This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Does anyone else find it odd that someone would get sponsored (usually by friends, colleagues, random folk they ask for sponsorship) to do an event, that they don't mind doing, or even enjoy, to then donate the money to charity, but provide absolutely nothing to those who sponsored them.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that people are motivated to generate funds for charities or medical research, but what's the point if the sponsor gets nothing(?) - they may as well just ask for the money in a bucket and save themselves from the exertion of whatever they were planning to do.
Hopefully you get what I'm getting at, but here's an example:
A keen marathon runner asks for sponsorship (of which they plan to donate to charity) to run a marathon.
On the other hand, to me a more worthwhile cause of sponsorship would be:
If the person that was planning to run the marathon was overweight and didn't train the sponsor may get the satisfaction that the individual would be amusingly uncomfortable during the marathon etc.
It's not really a rant, but I think I'm done. Do people agree?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that people are motivated to generate funds for charities or medical research, but what's the point if the sponsor gets nothing(?) - they may as well just ask for the money in a bucket and save themselves from the exertion of whatever they were planning to do.
Hopefully you get what I'm getting at, but here's an example:
A keen marathon runner asks for sponsorship (of which they plan to donate to charity) to run a marathon.
On the other hand, to me a more worthwhile cause of sponsorship would be:
If the person that was planning to run the marathon was overweight and didn't train the sponsor may get the satisfaction that the individual would be amusingly uncomfortable during the marathon etc.
It's not really a rant, but I think I'm done. Do people agree?
In reply to Merlin: The constant requests for donations to run 10 or even 5K fun runs grates on me a little. I realise that it's a big thing for some people but that doesn't change the fact that it's not that hard to run 10km on the flat. I just don't find it impressive enough to warrant my money. I'd much rather give a fiver to the local MRT where I know the money isn't going to be used to support [insert charity]'s CEO ridiculous salary.
In reply to Merlin:
You're not supposed to get anything in return for donations to charity. Why should the sponsors expect the person they sponsor to provide them with anything at all? Have you perhaps become confused by this well-known satyrical sketch: youtube.com/watch?v=YUhb0XII93I& - did you not understand that that was meant to be funny rather than serious?
You're not supposed to get anything in return for donations to charity. Why should the sponsors expect the person they sponsor to provide them with anything at all? Have you perhaps become confused by this well-known satyrical sketch: youtube.com/watch?v=YUhb0XII93I& - did you not understand that that was meant to be funny rather than serious?
In reply to Martin W:
Because that's the whole point of sponsorship - the funding is generally in return for something. Take a football team, the sponsor gets publicity.
My whole argument is that this seems to be lost on most.
Or else it would be exactly as you said 'a donation', which is not sponsorship, and negates the need for the individual/team to do anything.
Because that's the whole point of sponsorship - the funding is generally in return for something. Take a football team, the sponsor gets publicity.
My whole argument is that this seems to be lost on most.
Or else it would be exactly as you said 'a donation', which is not sponsorship, and negates the need for the individual/team to do anything.
In reply to Merlin:
No, not really. What I find mystifying, and wrong, is people asking for money to go and climb Everest e.g. "Help me climb Everest for charity - sponsor X,Y,Z". What they don't write is that the FIRST 30,000+ quid they raise pays for their trip with a commercial provider - any money raised ON TOP of that goes to the charity (more than one current example can easily be found on the web but I won't name and shame).
You will be sponsoring their dreams, holiday, and 'trip of a lifetime', and - in cases I've seen - launching their career as motivational speakers (and 'fundraisers' - is that even a job?!)
I want to say no, why don't you raise money and just give it to the charity? Or pay your own Everest fees separately by working for a while, then pass all the sponsors' money to the charity?*
(*I know some people do this. I'm talking about the ones who don't.)
Rant over
Signed
Abseil
Grumpy old git
> Does anyone else find it odd that someone would get sponsored (usually by friends, colleagues, random folk they ask for sponsorship) to do an event, that they don't mind doing, or even enjoy, to then donate the money to charity, but provide absolutely nothing to those who sponsored them...
No, not really. What I find mystifying, and wrong, is people asking for money to go and climb Everest e.g. "Help me climb Everest for charity - sponsor X,Y,Z". What they don't write is that the FIRST 30,000+ quid they raise pays for their trip with a commercial provider - any money raised ON TOP of that goes to the charity (more than one current example can easily be found on the web but I won't name and shame).
You will be sponsoring their dreams, holiday, and 'trip of a lifetime', and - in cases I've seen - launching their career as motivational speakers (and 'fundraisers' - is that even a job?!)
I want to say no, why don't you raise money and just give it to the charity? Or pay your own Everest fees separately by working for a while, then pass all the sponsors' money to the charity?*
(*I know some people do this. I'm talking about the ones who don't.)
Rant over
Signed
Abseil
Grumpy old git
Post edited at 04:04
In reply to Merlin:
I agree, it has to be an event that will be challenging for the participants.
I got really annoyed recently when on the basis of the info provided on the sponsorship sheet I sponsored a colleagues son to "ride 600 miles to help fund an aid ship". About a week later my colleague told me the ride had been done and when I exclaimed that was fast she said "well they were in the gym all weekend"
They did the 600 split between the two who were going and they did it indoors on gym bikes! To add to my annoyance, it turned out that the aid ship was actually a bloody Christian mission ship taking religious books to developing countries, how the hell is that going to aid people who haven't got any food shelter of medicine.
I agree, it has to be an event that will be challenging for the participants.
I got really annoyed recently when on the basis of the info provided on the sponsorship sheet I sponsored a colleagues son to "ride 600 miles to help fund an aid ship". About a week later my colleague told me the ride had been done and when I exclaimed that was fast she said "well they were in the gym all weekend"
They did the 600 split between the two who were going and they did it indoors on gym bikes! To add to my annoyance, it turned out that the aid ship was actually a bloody Christian mission ship taking religious books to developing countries, how the hell is that going to aid people who haven't got any food shelter of medicine.
In reply to Merlin:
I don't feel the need to benefit in any way by the person's activity, but it does seem to me like there's way too much of this sort of thing going on, many of which are ridiculously trivial, like a sponsored walk of no great distance. Also the notion that some people are doing everest for charity and using part of the funds to pay for their ticket is completely outrageous, I'm shocked anyone would do that.
I don't feel the need to benefit in any way by the person's activity, but it does seem to me like there's way too much of this sort of thing going on, many of which are ridiculously trivial, like a sponsored walk of no great distance. Also the notion that some people are doing everest for charity and using part of the funds to pay for their ticket is completely outrageous, I'm shocked anyone would do that.
In reply to Merlin:
I think you are confusing two quite different types of sponsorship.
One is the type of sponsorship, where an individual aims to raise money for a charity by doing something slightly out of the ordinary. Here, you are being asked to sponsor someone to do something by making a personal donation to a nominated charity. I don't think this type of sponsor should reasonably expect to get anything in return, just like you wouldn't expect to get anything except a warm glow from sticking money in a collection box. Of course this gets muddied a bit in situations where the sponsored individual covers their own costs but needs to raise a certain amount of money to earn a place on something they wanted to do anyway, like the London Marathon (ok IMHO) or where sponsorship includes the cost of the individual's entry to the event, like climbing Everest (very much not ok IMHO). Certainly I would be more inclined to offer sponsorship if either the person was a good friend undertaking a significant personal challenge, or the charity was a cause that was important to me, but I don't think you can expect to get anything back except perhaps vicarious satisfaction from helping a mate fulfil a goal.
The other type of sponsorship is the commercial sort where a company pays an individual a stipend so that they can do what they would do anyway, but in exchange for publicity for the company. Effectively, this is more like being a contractor, than it is like the first kind of sponsorship. In the case of large-scale sporting sponsorships, like a sports team, then it will be a full-on business relationship, with the team treating it as a revenue source and the and the money coming out of the sponsor's marketing budget, so yes the sponsor would expect to get something back in exchange for their cash.
