Community/Local Matters

I've been to Grill'd a few times since I've been on Australia and they run a scheme called Local Matters in the same why that Waitrose runs Community Matters in the UK. For those not familiar with the schemes, you are given a token when you have completed your shopping (or in the case of Grill'd, a bottle top when you've placed your order) to vote for one of three local charities to recieve the current month's donation from the company. Now don't get me wrong, I think this is a fantastic initiative to help boost much needed funding for small charities but there are a few things that bug me or that could be improved. 

Firstly it seems unfair that there's always one container that almost full while the other two are really struggling. At Waitrose it is usually the first box shoppers come to on their way out so it's seems less down to a consious decision and more of a hurried 'need to get the shopping home.'  What goes in Grill'd's favour is that there were people genuinely reading about the charities before making their choice. Even so, one jar was two thirds full while the base of the other two was barely covered. Psychologically, who will choose the emptier jars when they don't seem to have a chance of 'winning'? So there's a couple of suggestions here. Why not have solid containers so people are less likely to be influenced by the current rankings? And what about positioning the stand where there isn't an obvious jar that is passed first?

On my last visit to Grill'd I carefully read the description of all three charities before making my choice and was weighing up between two - Sydney Youth Orchestras (self-explanatory!) and Gondwana Choirs which provide bursaries for disadvantaged children to join Sydney Children's Choir. As I said previously there was one jar two thirds full while the other two had barely covered the bottom. My choices filled the role of the later two so what was the charity that was streets ahead?  A charity called Look Good... Feel Better which is run by the Cancer Patients Foundation. They run workshops help improve the wellbeing/confidence of people undergoing treatment for cancer by addressing the appearance-related side-effects caused by their cancer treatment. Of course this is a more than worthy charity but I couldn't help but feel that the other two 'recreational' charities didn't stand a chance against the 'health' charity. There are indeed hidden benefits to being part of of choir or orchestra with social and creative skills and benefits being developed but I would argue that the general public wouldn't be aware of these. So here's my suggestion for a further improvement: why not put similar charities together for each vote? Group 'health' charities, 'arts' organisations, 'children's' charities, 'animal' charities. Perhaps then each charity starts on a more equal footing. 

I don't feel completely dismayed though. My sense of unfairness stems from my thought that the charity with the highest total gained the whole donation while the other two gained nothing but I've since learnt that all the charities get something. Waitrose's website states that, 'The more tokens a cause gets, the bigger the donation they receive. Each month every Waitrose branch donates £1,000 (£500 in Convenience shops) between 3 local good causes that you choose.' Grill'd splits their $500, $300 to the highest and $100 to each to the remainders which brings me back to my initial statement that at least local charities are gaining much needed funds from these national corporations.