Charities asking for specific amounts
Just seen an advert for crisis at Xmas, asking for £29.06, Salvation Army asking for £19, and there are a few others too.
The wife and I don’t do Xmas cards, and every year we recon we’d be spending around £50 quid on cards and stamps that we’d rather give to local charities.
The trouble is, many of them are now setting a minimum amount for donation, try and donate anything less and their system just won’t allow it.
So charities that in the past would get a donation are now getting nowt..
Case in point, wife wanted to send £10 to an animal charity, minimum donation £15 so she donated the £10 quid elsewhere..
Whatever happed to send any amount no matter how small??
Last edited by Enoch; 28th December 2021 at 18:14.
Most charities are very professional in their marketing and I'd be very surprised if they haven't tested this. The outcome is probably that the cash brought in from the enforced minimum is greater than the cash lost from receiving nothing from smaller donors. I'm not sure if they've factored in the loss of goodwill and how that might impact on the lifetime value of a donor.
Apparently the £29.06 is what it costs to provide a person with a range of services over Christmas.
https://www.crisis.org.uk/crisis-at-...tmas-why-2906/
I think it will potentially put people off.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Excatly.Originally Posted by Enoch
Folk should donate according to their means, and more importantly what they want to donate.
I'm not impressed by the amount of TV chugging.
Donkey sanctuaries
Cat rescue homes
Dolphin rescue
Bear re-homing
If I was cynical I'd be thinking that many of these charities are simply a 'business' to keep those in charge well heeled, and to maintain their £100k salaries they proliferate the TV ads.
I like your principles regarding Christmas cards. The figures mentioned don't half smell of psychological pricing. I suspect that buried away there will be a box allowing a donation of an alternative lower amount but it is bound to put some people off and can only assume that they believe it is worth it.
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
What about the poor old pensioner who wants to donate a couple of quid. Apparently their money isn’t welcome. It’s fundamentally discriminatory in that it prevents low income families donating.
I was only talking about this to a friend and he was saying how some of these people at the top of charities are REALLY milking it, TZ/Eddie mentioned to me about one of my favorite charities which also made me think.
I do the post code lottery and I saw that almost 70% of all monies is lost to "expenses", makes one think.
I believe charities are increasingly trying to associate your donation to a specific outcome, so rather than asking people to donate into a big pot for 'stuff' to be done.
So donate £29.06 and you'll be providing all the services an individual homeless person needs over Christmas. Or donate £5 and you'll be providing a malaria net for a child. Or donate £30 and you'll provide the medical supplies needed for a midwife in Africa to more safely deliver a dozen babies etc.
Of course beneath the surface it's the exact same thing, but I do think it's a smart move to associate a specific amount to an outcome. I also have little doubt it results in a net increase in donations for the charity, or they simply wouldn't stick with it. The amount of folk who donate more to achieve the intended outcome must simply outweigh the amount of people who would have donated less and now go elsewhere.
p.s. always use gift aid through your employer if it's available and you're in one of the higher tax brackets
We’ve done it for years Matthew, and we also ask all our friends and relatives to not send us a card, but consider a small donation to the charity of their choice instead🤔
Most people just chuck the cards in the bin after Xmas anyway..
At least Eddie’s charity is still able to take smaller amounts.👍👍
It’s always been my belief that most of the money goes on wages anyway!
I've seen this and been put off as well. Also reading about the salaries of CEOs and staff of some charities is off putting to me. I now usually give only to small charities. Mostly animal and dog charities to be honest that are run by a few volunteers working hard to help the lost causes.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I do cards for older family, but work & friends know it will be a donation instead of a card and everyone is happy.
Just makes so much sense for all.
I note mention of the Postcode lottery earlier.
My good lady watches Emmerdale and I couldn't help but notice they sponsor the show
How much of the 'donated' money do they waste advertising in prime time slots?
Call me cynical but anybody playing this with the gracious thought they are donating to a good cause must surely question this practice.
I would love to disagree , but I cant. As a founder member of the Pendle Pub Walk we have raised £100K per year for your local Hospice. Since the funding was directed at the Pendleside Hospice we know the funds to go towards the wages of care eg nurses and support work in the Hospice which it does.
If you step back to more traditional charities with £150k CEO’s plus scandalous holiday excesses, you have to question giving.
I would put money on this.
This year's "stand up to cancer" on Channel 4 had four text options - £20, £30, £40 or £50. I used to happily chuck a fiver or a tenner in, usually after one of the emotionally charged story segments, but this year we totally vetoed it. I was actually a bit annoyed at them for insisting on minimum 20 quid donations, regardless of the fact that I'd usually donate that and more I several separate texts.
I also saw the weird £29.06 TV ad though, I was trying to work that one out too...