So no I don't really agree with the point in your OP as I think these two situations are quite different types of relationship.
Seems a bit weird tbh.
I think you are confusing two quite different types of sponsorship.
One is the type of sponsorship, where an individual aims to raise money for a charity by doing something slightly out of the ordinary. Here, you are being asked to sponsor someone to do something by making a personal donation to a nominated charity. I don't think this type of sponsor should reasonably expect to get anything in return, just like you wouldn't expect to get anything except a warm glow from sticking money in a collection box. Of course this gets muddied a bit in situations where the sponsored individual covers their own costs but needs to raise a certain amount of money to earn a place on something they wanted to do anyway, like the London Marathon (ok IMHO) or where sponsorship includes the cost of the individual's entry to the event, like climbing Everest (very much not ok IMHO). Certainly I would be more inclined to offer sponsorship if either the person was a good friend undertaking a significant personal challenge, or the charity was a cause that was important to me, but I don't think you can expect to get anything back except perhaps vicarious satisfaction from helping a mate fulfil a goal.
The other type of sponsorship is the commercial sort where a company pays an individual a stipend so that they can do what they would do anyway, but in exchange for publicity for the company. Effectively, this is more like being a contractor, than it is like the first kind of sponsorship. In the case of large-scale sporting sponsorships, like a sports team, then it will be a full-on business relationship, with the team treating it as a revenue source and the and the money coming out of the sponsor's marketing budget, so yes the sponsor would expect to get something back in exchange for their cash.
So no I don't really agree with the point in your OP as I think these two situations are quite different types of relationship.
> If the person that was planning to run the marathon was overweight and didn't train the sponsor may get the satisfaction that the individual would be amusingly uncomfortable during the marathon etc.
Seems a bit weird tbh.
Post edited at 09:43
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
What would be a non-ridiculous salary for a charity CEO?
> I know the money isn't going to be used to support [insert charity]'s CEO ridiculous salary.
What would be a non-ridiculous salary for a charity CEO?
In reply to Merlin:
Another thing that bugs me about all these stupid little 5/10k runs or even worse WALKS! Is the fact that I believe most people who do them and bombard you through Facebook etc, begging for money for their charity of choice. Are only doing it to show what a kind, giving, world saving and wonderfull person they are. I bet if we didnt have social media where every body feels the need to tell the world about the shit things theyy do in a day, the majority wouldnt be doing any thing for charity. If you want to give to charity, stick ya hand in ya own pocket! See how giving and charitable you are then lol
Another thing that bugs me about all these stupid little 5/10k runs or even worse WALKS! Is the fact that I believe most people who do them and bombard you through Facebook etc, begging for money for their charity of choice. Are only doing it to show what a kind, giving, world saving and wonderfull person they are. I bet if we didnt have social media where every body feels the need to tell the world about the shit things theyy do in a day, the majority wouldnt be doing any thing for charity. If you want to give to charity, stick ya hand in ya own pocket! See how giving and charitable you are then lol
In reply to Merlin:
I can't afford to give money to everyone who asks me for sponsorship money, so my rules are:
1) the person must be doing something that is tough for them. So if a very unfit person wanted to run a 5k I'd say yes. But if someone who regularly run marathons was running a marathon, I'd probably only sponsor them on the condtion they run a PB.
2) It must be costing them money i.e. they aren't getting a free entry paid for by me to do something fun.
I can't afford to give money to everyone who asks me for sponsorship money, so my rules are:
1) the person must be doing something that is tough for them. So if a very unfit person wanted to run a 5k I'd say yes. But if someone who regularly run marathons was running a marathon, I'd probably only sponsor them on the condtion they run a PB.
2) It must be costing them money i.e. they aren't getting a free entry paid for by me to do something fun.
In reply to Merlin:
I think what the sponsor gains is the "feel good" about helping the person to raise money and I don't think the sponsor should gain anything for helping a charity, the charity often support people who have less than the sponsor.
I agree with a most in that sponsorship that goes towards paying for a trip is not fair. The participant should front the money for the trip so all sponsorship goes to charity!
I suppose these trips do provide a lot of income for charities so we shouldn't diss them too much.
I once cycled from Kent to Scotland and back and everyone along the way asked which charity we were supporting. We weren't. It was for fun, as are many of the trips that take place, they aren't generally a hardship or challenge.
If an overweight, unfit person trained and took part in a 5k, I would sponsor them. Someone who runs as a hobby, I would not sponsor.
Perhaps a sponsored litter pick? or beach tidy up would be best?
The sponsor gains a benefit, the person being sponsored will not enjoy it, and if they need to pick up 10, 000 pieces of litter I will definitely be a challenge!
I think what the sponsor gains is the "feel good" about helping the person to raise money and I don't think the sponsor should gain anything for helping a charity, the charity often support people who have less than the sponsor.
I agree with a most in that sponsorship that goes towards paying for a trip is not fair. The participant should front the money for the trip so all sponsorship goes to charity!
I suppose these trips do provide a lot of income for charities so we shouldn't diss them too much.
I once cycled from Kent to Scotland and back and everyone along the way asked which charity we were supporting. We weren't. It was for fun, as are many of the trips that take place, they aren't generally a hardship or challenge.
If an overweight, unfit person trained and took part in a 5k, I would sponsor them. Someone who runs as a hobby, I would not sponsor.
Perhaps a sponsored litter pick? or beach tidy up would be best?
The sponsor gains a benefit, the person being sponsored will not enjoy it, and if they need to pick up 10, 000 pieces of litter I will definitely be a challenge!
In reply to DaveR:
Couldn't have put it better myself....
> (In reply to Merlin)
>
> I can't afford to give money to everyone who asks me for sponsorship money, so my rules are:
>
> 1) the person must be doing something that is tough for them. So if a very unfit person wanted to run a 5k I'd say yes. But if someone who regularly run marathons was running a marathon, I'd probably only sponsor them on the condtion they run a PB.
> 2) It must be costing them money i.e. they aren't getting a free entry paid for by me to do something fun.
>
> I can't afford to give money to everyone who asks me for sponsorship money, so my rules are:
>
> 1) the person must be doing something that is tough for them. So if a very unfit person wanted to run a 5k I'd say yes. But if someone who regularly run marathons was running a marathon, I'd probably only sponsor them on the condtion they run a PB.
> 2) It must be costing them money i.e. they aren't getting a free entry paid for by me to do something fun.
Couldn't have put it better myself....
In reply to Merlin:
I'm more loath to do anything for sponsorship as time goes by, as I can't stomach the idea the money will go towards some fat cats wage in the City, and the constant emotional blackmail bandied around.
Though I did ask for donations for Llanberis MRT a while back, and got next to nowt off the collective tightwads on this site.....
I'm more loath to do anything for sponsorship as time goes by, as I can't stomach the idea the money will go towards some fat cats wage in the City, and the constant emotional blackmail bandied around.
Though I did ask for donations for Llanberis MRT a while back, and got next to nowt off the collective tightwads on this site.....
In reply to Ste Brom:
This is what I was getting at. Charities have gotten too big for their boots and now have a huge wage and operating bill to pay before any good can come from our donations.
This is what I was getting at. Charities have gotten too big for their boots and now have a huge wage and operating bill to pay before any good can come from our donations.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Well yes they still have to recruit staff, rent offices, pay overheads etc. just like profit making companies. Do you have a better idea for how they should be run?
Well yes they still have to recruit staff, rent offices, pay overheads etc. just like profit making companies. Do you have a better idea for how they should be run?
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Lets start with CEO wage bills for a start...
http://www.theguardian.com/society/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.ht...
Lets start with CEO wage bills for a start...
http://www.theguardian.com/society/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.ht...
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
You want your donations to be used as well as possible but don't want to pay professionals to do it? Remind me again how many non-specialists know how to run a humanitarian aid effort in a war zone...
> This is what I was getting at. Charities have gotten too big for their boots and now have a huge wage and operating bill to pay before any good can come from our donations.
