I ran across an interesting article the other day originally published in a newspaper in Danbury, CT and posted on their online news feed at http://news.newstimeslive.com/story.php?id=77951&category=Local.

The article deals with the practice of including address labels used by some charities as a part of their annual appeals. The writer, Fred Lucas, found that there is more criticism of the practice than there is support. Donors may send in a small donation more because of a sense of obligation than a genuine belief in the cause, only to find that their name is then sold to other charities. He found that most charities in his area do not use this form of fundraising, something the charity watchdog Charity Navigator calls, phenomenally wasteful use of a charitable resources. On the other hand, the representative of the Easter Seals campaign is quoted as saying, a lot of testing has shown this to be a very successful program.

What I found ironic, wasnt anything that was stated in the article itself, but the fact that when I viewed the site it was posted on, I was greeted by a banner across the top of the page offering me free smiley faced icons. Grant it, these banners are rotated and if the reader clicks on the link I showed in the first paragraph, you may see smiley faces or you may see another ad. (When I checked the last time there was an offer to scan my computer for adware and spyware free of charge.)

The irony is that a legitimate news service sees nothing wrong with advertising a free offer, presumably to generate some pay per click income. I did not look into the free icon offer but I know from past experience that the main purpose of such offers is to get my email address so that I can become a prospect for various marketing campaigns.

I dont have any problem with this form of advertising. Free sample offers are a tried and true way to generate sales. They are a form of reciprocation, a powerful psychological motivator. In his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, social psychologist Dr. Robert Cialdini, includes reciprocation as one of the seven main ways that people are influenced. Reciprocation is a powerful marketing technique because it is ingrained in our culture, and in most cultures, as an acceptable form, even expected form of behavior.

What bothers me isnt the use of reciprocity as a marketing technique. What bothers me is the double standard to which charities are often subjected. Why is a tried and true marketing technique accepted without question by the private sector being questioned as a dubious practice by the charitable sector? The principles used by business to sell products and services should be available to the charitable sector. After all, the people who make donations are the same consumers who are expected to make intelligent decisions in the market place.