I’ve been chatting this morning with Mark Hecker, Executive Director of Reach Incorporated, about the plans for the launch of ManfredMacx.com.  And then I saw this post come up at Techdirt.

A fascinating new study has shown that “pay what you want” offerings seem to maximize the net take for those using it if they include charitable giving. The study was done at an amusement park, where people could buy a photo of themselves on a roller coaster, and four different situations were tested: (1) the standard “pay a fixed price” (2) a straight “pay what you want” (3) fixed price with part of the money going to charity and (4) pay what you want with part of it going to charity.

What’s amazing is that the fourth one was the best one in terms of the net amount to the seller (yes, after giving the portion to charity). Sales were much higher and the net dollar amount to the seller was much higher than the straight “pay what you want.”

“Pay what you want” is definitely one aspect of the model at ManfredMacx.com, so it’s wonderful to see that a partnership with a charity can be beneficial to everyone involved.

That said, we are proud to announce that the money raised with our first book is going to Reach Incorporated.  They find students who are struggling with reading, help them to be better readers themselves, and help them teach younger children to be better readers, as well.

We’ll have more details soon, so be sure to check back.

This is a slightly different context than Manfred Macx – the money goes to charity – but it’s the same idea.  You can have your name or the name of your choosing featured in an upcoming book by a best-selling author.  Here is the first one I became aware of (via draccah), but there are a bunch of similar items for sale, proceeds all going to charity.

It’s interesting – this sort of thing is not that uncommon in a charitable context, but it’s pretty rare for the author to be using a similar technique to make a living.  Is it a perception thing?  That this is okay for charity, but not to make a living?  I think the idea that we can get a pass for doing otherwise objectionable things if it’s in the name of charity is wrong.  Either the ends justify the means, or they don’t.

If the ends justify the means, the end result of raising money in this manner is that an author can make or supplement a living by writing.  This is generally seen as a good thing.  It may not be as important in the grand scheme of things as feeding the hungry or fighting disease, but advancing the arts is universally accepted as a positive outcome.

And if the ends don’t justify the means, then anything objectionable is objectionable in the name of charity or otherwise.

In either case, authors should be doing more of this sort of thing.