universities do this shit all the time - every building / landmark on michigan state's campus is named after a donor essentially, especially the sports related ones - i think every room / gate in the football stadium is named after a former athlete or a rich honky if the most effective way to get rich assholes to spit out money is by treating them like they're important, so be it
Y'ever seen a Carnegie library? Or a printed program with a list of donors? The leaderboard for charities is having public works and spaces named after you. It's why you'll never find a 'Mrs. Deras' Third Grade Class of 2012 Pavilion.' As it happens, it has the exact effect you mention, at least according to the wealthy. The leaderboard has been there your entire life, we've just never been wealthy enough to consider ourselves part of the game!Fundraisers have learned it is easier to raise money in the name of a donor and easier to raise money when others see that you have raised large gifts.
Carnegie hall was built with his own money (ill gotten, some people would argue, as he was an industrialist) and was in his family's ownership for decades. So, I dunno, does that count? Well then we're in the tricky area of people like, The Sacklers, using philanthropy to whitewash their names. I'm kind of flattered you hold me in a regard that you think I'm cultured enough to be in the proximity of those things on the regular. :)Or a printed program with a list of donors?
Valid! I don't think it does. No worries, I've mostly seen those things at the symphonies my ex used to bring me to. We got a lot of free tickets because she was in the music program - After awhile, you learn who the real bougie people in your city are because their names are printed in a classical font under the "[DIAMOND | LEGACY | FOUNDER | PLATINUM] DONORS" heading :) Ah shit, I've annihilated the image you had of me as a scrappy rebellious lad just trying to make his way through the world!
The more I think about it, the more I don't know. On the one hand, I feel like leaderboards go against the spirit of charity, in that they're acts of sacrifice made with humility and discretion, done for the importance of the deed and not for the importance of recognition. At the same time, what might be a big offering by one person could easily be over shadowed by a small offering from someone else. For example, if Mr. James and his third grade class had a bake sale and raised a hundred dollars, that's a pretty significant act that would easily be overshadowed by say, a millionaire who decides to donate 10k. The kids worked hard and if any recognition should be doled out, they deserve it, but they can't compete against someone who could sneeze out some cash and not even worry. But on the other hand, I can see how leaderboards could be great motivators. If someone loves recognition so much that they're willing to pay big for it, that's a win for the charity. Likewise, if someone is falling far short of their potential, they could face a bit of shame and derision. Also, sometimes some friendly competition doesn't hurt. But then again, giving is about understanding the need, not for love of fame or fear of guilt. I dunno.