prprescriptions.com/2010/01/12/can-cause-marketing-work-to-distract-the-donor/</link>
	<description>Providing diagnoses to those trying to reach the masses</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:53:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: jaywalk1</title>
		<link>http://www.prprescriptions.com/2010/01/12/can-cause-marketing-work-to-distract-the-donor/comment-page-1/#comment-285</link>
		<dc:creator>jaywalk1</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:06:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prprescriptions.com/?p=872#comment-285</guid>
		<description>See, that&#039;s the thing. That was my original intention, but I didn&#039;t see a direct donation option prominently featured and got caught up in the merchandise section.

Part of the reason why I began mulling over the best option for my donation was the descriptions tied to each item.

For each item, charity:water had info on the amount of people who could be helped...via that item purchase. It was as if they made it transactional. By doing x (purchasing and item), you can do y (provide water)...almost saying you must do x in order to do y.

I understand why they did it. Gives donors something to feel connected to...gives the feeling that your donation will really make a difference.

It just made me think because the way it was setup made me think in transactional terms. Instead of just giving, I began to think about what I could get as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>See, that&#8217;s the thing. That was my original intention, but I didn&#8217;t see a direct donation option prominently featured and got caught up in the merchandise section.</p>
<p>Part of the reason why I began mulling over the best option for my donation was the descriptions tied to each item.</p>
<p>For each item, charity:water had info on the amount of people who could be helped&#8230;via that item purchase. It was as if they made it transactional. By doing x (purchasing and item), you can do y (provide water)&#8230;almost saying you must do x in order to do y.</p>
<p>I understand why they did it. Gives donors something to feel connected to&#8230;gives the feeling that your donation will really make a difference.</p>
<p>It just made me think because the way it was setup made me think in transactional terms. Instead of just giving, I began to think about what I could get as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven Spenser</title>
		<link>http://www.prprescriptions.com/2010/01/12/can-cause-marketing-work-to-distract-the-donor/comment-page-1/#comment-284</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven Spenser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:57:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prprescriptions.com/?p=872#comment-284</guid>
		<description>Why not just send the charity a check so they can keep the product you &quot;bought&quot; for selling to someone else who requires something for her money?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why not just send the charity a check so they can keep the product you &#8220;bought&#8221; for selling to someone else who requires something for her money?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