You want your donations to be used as well as possible but don't want to pay professionals to do it? Remind me again how many non-specialists know how to run a humanitarian aid effort in a war zone...
In reply to Merlin:
Choss of this parish asked people to give to his Just Giving page a while ago for some animal charity. He wrote at length about what they did and how great they were. Anyway, a few of us asked what he was going to do to raise this cash (as it was glaringly missing from his OP) and he replied "absolutely nothing". Apparently he doesn't believe in raising money through conventinal methods (i.e putting yourself through some event) and we were just expected to give the money
A bit like Geldof swearing at the TV without the concert going on in the background.
Choss of this parish asked people to give to his Just Giving page a while ago for some animal charity. He wrote at length about what they did and how great they were. Anyway, a few of us asked what he was going to do to raise this cash (as it was glaringly missing from his OP) and he replied "absolutely nothing". Apparently he doesn't believe in raising money through conventinal methods (i.e putting yourself through some event) and we were just expected to give the money
A bit like Geldof swearing at the TV without the concert going on in the background.
In reply to Ste Brom:
Okay, fair enough, but what is the going rate for someone running a large organisation - say several thousand people - with a multi-million pound annual budget and which does complex and specialist work?
> It's the excess I object to.
Okay, fair enough, but what is the going rate for someone running a large organisation - say several thousand people - with a multi-million pound annual budget and which does complex and specialist work?
In reply to seankenny:
That's not what I said and now you've put words into my mouth. Bad boy. Now, I'm not going to explain to you what you did wrong here but here's a response that will h opefully explain my stance a bit better.
I'm saying some charities have created a situation for them selves where they are now run like profit making organisations where the cause is second fiddle to the business.
That's not what I said and now you've put words into my mouth. Bad boy. Now, I'm not going to explain to you what you did wrong here but here's a response that will h opefully explain my stance a bit better.
I'm saying some charities have created a situation for them selves where they are now run like profit making organisations where the cause is second fiddle to the business.
In reply to Ste Brom:
I agree with Sean, if you can point to examples where charity CEOs are being paid above the going rate for their job description, compared to for-profit companies, then I am inclined to agree with you.
If they are being paid at or below the going rate, then what you are complaining about is excessive executive pay in general, which you might have a point about but is a separate issue.
I agree with Sean, if you can point to examples where charity CEOs are being paid above the going rate for their job description, compared to for-profit companies, then I am inclined to agree with you.
If they are being paid at or below the going rate, then what you are complaining about is excessive executive pay in general, which you might have a point about but is a separate issue.
In reply to seankenny:
Well, certainly not £91,000 p.a for the Donkey Sanctuary CEO.
That must be some logistical nightmare they have.
Well, certainly not £91,000 p.a for the Donkey Sanctuary CEO.
That must be some logistical nightmare they have.
In reply to Ste Brom:
It's not just the amount they are paid, its the numbers of executives too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-charities-hit-back-at-sal...
It's not just the amount they are paid, its the numbers of executives too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-charities-hit-back-at-sal...
In reply to Martin W: I think you are the one getting confused with the terms 'sponsorship' and 'donation'. I think the OP was saying they would much rather 'donate' to a charity of their choice than 'sponsor' a person to go an have fun! as others have said, sponsorship implies you are getting something in return
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Fortunately, being in a small company, I never get asked these days, but I know where you're coming from. And my friends are the sort of people who do these challenges for fun anyway.
However here's something to make you think. Last year my wife (aged 49) was persuaded by some friends to do the 5K run for life. She has never been a runner. I said that I would only sponsor her on condition that she ran the whole way, that if she was asking for money she had to suffer for it !
In 8 weeks she went from not being able to run for a minute, to doing the 5k in 33 mins, and then a few months later running a 10k in 1.03. She now runs 2 or 3 times a week and it has been truly life-changing
The other factor is that in doing a local run, there are far less external costs than some of the more attention grabbing charity events such as London to Paris cycle, and of course the infamous 3 peaks. As to Kilimanjiro. Machu Pichu etc - pay for your own holidays !
> The constant requests for donations to run 10 or even 5K fun runs grates on me a little. I realise that it's a big thing for some people but that doesn't change the fact that it's not that hard to run 10km on the flat. I just don't find it impressive enough to warrant my money.
Fortunately, being in a small company, I never get asked these days, but I know where you're coming from. And my friends are the sort of people who do these challenges for fun anyway.
However here's something to make you think. Last year my wife (aged 49) was persuaded by some friends to do the 5K run for life. She has never been a runner. I said that I would only sponsor her on condition that she ran the whole way, that if she was asking for money she had to suffer for it !
In 8 weeks she went from not being able to run for a minute, to doing the 5k in 33 mins, and then a few months later running a 10k in 1.03. She now runs 2 or 3 times a week and it has been truly life-changing
The other factor is that in doing a local run, there are far less external costs than some of the more attention grabbing charity events such as London to Paris cycle, and of course the infamous 3 peaks. As to Kilimanjiro. Machu Pichu etc - pay for your own holidays !
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Erm, you wrote: "Charities have gotten too big for their boots and now have a huge wage and operating bill to pay before any good can come from our donations."
You're saying, essentially, that wage bills are too high. In fact, they are "huge". I'm saying that doing good work sometimes costs money as it requires specialist skills.
Fair enough. Can you tell me which charities, and show the evidence that they are doing this?
> That's not what I said and now you've put words into my mouth. Bad boy. Now, I'm not going to explain to you what you did wrong here but here's a response that will h opefully explain my stance a bit better.
Erm, you wrote: "Charities have gotten too big for their boots and now have a huge wage and operating bill to pay before any good can come from our donations."
You're saying, essentially, that wage bills are too high. In fact, they are "huge". I'm saying that doing good work sometimes costs money as it requires specialist skills.
> I'm saying some charities have created a situation for them selves where they are now run like profit making organisations where the cause is second fiddle to the business.
Fair enough. Can you tell me which charities, and show the evidence that they are doing this?
In reply to Merlin:
Just treat the sponsorship request as a bringing a charity to your notice.
If you think the charity is worthwhile then donate to it directly, no need for the money to go via the person. This avoids paying for someone's holiday.
Just treat the sponsorship request as a bringing a charity to your notice.
If you think the charity is worthwhile then donate to it directly, no need for the money to go via the person. This avoids paying for someone's holiday.
In reply to Merlin:
I find this thread depressing, yes there are a few piss takers out there but if someone is passionate about a good cause and wants to raise some money for it then I am not going to criticise them for it.
My brother ran the cumbria way when our mum died to raise money for the cottage hospital that cared for her in her final weeks. Managed to raise about 3k which was much needed and helped by some new equipment. That is the reality of what many of these sponsored event are...
It up to individuals to make a decision as to if they feel the cause is worthy before giving, Yes there is a lot of this about and its easy to get cynical (easier for most on here ) but lets remember that in most cases the money actually helps people.
I find this thread depressing, yes there are a few piss takers out there but if someone is passionate about a good cause and wants to raise some money for it then I am not going to criticise them for it.
My brother ran the cumbria way when our mum died to raise money for the cottage hospital that cared for her in her final weeks. Managed to raise about 3k which was much needed and helped by some new equipment. That is the reality of what many of these sponsored event are...
It up to individuals to make a decision as to if they feel the cause is worthy before giving, Yes there is a lot of this about and its easy to get cynical (easier for most on here ) but lets remember that in most cases the money actually helps people.
In reply to Ben07:
I'm doing a bike ride in 2 weeks across country. 176 miles over three days. Trivial to some, quite a challenge for me and two lads I'm doing it with and we've been battering the hills around derbyshire to get a little bit fitter in preparation.
It is a bit odd when you think about it - "I'm doing this, so give me some money", but maybe it's just one of those queer eccentricities we have.
