We’ve all seen them; those television commercials and magazine advertisements that picture a child, their teary eyes looking directly at us, tugging at our heart strings if we fail to go online and donate just "50 cents a day" to save the child’s life. And what excuse do we have if ending such suffering is as easy as going online? With few exceptions, "the causes of suffering are never mentioned although we are assured the solutions are easy."

Meanwhile, in 2006, Blake Mycoskie, an American world traveler, befriended children in an Argentinian village and found they had no shoes on their feet. In an effort to help, Mycoskie founded TOMS, a company that for every pair of shoes purchased would give one to a child in need. Mykoskie is not the only individual with the best intentions behind his campaign; figures such as Madonna, and Bono with his (RED) Campaign, have also launched efforts in attempt to help people living in third-world countries.

Scholars, corporations, and consumers alike have analyzed the marketing techniques of UNICEF, Save the Children, Invisible Children, and other philanthropic organizations. They have also analyzed the marketing techniques of campaigns such as TOMS One for One and (RED). For these organizations, two overarching themes remain the same when it comes to getting our attention: point out the factors of convenience and, in some cases, personal gain.

Throughout this article, I will not examine the success of these charity appeals and campaigns in making a difference. I will not address the real needs of the beneficiaries whom these organizations help, nor will I discuss the negative effects of portraying them in the degrading way that many visual advertisements do (a conversation for another time). I will, however, call attention to the societal flaw that is the necessity for convenience and personal gain to encourage us to act altruistically.

Let’s use TOMS as an example. You go to almost any shoe store and pick a pair, and your good deed is displayed in bold across the box: "with every pair you purchase, TOMS will give a pair of new shoes to a child in need. One for One." It’s there for all to see. Not only did you just buy yourself a new pair of kicks, but you did a good deed in the process. How convenient -- it’s a win win! Or… is it?

Organizations, such as TOMS and (RED), use the process of "cause-related marketing" to sell their products. When you buy the product, you’re making a fashion statement that not only keeps you up with the latest trends, but simultaneously signifies your enlightenment surrounding the generosity of your purchase. Not only are you purchasing the product itself, but you’re purchasing the gratification of making a supposedly “radical” difference just by shopping.

While it is amazing for these campaigns to donate their goods and proceeds to those in need, the fact that they use cause-related marketing as a tactic to sell a product, knowing it will give us more incentive to buy and donate, points out a huge problem with us.

Isn’t there something wrong with the picture of having to GET something to be so inclined to do something good? Isn’t there something wrong with the picture of giving, but only when it’s convenient for us? Yes, there is.

However, there are those of us who do selflessly donate money without getting anything at all in return. Even when we aren’t purchasing a product, but donate even just one time to a given charity organization, many of us do so simply because it's convenient. Many of us donate because it's as easy as going online or making a quick phone call, so we may as well (despite the fact that many of those who donate often fail to educate themselves on where their money is actually going). Charity organizations recognize this societal flaw and highly emphasize the convenience of donating to encourage us to do so. However, we shouldn't just donate because it's convenient; we should donate because we care.

If you do want to donate to a charity organization, do your research. However, you can and should do more than just that. True altruism is not about convenience. It's not having a “may as well” mentality. It’s about doing all that you can do to make a difference. It’s about being connected to a cause and its solution. It’s about DOing, not just donating.

Humanitarian efforts should encourage action. According to Denis Kennedy, because humanitarian advertisements rely on “reflect reactions” from audiences, genuine compassion is translated into action in a way that entails limited engagement with the distant other: “we see, we react, and often, we forget.” We donate our money without much of a care to be connected to the cause, or human, it’s supposedly going to. Is this real altruism? No, real altruism goes hand-in-hand with compassion.

To put our time and energy (not just money) toward a cause is what real altruism is about. To volunteer in your own community, let alone beyond borders; to volunteer or work for a nonprofit organization; to do deeper research on the causes you advocate for; to DO something makes a larger difference. It encourages you to form a deeper connection to the issue. It allows you to feel genuine compassion and empathy for the cause. It brings human relationships to life. It allows you to actually feel fulfilled in a way that you will never forget.

With that, I encourage you to do something, despite the inconvenience, despite the fact that you may not get something in return. Time will always be worth more than money. Donating your time to act is what makes the real difference -- more than just your 50 cents a day, and more than just your flimsy shoes.