Fundraising is a hard game. In fact, it is a very hard game. Encouraging people to part with hard earned money, with no clear advantage to them, is almost impossible.

Whether it is one step closer to a cure or treatment for a life threatening condition, creating a way out of a near impossible hole for those in need, or perhaps creating awareness of a local, national or global threat, all charities rely on donations, and all compete heavily for attention and contributions.

Donations can come from individuals or companies, and every penny received has the potential to make a subtle difference.

But with the world ‘flooded’ with worthwhile causes, just how much should hard working individuals give away of their income? And to the causes, although appreciated, will it simply ever be enough?

Is it any wonder that increasing numbers of people develop a condition called ‘donor apathy’, where they feel they have given all that they can internally justify, while still making sure that they also have enough left for their own needs?

Donor apathy doesn’t mean lack of compassion or care for the cause, and the worthy demands of the campaign recipients. It doesn’t mean that people are not generous. It simply means that donors have learned that the pain of giving has become greater than the pain of not giving, even if the benefits of helping the cause are recognised, and the desire to give is over-ruled.

This does not make the ‘non-donor’ a bad person. And not everyone has the wealth to change the world the way they might want.

And with so many people increasingly de-sensitised to worthy causes, and learning to say ‘no’, the work for charities to raise donations becomes even harder still, creating the No.1 biggest threat to charities and NGOs.


With some charities turning to more manipulative and highly vivid imagery of suffering and pain of those in need, these causes may temporarily gain limited success in squeezing the last remaining drops out of the generous donors, unable to forgive themselves if they did not lend that extra hand, hoping that this last donation will help tip the balance towards a better future.

But the reality is, that it often won’t. There will always be new causes, and never enough to go around through donations like this alone.

Companies, on the other hand, operate to make profits, large or small, and giving away potential profit to good causes can only be done if there is enough left over , after paying all costs, including shareholders, salaries, and other operational overheads. The generosity of businesses cannot be underestimated, but donor apathy exists here too.


Aurora believes it has found a possible ‘cure’. By people simply living their lives, as they would otherwise, enjoying special offers through Aurora, learning more about good causes, and participating in other ways to generate donation revenue, money can be ‘created’ for worthy charitable causes which would otherwise not have been made available. With all this seamless to the Aurora user, whose day to day activities turn them into an unwitting fundraiser, they earn a balance on their account, doing little or nothing different than ‘normal’. In conjunction with Aurora,  this donation can then be donated to the good causes the Aurora user feels is most worthy, and without having to reach into their own pockets.


With Aurora’s business model of ‘win-win-win-win’, all stakeholders, from charities, site users, device owners, to partners, and product suppliers all benefitting from the Aurora facilitated relationship, increased donations are generated with no obvious down-side, and no trace of donor apathy, hopefully making it a thing of the past.