It's always optional to donate (even though some people overdo the facebook requests) I'm raising a bit of focus for the charity in question and getting some money in. All the incidental costs (transport, fuels, food, campsites, equipment, support van, etc) are coming out of out own pockets - we're not syphoning off any donations to cover costs.
And we've got the additional bonus that the company we work for will double any cash that people donate.
So meh, I suppose this actually does 'some' good. What really boils my piss is the "if you care about cancer, repost this message to show that you care".
Don't get me started on that one...
> (In reply to Merlin)
> I bet if we didnt have social media where every body feels the need to tell the world about the shit things theyy do in a day, the majority wouldnt be doing any thing for charity. If you want to give to charity, stick ya hand in ya own pocket! See how giving and charitable you are then lol
> I bet if we didnt have social media where every body feels the need to tell the world about the shit things theyy do in a day, the majority wouldnt be doing any thing for charity. If you want to give to charity, stick ya hand in ya own pocket! See how giving and charitable you are then lol
I'm doing a bike ride in 2 weeks across country. 176 miles over three days. Trivial to some, quite a challenge for me and two lads I'm doing it with and we've been battering the hills around derbyshire to get a little bit fitter in preparation.
It is a bit odd when you think about it - "I'm doing this, so give me some money", but maybe it's just one of those queer eccentricities we have.
It's always optional to donate (even though some people overdo the facebook requests) I'm raising a bit of focus for the charity in question and getting some money in. All the incidental costs (transport, fuels, food, campsites, equipment, support van, etc) are coming out of out own pockets - we're not syphoning off any donations to cover costs.
And we've got the additional bonus that the company we work for will double any cash that people donate.
So meh, I suppose this actually does 'some' good. What really boils my piss is the "if you care about cancer, repost this message to show that you care".
Don't get me started on that one...
Post edited at 11:42
In reply to CrushUnit:
+1
Merlin's original post has the deliberately obtuse hallmarks of a 'troll of the month' attempt but so many of the replies have got straight on-board with it's shabby values as to make you wonder.
+1
Merlin's original post has the deliberately obtuse hallmarks of a 'troll of the month' attempt but so many of the replies have got straight on-board with it's shabby values as to make you wonder.
In reply to CrushUnit:
I think most would do as you suggest anyway. It's not the cause I have a problem with (how can giving money to a charitable cause ever be negative), it's the way the sponsorship is obtained, and when it occurs on an almost weekly basis I am tending to be much more selective of those I do/do not sponsor based on the challenge they undertake and any (unlikely) return as a sponsor.
I think most would do as you suggest anyway. It's not the cause I have a problem with (how can giving money to a charitable cause ever be negative), it's the way the sponsorship is obtained, and when it occurs on an almost weekly basis I am tending to be much more selective of those I do/do not sponsor based on the challenge they undertake and any (unlikely) return as a sponsor.
In reply to seankenny:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/city-pay-culture-has-spread-... from 2009, but hopefully highlights what I am getting at.
>
> Fair enough. Can you tell me which charities, and show the evidence that they are doing this?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/city-pay-culture-has-spread-... from 2009, but hopefully highlights what I am getting at.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
So that gives info about the pay of charity CEOs, which is generally way above average (tho probably not compared to the CEOs of other multi-million pound organisations).
But what you said is: "charities have created a situation for them selves where they are now run like profit making organisations where the cause is second fiddle to the business."
So I'm saying, which charities are run like this? In fact, what does it even mean? Are you saying you don't like charities to be run professionally? Or are you claiming some charities keep hold of their money which they then do something with that is not "the cause" (but is clearly not giving profits to shareholders or partners as there aren't any). Or are you saying these people run charities purely for their own enrichment?
So that gives info about the pay of charity CEOs, which is generally way above average (tho probably not compared to the CEOs of other multi-million pound organisations).
But what you said is: "charities have created a situation for them selves where they are now run like profit making organisations where the cause is second fiddle to the business."
So I'm saying, which charities are run like this? In fact, what does it even mean? Are you saying you don't like charities to be run professionally? Or are you claiming some charities keep hold of their money which they then do something with that is not "the cause" (but is clearly not giving profits to shareholders or partners as there aren't any). Or are you saying these people run charities purely for their own enrichment?
In reply to Quiddity:
I would disagree, I think most are confusing the terms 'sponsorship' and 'donation'. The scale of the sponsorship should have nothing to do with it (football teams etc). As a sponsor you should get something in return beyond the satisfaction of just 'sponsoring'. The sponsored can also use what ever it is they plan to provide the sponsor as a lure to attracting further/more sponsorship - it's a transaction.
As opposed to; I'm doing 1000 star jumps, give me some money for X charity, and that's all you'll ever hear of it again.
Where an example of 'sponsorship' as intended would be; I'm doing 10'000 star jumps for X charity, give me some money, in return you get to visit the X charity and they are putting on free tea and cake.
I would disagree, I think most are confusing the terms 'sponsorship' and 'donation'. The scale of the sponsorship should have nothing to do with it (football teams etc). As a sponsor you should get something in return beyond the satisfaction of just 'sponsoring'. The sponsored can also use what ever it is they plan to provide the sponsor as a lure to attracting further/more sponsorship - it's a transaction.
As opposed to; I'm doing 1000 star jumps, give me some money for X charity, and that's all you'll ever hear of it again.
Where an example of 'sponsorship' as intended would be; I'm doing 10'000 star jumps for X charity, give me some money, in return you get to visit the X charity and they are putting on free tea and cake.
In reply to abseil:
Agreed. The Everest type of affair is taking it to a whole new level! Essentially paying for someone's dream holiday. Disgusting.
Agreed. The Everest type of affair is taking it to a whole new level! Essentially paying for someone's dream holiday. Disgusting.
In reply to ThunderCat:
Your actually doing something challenging. It.s gonna take a good chunk of time and a lot of effort. And raising money for a good cause. Most people I get asked to sponser arw doing 5/10k runs etc. 10k is what? 1.5 hours jogging even for some1 who doesn't train regularly. It deserves a pat on the back at most! My issue is when people do it just to so they can share it on Facebook etc. 'Look what I've done, I'm such a hero' and all that lol. Its good that money does go to charities. But I think a lot of people do nice things for selfish reasons. Any way, Good luck with your bike ride.
Ben.
Your actually doing something challenging. It.s gonna take a good chunk of time and a lot of effort. And raising money for a good cause. Most people I get asked to sponser arw doing 5/10k runs etc. 10k is what? 1.5 hours jogging even for some1 who doesn't train regularly. It deserves a pat on the back at most! My issue is when people do it just to so they can share it on Facebook etc. 'Look what I've done, I'm such a hero' and all that lol. Its good that money does go to charities. But I think a lot of people do nice things for selfish reasons. Any way, Good luck with your bike ride.
Ben.
In reply to ThunderCat:
Imagine my shock that clicking the 'like' button didn't cure cancer either.
Now I'm at a loss what to do.
> What really boils my piss is the "if you care about cancer, repost this message to show that you care".
Imagine my shock that clicking the 'like' button didn't cure cancer either.
Now I'm at a loss what to do.
In reply to Merlin:
"sponsor" has more than one meaning and none of them necessarily imply that you will get something back in return, although that is very often the way it works. It basically means "vouch or pay for".
1. a person or group that provides funds for an activity, esp
a. a commercial organization that pays all or part of the cost of putting on a concert, sporting event, etc
b. a person who donates money to a charity when the person requesting the donation has performed a specified activity as part of an organized fund-raising effort
2. chiefly ( US ), ( Canadian ) a person or business firm that pays the costs of a radio or television programme in return for advertising time
3. a legislator who presents and supports a bill, motion, etc
4. Also called: godparent
a. an authorized witness who makes the required promises on behalf of a person to be baptized and thereafter assumes responsibility for his Christian upbringing
b. a person who presents a candidate for confirmation
5. chiefly ( US ) a person who undertakes responsibility for the actions, statements, obligations, etc, of another, as during a period of apprenticeship; guarantor
To your OP - I think you've got your priorities wrong. Surely the point should be the how much you value the cause the money is being raised for, not the suffering which your friend has to undergo.
