We’re hearing a lot of buzz over the term competitive compassion. Unofficially defined, competitive compassion is contributing to a charity or cause in a greater amount than others or for recognition.  The term was often used following the 2004 tsunami in South Asia, when governments were practically stumbling over each other to out-donate each other with relief support.  Lately, we’ve seen it used in describing what one reporter describes as the “look-at-me” approach to philanthropy.

Maybe it’s because of Oprah’s latest endeavor, “The Big Give,” that we talked about last week.  Or the Donald’s “The Celebrity Apprentice,” where giving is a competition ... among celebrities.  Or recent praise for actress Drew Barrymore’s  donation of a $1 million to the UN's World Food Programme, followed by criticism of her very public announcement of it.  After all, celebrities are often criticized to have fallen victim to such display of competitiveness.  It seems like everywhere you look a celebrity is coming out for a cause, donating just a little more money than their co-star.  

Oprah’s latest endeavor and Trump’s spin-off have both received criticism from the insiders of the nonprofit world as well as the media itself.  One would be hard-pressed to not face competition in the corporate world, but when it comes to philanthropy, it seems to be a bit out of character.

What do you think?  Is competitive compassion turning philanthropy into an exercise of self-congratulation?  Or is any awareness, competitive or not, good for the industry?