Is 'tap and go' a better way to give to charity? THE ANSWER IS NO

There is a rule in journalism called Betteridge's Law; it suggests that whenever an article's headline asks a question, the answer is (almost) always no. This is because if the answer were yes, the headline would simply assert the claim rather than posing the question. Some argue that this indicates lazy journalism, although many illustrious publications (including this blog) have been guilty of Betteridge's Law.

This recent article from the BBC poses the question of whether "tap and go" is a better way to donate to charity. However despite posing the question in the headline, the article does little to tackle the question of whether this is actually a better way to donate. Instead it simply lists out several instances of "tap and go" tech, such as contactless donation boxes at supermarket counters and events, a payment reader incorporated into a warm winter jacket for homeless people in Amsterdam, and Cancer Research UK's "smart benches" in London where you can charge your phone, use wifi, and donate to Cancer Research UK.

As it transpires, Betteridge's Law strikes again in this case. Tap and go tech is *not* a better way to donate.

The low-touch approach gears the fundraising sector ever further towards impulsive donating on the back of experiences designed to appeal to donors. However the charity sector doesn't exist for donors, it exists for beneficiaries, and this tension between meeting donor needs and beneficiaries is one of the key problems with the charity sector.

Some may counter this by saying that meeting donor needs has the advantage that it results in more donations coming into the charity sector. This is not obviously true. While a moving speech from a fundraiser may cause an individual to impulsively donate £1,000 (as reported in the BBC article) there are unknown knock-on effects. There are some reasons to believe that there are moral licensing or cannibalisation effects, where a donor does a generous act, and then (consciously or not) decides to not perform another generous act later. Measures of the amounts raised by such fundraising efforts tend not to take such effects into account.

Tap and go leads donors towards what is the most gimmicky, not what does the most good. And choosing the most impactful charity is important in a world where charities vary substantially in their cost-effectiveness.

What the sector needs is a way to give which helps donors to focus on the impact made by the charity they are donating to. If done in the right way, this can help donors to make good, data-driven decisions. And there need be no tension with the desire to make donors feel good -- knowing about the impact made by your donation *does* feel good! To see an example of a social enterprise which makes this happen, check out sogive.org

(Full disclosure: the author of this article is also a founder of sogive.org)