> I would disagree, I think most are confusing the terms 'sponsorship' and 'donation'. The scale of the sponsorship should have nothing to do with it (football teams etc). As a sponsor you should get something in return beyond the satisfaction of just 'sponsoring'. The sponsored can also use what ever it is they plan to provide the sponsor as a lure to attracting further/more sponsorship - it's a transaction.
"sponsor" has more than one meaning and none of them necessarily imply that you will get something back in return, although that is very often the way it works. It basically means "vouch or pay for".
1. a person or group that provides funds for an activity, esp
a. a commercial organization that pays all or part of the cost of putting on a concert, sporting event, etc
b. a person who donates money to a charity when the person requesting the donation has performed a specified activity as part of an organized fund-raising effort
2. chiefly ( US ), ( Canadian ) a person or business firm that pays the costs of a radio or television programme in return for advertising time
3. a legislator who presents and supports a bill, motion, etc
4. Also called: godparent
a. an authorized witness who makes the required promises on behalf of a person to be baptized and thereafter assumes responsibility for his Christian upbringing
b. a person who presents a candidate for confirmation
5. chiefly ( US ) a person who undertakes responsibility for the actions, statements, obligations, etc, of another, as during a period of apprenticeship; guarantor
To your OP - I think you've got your priorities wrong. Surely the point should be the how much you value the cause the money is being raised for, not the suffering which your friend has to undergo.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Nah. If i want to give money to a cause i'd just do so.
If you come to me and tell me "I'm going to eat this delicious cake, which incidentally is my favourite ever, and i'll be doing it for charity. Please give me £100" probably you'll just get a middle finger.
If however you point over your shoulder to a big pile of horse dung i'll be reaching for my wallet in no time and chuck an extra fiver on top. Not just to watch you suffer, but because the level of hardship you are prepared to put yourself through unselfishly for the benefit of others calls for commendation and support.
The vast majority of requests for sponsorship nowadays are of the cake variety, in many cases even asking you to pay for the cake...
> (In reply to Merlin)
> Surely the point should be the how much you value the cause the money is being raised for, not the suffering which your friend has to undergo.
Nah. If i want to give money to a cause i'd just do so.
If you come to me and tell me "I'm going to eat this delicious cake, which incidentally is my favourite ever, and i'll be doing it for charity. Please give me £100" probably you'll just get a middle finger.
If however you point over your shoulder to a big pile of horse dung i'll be reaching for my wallet in no time and chuck an extra fiver on top. Not just to watch you suffer, but because the level of hardship you are prepared to put yourself through unselfishly for the benefit of others calls for commendation and support.
The vast majority of requests for sponsorship nowadays are of the cake variety, in many cases even asking you to pay for the cake...
In reply to Merlin:
But isn't charity about just that, giving something for no reward, though the reward in seeing someone suffer seems a trifle strange.
I agree that there should be no cost for the activity taken from the money donated, but it's for charity FFS!! does it really matter how they get their money?
It's really just a form of cheap advertising so how can you complain at that?
But isn't charity about just that, giving something for no reward, though the reward in seeing someone suffer seems a trifle strange.
I agree that there should be no cost for the activity taken from the money donated, but it's for charity FFS!! does it really matter how they get their money?
It's really just a form of cheap advertising so how can you complain at that?
In reply to Mr Lopez:
You're missing the most important part of the discussion, though:
"I'm going to eat this delicious cake, which incidentally is my favourite ever, and i'll be doing it for charity. Please give me £100 ... to give to this well-run charity which helps orphaned children with cancer (or insert whatever floats your boat)"
or
"I'm going to eat this pile of horse dung for charity. Please give me £100" which I will give to a charity dedicated to stopping people from using condoms because contraception is ungodly."
I know where my money would be going.
You're missing the most important part of the discussion, though:
"I'm going to eat this delicious cake, which incidentally is my favourite ever, and i'll be doing it for charity. Please give me £100 ... to give to this well-run charity which helps orphaned children with cancer (or insert whatever floats your boat)"
or
"I'm going to eat this pile of horse dung for charity. Please give me £100" which I will give to a charity dedicated to stopping people from using condoms because contraception is ungodly."
I know where my money would be going.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
But what if they were both worthy causes and you could only afford to donate to one, how would you chose? I can't think of any time someone has asked for sponorship money and I've refused because I don't agreee think the charity is worthy. And as I said before, I can't sponsor everyone. So either I research each charity to see if I think they are worthy of my money, or I decide who to sponsor based on how much effort they put into there event.
But what if they were both worthy causes and you could only afford to donate to one, how would you chose? I can't think of any time someone has asked for sponorship money and I've refused because I don't agreee think the charity is worthy. And as I said before, I can't sponsor everyone. So either I research each charity to see if I think they are worthy of my money, or I decide who to sponsor based on how much effort they put into there event.
In reply to Merlin: The crux of it is the difference between a donation, and sponsorship.
To ask for a donation is fine, you can decide whether to donate or not based on your perception of the worthiness of the cause. On the other hand, to ask for sponsorship to walk for 2 miles around a race course is taking the piss. As is asking for sponsorship to go on your dream holiday or do a dream activity.
To ask for sponsorship you should be requesting money based on your personal commitment and sacrifice.
To ask for a donation is fine, you can decide whether to donate or not based on your perception of the worthiness of the cause. On the other hand, to ask for sponsorship to walk for 2 miles around a race course is taking the piss. As is asking for sponsorship to go on your dream holiday or do a dream activity.
To ask for sponsorship you should be requesting money based on your personal commitment and sacrifice.
In reply to Mr Lopez:
beats watching them talk it.
> Wouldn't you pay £100 just to watch a religious nutter eat shit for hours?
beats watching them talk it.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Could be arranged. Special requests have a 50% surcharge
> (In reply to Mr Lopez)
>
> depends on if that shit is a copy of their holy book...
>
> depends on if that shit is a copy of their holy book...
Could be arranged. Special requests have a 50% surcharge
In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:
no it isn't - that's just semantics. There's no difference between saying:
"Hey I've found this great charity, please donate to it and I will walk for 2 miles."
and
"Hey I've found this great charity, please sponsor me to walk for two miles and I'll give the money to the charity."
> The crux of it is the difference between a donation, and sponsorship.
no it isn't - that's just semantics. There's no difference between saying:
"Hey I've found this great charity, please donate to it and I will walk for 2 miles."
and
"Hey I've found this great charity, please sponsor me to walk for two miles and I'll give the money to the charity."
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
There are 180,000 registered charities in the UK. I'm quite sure there are bad ones, it doesn't mean you shouldn't give. This is where selecting a good one to donate to comes in.
There are 180,000 registered charities in the UK. I'm quite sure there are bad ones, it doesn't mean you shouldn't give. This is where selecting a good one to donate to comes in.
In reply to DaveR:
how much effort your friend puts into their event is a completely arbitrary way of deciding. You might as well toss a coin.
> either I research each charity to see if I think they are worthy of my money, or I decide who to sponsor based on how much effort they put into there event.
how much effort your friend puts into their event is a completely arbitrary way of deciding. You might as well toss a coin.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
But doesn't sponsorship always involve some activity, and a donation doesn't always?
But doesn't sponsorship always involve some activity, and a donation doesn't always?
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
I agree.
> There are 180,000 registered charities in the UK. I'm quite sure there are bad ones, it doesn't mean you shouldn't give. This is where selecting a good one to donate to comes in.
I agree.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Tossing a coin is boring. Watching people do gruelling tasks for money is much more fun. Either way charity will still get the same amount of money from me. So why does it matter how I decide who gets it, as long as it is a worthy cause.
Tossing a coin is boring. Watching people do gruelling tasks for money is much more fun. Either way charity will still get the same amount of money from me. So why does it matter how I decide who gets it, as long as it is a worthy cause.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
No, a donation doesn't involve them walking 2 miles. You simply give your money to a good cause without the pretext that someone else has done something to earn it for them.
