TLDR: It's an advertisement for a non-profit that mentions their website's name about a million times. The money is going to people in very poor places like Kenya. Almost all of it is spent on education fees, housing, food, and healthcare. About 3% on vices like tobacco.
It would be an advertisement if the writer was directly compensated or connected to GiveDirectly. That doesn't seem to be the case, and surely people who are operating in the philanthropy market would also follow FTC sponsorship disclosure laws?
As stated:
This is an unsolicited Op-Ed by an individual who is not being compensated by GiveDirectly, it’s patrons, benefactors, affiliates, or partners.
Calling it an advertisement detracts (and by definition, it isn't) from the essential: that there's good being done.
Why would they pay a near-nobody to advertise? That's not how this works. The money goes to Medium to host content as a native advertisement, or the money is spent on ads and promotion elsewhere to get more clicks on this article. Neither of which has to be disclosed.
Also - what a surprise. The article writer owns a marketing and advertising consulting company! With a specialty in social referral campaigns and native advertising! Which is coincidentally exactly what GiveDirectly is focusing on right now.
The lack of money directly exchanging hands between the person who wrote it and the beneficiary doesn't mean it isn't advertising.
It's interesting how this disclaimer says that Andrew isn't being compensated by GiveDirectly and its affiliates etc. It doesn't say anything about whether any of the affiliates of Andrew (such as his business) received compensation from GiveDirectly, which is the much more likely scenario. Regardless, it's easy enough for anyone to claim they're writing something as an individual and not as a service to their own company.
It seem like, these days, anyone talking about how something is good is "advertising". You're not allowed to praise or recommend anything, only criticize.
I think persuasion pieces have become somewhat synonymous with "advertising" due to the rise in popularity of sponsored content. With everyone trying to sell you something, it's hard not to become jaded.
The article was written by a guy who owns a advertising consulting business, specializing in social media and native advertising. He's trying to sell something, even if it's not strictly a business transaction directly between him and GiveDirectly.
It seem like, these days, anyone talking about how something is suspiciously lacking in transparency is a critic. You're not allowed to question or second guess anything, only mindlessly praise.
