Not really. I mean, I guess it helps with the general status differential, but it doesn't resolve the general "ick" I get from the idea of a transaction where one of two things will happen:

1. I will get value, and you will not get paid.
2. I will get negative value, and you will get paid.

Basically, someone always loses; it pattern-matches a negative-sum game, even though it's not one. But you're binding me to give to charity, then there's a way to see it as win/win from my perspective, and win/win from your perspective (success story, or charity story plus money; either of which is helpful for your marketing).

...

This is about the 3rd or 4th rationalization I've given for why this is important to me. I honestly can't give a good external reason for why you should believe any of them, since they're probably not all truly necessary factors in why I'm making an issue of this. But I can sincerely attest that despite the shifting rationalizations, this feels to me like a good line for me to hold, and like something that will honestly help you get customers if you do it.