> (In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt)
>
> [...]
>
> no it isn't - that's just semantics. There's no difference between saying:
>
> "Hey I've found this great charity, please donate to it and I will walk for 2 miles."
>
> and
>
> "Hey I've found this great charity, please sponsor me to walk for two miles and I'll give the money to the charity."
>
> [...]
>
> no it isn't - that's just semantics. There's no difference between saying:
>
> "Hey I've found this great charity, please donate to it and I will walk for 2 miles."
>
> and
>
> "Hey I've found this great charity, please sponsor me to walk for two miles and I'll give the money to the charity."
No, a donation doesn't involve them walking 2 miles. You simply give your money to a good cause without the pretext that someone else has done something to earn it for them.
In reply to Merlin:
No you are confusing sponsorship with paying someone a wage or buying goods:
"To sponsor something is to support an event, activity, person, or organization financially or through the provision of products or services. A sponsor is the individual or group that provides the support, similar to a benefactor."
Like "I would like to join this climbing club. Would you sponsor me?"
Presumably you reply: "Yes if you clean my car for a year"
> (In reply to Quiddity)
>
> I would disagree, I think most are confusing the terms 'sponsorship' and 'donation'. The scale of the sponsorship should have nothing to do with it (football teams etc). As a sponsor you should get something in return beyond the satisfaction of just 'sponsoring'. The sponsored can also use what ever it is they plan to provide the sponsor as a lure to attracting further/more sponsorship - it's a transaction.
>
> I would disagree, I think most are confusing the terms 'sponsorship' and 'donation'. The scale of the sponsorship should have nothing to do with it (football teams etc). As a sponsor you should get something in return beyond the satisfaction of just 'sponsoring'. The sponsored can also use what ever it is they plan to provide the sponsor as a lure to attracting further/more sponsorship - it's a transaction.
No you are confusing sponsorship with paying someone a wage or buying goods:
"To sponsor something is to support an event, activity, person, or organization financially or through the provision of products or services. A sponsor is the individual or group that provides the support, similar to a benefactor."
Like "I would like to join this climbing club. Would you sponsor me?"
Presumably you reply: "Yes if you clean my car for a year"
Post edited at 13:42
In reply to Ben07:
Cheers Ben. Excited and nervous about it at the same time. An excuse for a couple of beers at each of the overnight stops as well...also coming out of our own pockets
> Your actually doing something challenging. It.s gonna take a good chunk of time and a lot of effort. And raising money for a good cause. Most people I get asked to sponser arw doing 5/10k runs etc. 10k is what? 1.5 hours jogging even for some1 who doesn't train regularly. It deserves a pat on the back at most! My issue is when people do it just to so they can share it on Facebook etc. 'Look what I've done, I'm such a hero' and all that lol. Its good that money does go to charities. But I think a lot of people do nice things for selfish reasons. Any way, Good luck with your bike ride.
> Ben.
Cheers Ben. Excited and nervous about it at the same time. An excuse for a couple of beers at each of the overnight stops as well...also coming out of our own pockets
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
So you tried joining the climbers club, i see. Back in the old days were reach-arounds and small spoons
> (In reply to Merlin)
>
> [...]
> Like "I would like to join this climbing club. Would you sponsor me?"
> Presumably you reply: "Yes if you clean my car for a year"
>
> [...]
> Like "I would like to join this climbing club. Would you sponsor me?"
> Presumably you reply: "Yes if you clean my car for a year"
So you tried joining the climbers club, i see. Back in the old days were reach-arounds and small spoons
In reply to Mr Lopez:
No never have. I was just using an example of sponsorship which, hopefully, most people would understand doesn't lead to payment in kind or shouldn't do anyway... (Merlin being someone you don't ask a favour of)
> (In reply to DubyaJamesDubya)
> [...]
>
> So you tried joining the climbers club, i see. Back in the old days were reach-arounds and small spoons
> [...]
>
> So you tried joining the climbers club, i see. Back in the old days were reach-arounds and small spoons
No never have. I was just using an example of sponsorship which, hopefully, most people would understand doesn't lead to payment in kind or shouldn't do anyway... (Merlin being someone you don't ask a favour of)
Post edited at 13:49
In reply to DaveR:
Charity funding can be something of a popularity contest. eg. I'm sure national cancer research charities do relatively well in that there is a high level of public awareness of the work that they do - the cottage hospital providing critical end of life care (the example given by CrushUnit above) - probably not so much.
The value of sponsorship, in my view, over and above a simple donation, is where an individual wants to draw some attention to the work of a charity that you would not ordinarily think to donate to. The only difference that the difficulty of the sponsored activity makes, is to how eye-catching the whole thing is.
> So why does it matter how I decide who gets it, as long as it is a worthy cause.
Charity funding can be something of a popularity contest. eg. I'm sure national cancer research charities do relatively well in that there is a high level of public awareness of the work that they do - the cottage hospital providing critical end of life care (the example given by CrushUnit above) - probably not so much.
The value of sponsorship, in my view, over and above a simple donation, is where an individual wants to draw some attention to the work of a charity that you would not ordinarily think to donate to. The only difference that the difficulty of the sponsored activity makes, is to how eye-catching the whole thing is.
In reply to Merlin:
WARNING - the following post contains contraversial and cynical views. Please do not infer from it that I am a miserly bastard who doesn't give to charity. Please also do not take it as an attack on anyone who has done something for charity, but as an attack on a social norm.
/Rant
I've always felt there's something a bit wrong about doing sponsored challenges for charity. It strikes me as being socially acceptable self-promotion. It's basically, 'look at the amazing thing I'm doing, it's alright for me to boast about it since I'm raising money for charity hence making me even more amazing'.
At the same time, it's pressuring other people to give money to charity when they wouldn't have done so. I probably wouldn't mind so much if the norm was for the person being sponsored to match everyone elses pledge out of their own pocket, but sadly this doesn't often seem to be the case.
These days, thanks to sites like JustGiving, it seems you're expected to pay out up front, with no guarantee that the sponsee is even going to bother. It used to be the case that you'd pledge say £10 for completion, and £5 for a valiant attempt.
/End-rant
WARNING - the following post contains contraversial and cynical views. Please do not infer from it that I am a miserly bastard who doesn't give to charity. Please also do not take it as an attack on anyone who has done something for charity, but as an attack on a social norm.
/Rant
I've always felt there's something a bit wrong about doing sponsored challenges for charity. It strikes me as being socially acceptable self-promotion. It's basically, 'look at the amazing thing I'm doing, it's alright for me to boast about it since I'm raising money for charity hence making me even more amazing'.
At the same time, it's pressuring other people to give money to charity when they wouldn't have done so. I probably wouldn't mind so much if the norm was for the person being sponsored to match everyone elses pledge out of their own pocket, but sadly this doesn't often seem to be the case.
These days, thanks to sites like JustGiving, it seems you're expected to pay out up front, with no guarantee that the sponsee is even going to bother. It used to be the case that you'd pledge say £10 for completion, and £5 for a valiant attempt.
/End-rant
In reply to Quiddity:
Agreed, except that the difficulty of the challenge is related to the ability of the participant, which can remove the problem of only giving to the eye-catching events/most popular/best advertised charitees, but spread money around a bit more.
Agreed, except that the difficulty of the challenge is related to the ability of the participant, which can remove the problem of only giving to the eye-catching events/most popular/best advertised charitees, but spread money around a bit more.
In reply to Ste Brom:
Maybe some are already donating directly to Llanberis MRT? Unless of course you are the treasurer and know where the money is coming from . I have no idea, but I prefer to just set up monthly direct debits to the charities that mean something to me and ignore most people's requests for sponsorship (although I usually give in to a few friends and family).
> Though I did ask for donations for Llanberis MRT a while back, and got next to nowt off the collective tightwads on this site.....
