Philanthropy Online: FreeRice.com

At first blush, FreeRice.com might appear to be more of an SAT or GRE study tool than a web-based philanthropy portal. Visitors to the site identify synonyms for a wide range of words (that increase in difficulty according to success rate), in a never-ending game. For each correct answer, 20 grains of rice are donated to the UN World Food Program–paid for by FreeRice’s advertisers. Unlike other addictive diversions (like this ridiculous game Jarred loves), FreeRice feels wholesome and intellectual…sort of like the geography game, but with a greater purpose.

While FreeRice is by no means a new phenomenon (many of you have likely participated), I was struck by a recent NY Times Magazine piece describing the site’s history (emphasis mine):

“[I]nspired by Jeffrey Sachs’ book “The End of Poverty,” [John] Breen created Poverty.com to encourage first-world nations to give antihunger aid. That site presents a series of names and faces that roll by at a pace illustrating the number of hunger deaths per hour; it’s vivid — and, Breen acknowledges, depressing. So he created FreeRice.com.“

Thoughts after the jump…

I love FreeRice, and it’s wildly successful at: a) channeling volunteer, at-work minutes that (at least in my case) would be otherwise wasted on more frivolous pursuits; and b) presenting a concrete, micro-level activism equation (one correct answer=20 grains of rice for people in need) that I think is a more effective “ask” than sites encouraging petition letters.

But I wonder if we shouldn’t be concerned by the very reasons for its success; namely:

1. That I’m more likely to spend 20 minutes at my desk playing a vocabularly game than I am to donate $20 to the UN World Food Program.
2. That I’m more likely to work for grains of donated rice than I am to write a letter to congress or the president urging aid that could send billions or trillions of grains of rice to areas of need.
3. That I’m naturally drawn to philanthropic activities that answer the “what’s in it for me?” question in a compelling way, offering both the intrinsic satisfaction of trying to address inequality and selfish personal improvement (or gain).

Is this a case of channeling natural and selfish impulses for good? Should we be concerned that the “depressing” poverty.com model of attaching human faces to intractable problems like hunger to increase awareness is less effective than a game? Does the success of FreeRice speak to disturbingly short attention spans and a lower tolerance for serious issue awareness, or is it simply a pragmatic approach to encourage tangible action on important issues, in a clever format?

I’m inclined to give FreeRice the benefit of the doubt, on the basis that at least visitors to the site can’t avoid the hunger issue–it’s thankfully in your face, and success in the game is measured by rice donated. And the issues I describe are, I believe, less about FreeRice than the general state of engagement in deep issues like hunger, poverty, and preventable disease. So I’ll keep playing, but I hope we all keep thinking too.

PS-please don’t tell FreeRice’s advertisers that, when I’m in the vocab zone, I’m not paying ANY attention to their ads. I appreciate their contributions all the same.

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user tanakawho.