Ex Wife was once approached to be FD of a well known charity, we were both in total disbelief of the salary being offered
The Red Cross generally end up 'in front' financially with most of their campaigns - they had an operating surplus of £10 million in 2020.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
We used to give a monthly amount to a selected charity which we would pick at the start of the year .
This was until we looked at their accounts ,wow the salaries ,pensions etc that they get is unbelievable , so now we only donate to local charities where we can be sure that no one is getting a six figure salary and huge pension pot out of our donations .
Just a thought, are we sure a 6 figure salary for the CEO of a large charity is unreasonable?
Some of these charities have income in the hundreds of millions per year, some are in the billions. Don't we want competent, qualified people leading these organisations? Where are they going to come from if the charity doesn't pay a decent salary? Isn't there far more at risk from incompetent leadership? These 'shocking' amounts sound low compared to their private sector counterparts.
Unless you're willing to go and do your full-time job for charity for well below market rate, why would you expect it from others?
p.s. I'm by no means saying no dodgy things happen within charities. My point is simply that the assumption a 6-figure salary automatically is a bad thing doesn't seem logical.
Not on my money I’m afraid.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...042677,00.html
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I make no secret of the fact that I volunteer with a small charity, that has no paid staff, no expensive offices and that every single penny donated goes towards training, and enabling (airfares, cargo costs equipment etc) the volunteers to carry out the objectives of the charity. We buy and personally pay for the majority of our own equipment, travel expenses etc.
If people want to make a donation to help us, no matter how much, it's all appreciated and all very much used for the purpose it was donated, not to pay salaries, pensions, high end offices etc.
We have on occasions worked alongside some of the big name charities (including one mentioned in this thread) who pay massive salaries to executives and "good" salaries and retainers to staff who do the same or similar to our unpaid volunteers, and their (the large charities) approach is we must spend everything we can, to ensure all the money donated is spent on something... which in the case of one UK operation included big screen TV's (to watch the news), Sat nav units (to help find the locations for aid to be distributed) and servicing and repairs of personal vehicles "because they were used in the operation" i.e driven to the operations center, parked up, and driven home again.
At one stage following the 2004 Tsunami, a conglomerate of UK big charities had a surplus fund of over 3 million that they physically could not spend, and would not allow other independent charities to tap in to, because it might affect the donations they received in future.
Said conglomerate still exists, still advertises for donations for every Disaster and Emergency they Commit to help with, and still pay their Executives a Blue Chip level salary, whilst our volunteers give up family time, holiday leave and salary to train and carry out the work we do.
The Crisis at Christmas page currently looks like this
The money splashing around in some of the bigger charities is ridiculous. Take Water Aid for example. For the amount of money they've raised since 1981 they should have plumbed in the whole of Africa by now.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
There's a cost to the administration and stewardship associated with any gift, large or small. Some charities will be concerned that gifts in small denominations will skew the ratio between income and costs, as mentioned earlier. This may play a part in suggesting a larger amount.
They may also be deliberate in 'stretching' donations above the historical average, to meet needs.
These developments may be unwelcome, but are probably a logical response to the philanthropic marketplace.
I can't quite work out what you're saying here.
I donate local as the national “schemes” are just too depressing.
https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charit...rticle/1579223
Aside from income to salary and cost ratios, there are some poor practices with disclosures despite guidance that would require disclosing key data.
Last edited by joe narvey; 30th December 2021 at 05:22.
All those little old ladies who donate some of there pension to those nice people who they think do it voluntarily
I bet if when they show those tear jerking adverts they put the salaries on screen, donations would go through the floor.
Basically that charities spend too much on big salaries.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I take it all back i'm a winner !!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)
You have won!
Dear John,
Congratulations, your postcode is a winner!
You have won £10 for every ticket you play with in postcode LE6 0FJ. Your winnings will be paid into the account you have registered with us within 28 days.
Check the weekend's winning postcodes »
Fingers crossed your postcode is lucky again very soon!
People's Postcode Lottery Team
P.S. You can share your good news with friends and family...
Does an average of £79k for a CEO position seem high though? I don't think I'd want the responsibility for that money to be honest.
There are a few tv channels we have given up watching as my mrs is very caring and has got fed up with streams of charity ads every 10 mins or so it seems
A lot are much higher than that. And yes I think it's way too high. It's not just the CEOs salary, many of these charities have a lot of staff on high salaries. How many little old ladies donations go to pay the RSPCA CEOs £140k and The National Trust's £179k? I think it's scandalous when they're begging money off people. And before people say you have to pay that kind of money to get the right people I don't believe it.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Of course you don't.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
PAH that sort of money's not even rated as chicken feed to your bona fide world beating leadery types.
Last edited by Passenger; 29th December 2021 at 20:05.
That isn't giving to charity that is gambling, and thinking you have some control over what happens to the money you lose.
If you want to donate to a charity then donate directly to them.
But those are large organisations, so who's going to run them? If you want someone competent with the right experience, then surely you have to pay for it? Those salaries are very low compared to their private sector counterparts. Effectively middle management numbers for CEO positions.