Maybe some are already donating directly to Llanberis MRT? Unless of course you are the treasurer and know where the money is coming from . I have no idea, but I prefer to just set up monthly direct debits to the charities that mean something to me and ignore most people's requests for sponsorship (although I usually give in to a few friends and family).
In reply to malky_c:
https://www.justgiving.com/Stephen-Bromley/
Well, its still open I think, so just in case like...
https://www.justgiving.com/Stephen-Bromley/
Well, its still open I think, so just in case like...
In reply to Merlin:
I can't really see why you can't understand what people get out of making charitable donations (the other meaning of the word sponsorship). If you were expecting something back, then it's not really charitable is it?
However, I think I can see where you are coming from in sponsoring people that are doing something they'd enjoy doing anyway or only doing something for 'charity' so they get to do the fun activity (e.g. a skydive).
5 colleagues and I recently did a charity bike ride that followed the route of the first stage of the Tour in Yorkshire. I was pretty conscious of the fact that people knew I was a very keen cyclist and that ‘completing’ the ride wasn’t really much of an issue for me, so it would be hard to ask for donations, (though it was different for most of the others, who were doing the distance for the first time) and none of us really felt comfortable just asking for donations so we did other activities that got the money in as our company had set us a target total – things like cake sales at work (by far our biggest earner!), washing people’s bikes for a fiver and we finished it with a sponsored leg wax which really helped boost the total at the end. So I guess the first two are examples of people getting something out of it...in the case of the leg wax, people got to see us in pain in exchange for a small donation!
I guess that’s a roundabout way of saying that you may have a point that fundraising seems to be easier if people are getting something out of it because they are more inclined to chuck a pound in a bucket in exchange for some cake than they are for no obvious benefit to themselves.
I can't really see why you can't understand what people get out of making charitable donations (the other meaning of the word sponsorship). If you were expecting something back, then it's not really charitable is it?
However, I think I can see where you are coming from in sponsoring people that are doing something they'd enjoy doing anyway or only doing something for 'charity' so they get to do the fun activity (e.g. a skydive).
5 colleagues and I recently did a charity bike ride that followed the route of the first stage of the Tour in Yorkshire. I was pretty conscious of the fact that people knew I was a very keen cyclist and that ‘completing’ the ride wasn’t really much of an issue for me, so it would be hard to ask for donations, (though it was different for most of the others, who were doing the distance for the first time) and none of us really felt comfortable just asking for donations so we did other activities that got the money in as our company had set us a target total – things like cake sales at work (by far our biggest earner!), washing people’s bikes for a fiver and we finished it with a sponsored leg wax which really helped boost the total at the end. So I guess the first two are examples of people getting something out of it...in the case of the leg wax, people got to see us in pain in exchange for a small donation!
I guess that’s a roundabout way of saying that you may have a point that fundraising seems to be easier if people are getting something out of it because they are more inclined to chuck a pound in a bucket in exchange for some cake than they are for no obvious benefit to themselves.
Post edited at 14:17
In reply to Trevers:
Ha! The classic, "No offence but..."
Quite how that can not be an attack on anyone who has done something for charity is beyond me.
> Please also do not take it as an attack on anyone who has done something for charity, but as an attack on a social norm.
> /Rant
> I've always felt there's something a bit wrong about doing sponsored challenges for charity. It strikes me as being socially acceptable self-promotion. It's basically, 'look at the amazing thing I'm doing, it's alright for me to boast about it since I'm raising money for charity hence making me even more amazing'.
Ha! The classic, "No offence but..."
Quite how that can not be an attack on anyone who has done something for charity is beyond me.
In reply to Ste Brom:
I don't.
Read this again: "there's something a bit wrong about doing sponsored challenges for charity"
Sometimes I think there's nothing left in the developed world for people to moan about so all the unused moaning capacity gets used on this kind of sh*t and we hear ourselves saying things like, "Raised 10 grand for a children's orphanage, did he? Oooh fancies himself a bit don't he."
Honestly, so what if someone wants to stick their neck out and raise money for charity? How about saying "good on them for having the get up and go to raise some money for a good cause?"
I don't.
Read this again: "there's something a bit wrong about doing sponsored challenges for charity"
Sometimes I think there's nothing left in the developed world for people to moan about so all the unused moaning capacity gets used on this kind of sh*t and we hear ourselves saying things like, "Raised 10 grand for a children's orphanage, did he? Oooh fancies himself a bit don't he."
Honestly, so what if someone wants to stick their neck out and raise money for charity? How about saying "good on them for having the get up and go to raise some money for a good cause?"
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
+2 to Crushunit and +1 to you.
What a shit thread.
E
> +1
> Merlin's original post has the deliberately obtuse hallmarks of a 'troll of the month' attempt but so many of the replies have got straight on-board with it's shabby values as to make you wonder.
+2 to Crushunit and +1 to you.
What a shit thread.
E
In reply to Quiddity:
If you look at the figures for some charities, the amount spent on fundraising activities is a very large fraction of their income; 70% or so.
And the fundraising is often done by commercial enterprises affiliated to the charity.
Which makes me wonder about the motivation of those charities: for genuine charitable activities, or to make money from the commercial fundraising enterprises? Hmmm...
> Well yes they still have to recruit staff, rent offices, pay overheads etc. just like profit making companies.
If you look at the figures for some charities, the amount spent on fundraising activities is a very large fraction of their income; 70% or so.
And the fundraising is often done by commercial enterprises affiliated to the charity.
Which makes me wonder about the motivation of those charities: for genuine charitable activities, or to make money from the commercial fundraising enterprises? Hmmm...
In reply to Merl Sponsorship for people for people to walk the great wall of China or climb Klimanjaro really gets me I"m not paying for their holiday.
In reply to captain paranoia:
Which charities are we talking about here?
> If you look at the figures for some charities, the amount spent on fundraising activities is a very large fraction of their income; 70% or so.
> And the fundraising is often done by commercial enterprises affiliated to the charity.
> Which makes me wonder about the motivation of those charities: for genuine charitable activities, or to make money from the commercial fundraising enterprises? Hmmm...
Which charities are we talking about here?
In reply to Merlin:
In this context, "sponsor" means "donate". It's a different use of the word from that where a stadium gets renamed after a company etc.
You just use your judgement. A colleague of mine lost his wife to breast cancer. I was happy to sponsor he and his son to tandem-bike their way along the north Cornish coast, which sounds like fun to me, in aid of some cancer charity. I probably would not have given the money to that charity if he had not done that. It's not that I needed him to go through pain - that seems a bizarre condition for helping a worthwhile cause. It's just that I am used to requests for charity being couched in this way. Charities, too, must realise that a request from someone you know works better than a faceless request from them, who you don't. So that's why they like this kind of thing. He could instead have sent us all a written request for the money, without the cycling, but that might have been harder for him to do, worked less well for his son in getting over his mum's death, and not gained the charity any more money than the bike ride. I'd rather he did something that benefited him and his son than something entirely pointless, like sit for hours in paddling pool full of custard, which I have seen.
On the other hand, I don't feel like contributing to requests to fund an Operation Raleigh, or Wallacea etc Gap Year jaunt. Great for the their CV, but they can pay for it themselves.
In this context, "sponsor" means "donate". It's a different use of the word from that where a stadium gets renamed after a company etc.
You just use your judgement. A colleague of mine lost his wife to breast cancer. I was happy to sponsor he and his son to tandem-bike their way along the north Cornish coast, which sounds like fun to me, in aid of some cancer charity. I probably would not have given the money to that charity if he had not done that. It's not that I needed him to go through pain - that seems a bizarre condition for helping a worthwhile cause. It's just that I am used to requests for charity being couched in this way. Charities, too, must realise that a request from someone you know works better than a faceless request from them, who you don't. So that's why they like this kind of thing. He could instead have sent us all a written request for the money, without the cycling, but that might have been harder for him to do, worked less well for his son in getting over his mum's death, and not gained the charity any more money than the bike ride. I'd rather he did something that benefited him and his son than something entirely pointless, like sit for hours in paddling pool full of custard, which I have seen.
