Child's Play takes in $3,512,345 | Hacker News Reader

Child's Play takes in $3,512,345

penny-arcade.com

37 pointsbendoerr14 comments

http://childsplaycharity.org/news/post/2011-an-incredible-ye...

For a bit more context.

Congratulations to Penny Arcade, a smile is an important ally when you're healing.

Am I the only grinch who looks at a number this big and wishes some of it was used to pay for children's medications that their parents can't afford or some other patient care? It's very noble to want to reduce pain and suffering but I care more about saving lives or improving quality of life long-term.

I see it this way too. There's no way Child's Play is making people as happy, per dollar spent, as a good externally evaluated third world medical charity like the Against Malaria Foundation [1]. It's really good people are being so generous, but if their values are at all like mine they could be doing so much more with a charity taking a different approach.

[1] http://givewell.org/international/top-charities/AMF

That's an awfully high horse you're atop, there. Be careful you don't fall off. This is a cause that the Penny Arcade guys had an audience for and the means to pursue. Helping out sick kids and their families is a worthwhile charity--the Ronald McDonald House has been in that business for years. It's grown from a small effort to make a few kids' holidays better to a fairly sizable charity. Kudos to the PA guys for making it much larger.

Would you like to condemn charities such as Donors Choose, the Ronald McDonald House, or anything else that helps folks in the US while you're at it? Who else should be paying more attention to you and your values?

Sometimes something as simple as a stuffed animal can ease the pain and suffering a lot more for a longer period than medication.

I'm not questioning the effectiveness of modern medicine by any means, and myself would rather donate for active treatments but a child with a teddy bear to hug/hold/squeeze will likely feel a tiny bit better than one with nothing when faced with pain, or loneliness for that matter.

Edit: I don't really have any evidence to back up my first statement other than a few anecdotes and personal experiences.

No matter what you do... someone will always find something to complain about.

Sure that would be nice, but the penny-arcade guys have worked very hard to create a charity organization of this size. I would guess that many of the people who donate to child's play wouldn't have donated that money elsewhere.

People often donate to charities they can relate to, and this is opportunity to do good that people who play games can understand. I would argue that it's certainly a more charitable use of the money than if the individual who donated were to simply buy a game for themselves.

I think you have a valid concern.

When Child's Play was much smaller, there was no question: Tens of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands, donated to give kids going through the difficult and confusing process of childhood hospitalization something fun and engaging to do, is a wonderful thing. But I wonder at what scale the social good of Child's Play starts to experience diminishing returns.

Maybe it's time for Penny Arcade to look into diversifying next year. The good will is thankfully not in short supply – making it go the furthest is now their greatest challenge.

I doubt it, but we're talking about gamers here. They are being inspired to give because it fits in with their hobby and there's a giant progress bar that they can do their part to bump a little higher every year. This is not to say that their charitable impulses are so narrow in scope and that they don't care about medicine and the like -- and I would wager that many donate to multiple charities, some of which might even do what you say -- but rather that this is a particularly inspiring charity that caters to community tendencies.

Child's Play started quite small, and to be frank, $3M is still a relatively small sum of money, particularly when you consider the number of hospitals over which it is distributed. However, it is consistently growing, and it might make sense to widen its scope, at some point. I would personally organize it like an RPG, and you can dump points (Earth monies) into games, medicine, etc. It would be consistent with the leveling impulse which I think Child's Play is harnessing, as well as giving people the option to decide among games and medicine and whatever other goals might be presented. I think you would see a fair bit redirected toward medicine, as people who are given the choice are obviously going to recognize that it is an important goal as well, but it wouldn't drive away people attracted to Child's Play for what it is now.

I think as a Charity you have to focus on one specific concern. If you start down the route of diversifying how do you measure when to stop and how much to you split between the different ventures?

There are already many charities and government programs to do just that.

For example, in 2010 Seattle Children's Hospital took in $10.7 million in donations. That is one hospital in one city in one year, and it's more than what Child's Play has raised in total since 2003. I think it's fair to say that that aspect of charitable giving is pretty well covered and it's safe for Child's Play to keep its focus on making childrens' stays in the hospital more bearable.

I like your rationale because it's the same argument I use to not give to any charities: somebody else is already doing it so I don't have to.

I can't help it. I'm a grinch. I know video games are fun and kids everywhere get lots of innocent joy out of them. I know that the kids who probably need video games the most are those who have no other activity they could do that would distract them from their situation and let them have fun. But.... something about the idea of collecting a bunch of money to buy video games... it just seems misguided to me. I know, i'm supposed to say "yay they're trying to help kids in the hospital, go them!" and ignore this weird voice in the back of my head. But is it really the best thing that could be done?

I mean is it really the best thing? Or is it not just a nice idea someone had that really took off and now that it's slowly becoming this huge thing that nobody anticipated there's the potential for greater good? Look, nobody's going to change Child's Play, that's obvious. It's a huge success and hopefully it continues in its success. But there must be a way to replicate its success into directly supporting children's needs in a long-lasting and constructive way. If you agree that trying to help kids feel happier while in the hospital is important, you have to agree that giving them a life to be continuously happy for years to come is even more important. I don't know what kind of charity that would be, or if there even is one. But there are 13 million children living in poverty in America. Thirty nine percent of America's children live in "low income" families, or $40K for a family of four.

Giving to hospitals is important for precisely the preceding reasons: the children's families don't have enough to cover the rest. I just know that after the toys have been bought, there's still more help that is needed. And to me that's a big issue. That's all i'm saying.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305

Reply on news.ycombinator.com