I think folk need to realise there's a drastic difference between those who volunteer for a charity (i.e. offer their spare time for free) and people who work for charities (i.e. no different to working for any other organisation and is ultimately an exchange of services for money).
I don't disagree that there will be wastage in charities just like in any other organisation by the way, and a few bad eggs mixed in no doubt.
Isn't it the standard charity business model that 1/3rd of donations goes on advertising and marketing, 1/3rd goes on wages and operating expenses and 1/3rd eventually gets donated?
Absolutely. For example, cancer research charities have been instrumental in reducing the childhood cancer mortality rate from 80% to 20% over the past 40 years. You have to employ the best skilled professionals to achieve such results. Our daughter's Clic nurse works long hours providing an invaluable service not available through the NHS and still has to put food on her table. Not everything can be achieved with unpaid volunteers.
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
No.
Where did you get that idea from?
Charites have many varied structures and ways of fundraising.
All charities have to submit proper accounts and this information is in the public domain
Absolutely.
I wonder how many members on here have either personally had a stent fitted or a heart bypass operation or has a family member who has?
None of those things would have been researched and made happen without medical research charities.
No, far from it.
A lot of charities (particularly the smaller ones) usually get to the back end of the financial year with little security and an uncertain following year. There are varying numbers of volounteers, often many hours are give FOC by salaried staff. The third sector is often misunderstood/maligned by those that have no real knowledge of the sector and the processes involved (especially where this involves a service provision for a local authority).
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
My wife used to work for an NGO in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan during the mid-90s. Later, she was member of supervisory boards of NGO's. So she knows a thing or two how these 'clubs' operate.
Often, Charities with a big name are a 'front store' for all sorts of small(er) NGO's who are too small to put up an advertising campaign. And they're good. Marketing-wise it's the Premier League. Basically, there's nothing wrong with that. Some of those 'front stores' have people at the top who get a healthy sum. Not those NGO-people working in the field. Often, these NGO's have some sort of specialization, like 'Aid to women in Burundi' etc. A niche market that has no strong marketing 'call'. For those NGO's it's like being between a rock and a hard place: they have legit doubts about those 'big earners', but they cannot operate without their help!
Oh well, since this is a watch forum; perhaps we all should buy a Rolex. https://www.rolex.org/perpetual
Last edited by thieuster; 29th December 2021 at 21:03.
That salary list is for 2003.
The £29.06 for Crisis is a questionable figure, I’ve seen a lot of debate about it and there doesn’t seem to be much evidence to back it up unfortunately.
I work for a charity but most of there income is from government contacts, fundraising is a very small part of the income.
I volunteer for a few charities, one is a local charity with no paid staff, and no central funding if we need something we have to fundraise or apply for grants.
Another charity is a local branch of a national charity, part of our income is fed up the chain, the bottom two levels that I volunteer with have no paid staff, the next level very few and the top level a fair number. At the top level management and funds are poorly managed, we get no drip down funds so we have to also fundraise.
I’ve just started training for another national charity.
And the last charity I volunteer for I do so on a seasonal basis and they may have been mentioned in this thread a few times.
I’m still waiting for my Snow Leopard, very disappointed, I’ve built a run for it and everything
I think you would need to substantiate that statement. £Millions are spent in scientific research across the world and charities are not (fortunately) the largest contributors.
I also see a difference between Matthew’s nurse and general admin staff.
I cannot round the square of course, and no large charity can work without professionals admin and management. I just know that to me -and I am not alone judging from other posters- I find difficult to give money knowing it will pay for a TV advert, for example. I realise it is not as rational as I would like it to be but. . .
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Instead of asking me to substantiate my statement you could try googling before making your own totally inaccurate statements.
https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/ne...om%20the%20BHF.
That is one charity funding more than the UK Government.
As I said before anyone who has ever had a stent or had heart bypass surgery got it because the research was paid for by a charity.
There are equal claims in lots of other areas
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/our-progress
You may not have noticed but I mentioned the world. It may come as a surprise to you but other countries are also funding research and making discoveries that are subsequently used to save lives across the planet (although primarily in developed nations). So please get off your high horse.
As an aside I do not think it reflects well on our societies that charities are relied upon from what, for me, comes under the umbrella of a state responsibilities. That includes scientific research, cancer care, and veterans care, among others. But I suppose this is a different debate.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Across many developed nations I believe you are quite correct. In the UK charities go a long way to making up immense shortfalls in government funding, which is a stealth tax of sorts.*
https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../332/33209.htm
In the end you have to do due diligence and make a personal informed decision on whether to support a good cause or not. Having been a beneficiary of several amazingly supportive charitable organisations we are immensely grateful that they exist even if they are not absolutely perfect in altruistic terms.
* I note that our posts have crossed and cover the same ground.
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