On the other hand, I don't feel like contributing to requests to fund an Operation Raleigh, or Wallacea etc Gap Year jaunt. Great for the their CV, but they can pay for it themselves.
Post edited at 16:03
In reply to Bob Hughes:
I did say it was contraversial Well I don't think that thought specifically goes through the head of every person who's done something for charity. Although there are definitely a few people in my office who seem determined to shout from the rooftop that they're raising money.
If people are prepared to do something truly outstanding/ridiculous (pushing a sprout up Snowdon), or something designed to actually bring a cause to people's attention, I find that praiseworthy.
On the other hand, I found that recent makeupless selfie fad pretty tasteless. It seemed to be targeting people's insecurities/need for validation while pressuring individuals to donate by being posted direct to their wall. Although I don't think the charity that benefitted was actually behind the fad.
EDIT - What I suppose I'm trying to say is that I think charity should be a) a personal choice and b) a part of everyday life, not a guilt trip
> Ha! The classic, "No offence but..."
> Quite how that can not be an attack on anyone who has done something for charity is beyond me.
I did say it was contraversial Well I don't think that thought specifically goes through the head of every person who's done something for charity. Although there are definitely a few people in my office who seem determined to shout from the rooftop that they're raising money.
If people are prepared to do something truly outstanding/ridiculous (pushing a sprout up Snowdon), or something designed to actually bring a cause to people's attention, I find that praiseworthy.
On the other hand, I found that recent makeupless selfie fad pretty tasteless. It seemed to be targeting people's insecurities/need for validation while pressuring individuals to donate by being posted direct to their wall. Although I don't think the charity that benefitted was actually behind the fad.
EDIT - What I suppose I'm trying to say is that I think charity should be a) a personal choice and b) a part of everyday life, not a guilt trip
Post edited at 16:37
In reply to gethin_allen:
I'd say well since they clearly haven't cycled the 600 miles, the sponsorship deal is null and void.
> I agree, it has to be an event that will be challenging for the participants.
> I got really annoyed recently when on the basis of the info provided on the sponsorship sheet I sponsored a colleagues son to "ride 600 miles to help fund an aid ship". About a week later my colleague told me the ride had been done and when I exclaimed that was fast she said "well they were in the gym all weekend"
> They did the 600 split between the two who were going and they did it indoors on gym bikes! To add to my annoyance, it turned out that the aid ship was actually a bloody Christian mission ship taking religious books to developing countries, how the hell is that going to aid people who haven't got any food shelter of medicine.
I'd say well since they clearly haven't cycled the 600 miles, the sponsorship deal is null and void.
In reply to Merlin:
I'd love to have made this point to them but this would be frowned upon and I'd just be tagged as tight. The aid ship/Christian propaganda discrepancy was what really irritated me. I'm rather anti religion in any form so to be conned into funding and propagating it's dogma in the guise of essential aid really smarts.
If they'd done 300 miles outside I'd have been suitably impressed with their dedication at least.
I'd love to have made this point to them but this would be frowned upon and I'd just be tagged as tight. The aid ship/Christian propaganda discrepancy was what really irritated me. I'm rather anti religion in any form so to be conned into funding and propagating it's dogma in the guise of essential aid really smarts.
If they'd done 300 miles outside I'd have been suitably impressed with their dedication at least.
In reply to gethin_allen:
Bit cheeky that. I went to our Essex office a couple of months ago with the intention of mentioning my upcoming Coast to Coast thing, and had the wind took out of my sails a bit when a group of them mentioned they were doing an Essex to Glasgow bike ride.
Turned out if was the same thing. 5 of them doing split shifts on an exercise bike in the office. Bah!
> They did the 600 split between the two who were going and they did it indoors on gym bikes! To add to my annoyance, it turned out that the aid ship was actually a bloody Christian mission ship taking religious books to developing countries, how the hell is that going to aid people who haven't got any food shelter of medicine.
Bit cheeky that. I went to our Essex office a couple of months ago with the intention of mentioning my upcoming Coast to Coast thing, and had the wind took out of my sails a bit when a group of them mentioned they were doing an Essex to Glasgow bike ride.
Turned out if was the same thing. 5 of them doing split shifts on an exercise bike in the office. Bah!
In reply to gethin_allen:
I totally agree with you on the use of the money - that would grate with me too.
On the exercise bike / real world outside challenge, also shifty that they weren't up front with you in the first place. Although, I'd find 300 miles a lot harder to do on an exercise bike that in the real world - the boredom would kill me.
I totally agree with you on the use of the money - that would grate with me too.
On the exercise bike / real world outside challenge, also shifty that they weren't up front with you in the first place. Although, I'd find 300 miles a lot harder to do on an exercise bike that in the real world - the boredom would kill me.
In reply to Merlin:
It always strikes me as bizarre that some people only ever think to donate to a charity when someone's going to do something totally unrelated to that charity and usually a 'fun' event for them too.
As a doner, why not just set up a standing order to the charity of your choice and tell people (when asked for donations) that this is how you choose to donate to charity ?
And as a fund raiser, why not do something of direct benefit to the charity ? like collect old clothes or volunteer to hose down donkeys or whatever it is ? or failing that - something useful to the community like picking up litter.
It always strikes me as bizarre that some people only ever think to donate to a charity when someone's going to do something totally unrelated to that charity and usually a 'fun' event for them too.
As a doner, why not just set up a standing order to the charity of your choice and tell people (when asked for donations) that this is how you choose to donate to charity ?
And as a fund raiser, why not do something of direct benefit to the charity ? like collect old clothes or volunteer to hose down donkeys or whatever it is ? or failing that - something useful to the community like picking up litter.
In reply to GrahamD:
What have kebabs got to do with it?
> As a doner, why not just set up a standing order to the charity of your choice and tell people (when asked for donations) that this is how you choose to donate to charity ?
What have kebabs got to do with it?
Blimey - some pretty bonkers responses in this thread.
I think one thing that many have overlooked is that what seems like nothing at all to many of the superheroes on this site, is a big challenge for others, whether that's running 5k, cycling 50 miles or whatever, and that for a lot of people, knowing you're raising money to help others can be a helpful motivator to keep going. I can't see the problem with that.
Raising £3k to walk the Great Wall of China with £2.5k of it going to administration (to offer a fatuous example) is something of a different matter, to my mind.
For what it's worth, I'm doing my first sponsored event next month - a 10k, for which I paid all the fees, and for which I decided to raise money for the MS Society in part as a way of motivating myself because I'm a shit runner. The charity is a cause close to my heart because my brother was diagnosed with it last year, and every time I think 'blurgh' at the thought of putting on my running shoes, I think about people with MS who now can't do that. A lot of sponsorship is similar - it's causes close to people's hearts.
Donate, don't donate, but I don't think it's helpful to be dismissive about things that you might not consider worthy/a challenge/whatever, but that others do.
I think one thing that many have overlooked is that what seems like nothing at all to many of the superheroes on this site, is a big challenge for others, whether that's running 5k, cycling 50 miles or whatever, and that for a lot of people, knowing you're raising money to help others can be a helpful motivator to keep going. I can't see the problem with that.
Raising £3k to walk the Great Wall of China with £2.5k of it going to administration (to offer a fatuous example) is something of a different matter, to my mind.
For what it's worth, I'm doing my first sponsored event next month - a 10k, for which I paid all the fees, and for which I decided to raise money for the MS Society in part as a way of motivating myself because I'm a shit runner. The charity is a cause close to my heart because my brother was diagnosed with it last year, and every time I think 'blurgh' at the thought of putting on my running shoes, I think about people with MS who now can't do that. A lot of sponsorship is similar - it's causes close to people's hearts.
Donate, don't donate, but I don't think it's helpful to be dismissive about things that you might not consider worthy/a challenge/whatever, but that others do.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...