Consumers are often in positions of need. These needs may be as small as help picking a product to consume, or as large as finding food and shelter. Fulfilling those needs through the assistance of capable others is help-seeking. A substantial literature exists in certain arenas of help-seeking like advice taking, but there are several places in which little is known. This proposal highlights two areas of help-seeking which have been under-examined by consumer researchers: help seeking from non-profits, and consumer decision supports. In the first essay of this dissertation (Morningstar and Lamberton), I consider help-seeking behavior from non-profits. Almost all consumer research related to non-profits focuses on how to help non-profits raise funds. It is unknown how people in need respond to the fundraising tactics advocated by academics, especially when many are easily encountered by people in need. This essay considers one of those tactics: making non-profit clients look sad. Five experiments show that people in need interpret the use of sad people in fundraising ads as disrespectful, and are less likely to seek help when non-profits use this tactic. This occurs in five different areas of help, both when salient alternatives are and are not available. This research carries an impetus for both academics and fundraisers to re-evaluate the tactics they advocate. The second essay of this dissertation (Morningstar, Lamberton, and Williams) considers the worth of delegation services to firms. While the ability to delegate offers many benefits to people in need of decision support, previous research suggests it would not be used often, and may be used to scapegoat. Across five experiments, I show that delegation services may indeed have worth to firms, because delegation services can shield firms from blame—when they are not used. This occurs because the presence of a delegation service is a signal of competence, and competent others are not blamed for negative experiences. Delegating, seeing firms make the negative choice, is a more diagnostic indicator of competence, so this competence signal appears only among people who have the opportunity to delegate, and do not use it.