London Marathon: Why not just increase the entry fee?

2

Comments

  • Does anyone think that London Marathon actually care? They make tens of millions out of selling charity places for up to £5000 a place I'm sure that if they could get away with stopping the ballot and the hassle of dealing with Joe Public they would. Its a business to make money if you want to run a marathon there are plenty of other events, if you want to run around London ditto. I feel sorry for those that raise the required £2000 etc for their charity to get a place without realising 75% is going to buy the place not to charity.
  • £5k? A golden bond is 5 places for 5 years and costs £7500. £300 a place. That's 15%. They can even defer entries like a normal place.

    One point is that for most 'punters' there is only one marathon and that's the London marathon. 5K,10k and half-marathons are all "other distance races". I suspect that a lot of punters will have only run in one race  - a half marathon - before the London and that's only because their training plan suggests it.

    I'm going to have a go at getting a gold bond place from an organisation that has supported me directly. If they can't give me one then I'm not running it next year.

  • What about the silver bonds and the places that are sold in return for advertising?

     http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-58/episode-1

  • E mmyE mmy ✭✭✭

    Hi all,

    To be honest  if you enter every year for 5 years it has to show a level of dedication to do it. For me, I *could* run for a charity but it's a lot of pressure to raise £1500 (the normal price when i've looked at the charities that i have a personal interest in) and in this financial climate i dont like asking it.

    I've entered by ballot and been lucky enough to be accepted - fifth time lucky! I'll train as hard as i can - as much as i can and will run it for me.

    Raise the price? It might deter some - but remember most people see the VLM on the tv and think "why not"

  • MrsK8MrsK8 ✭✭✭
    I agree the ballot isn't perfect, it took me 5 attempts to get in for the first time.

    I used my place to still raise money for charity but I didn't have the £2k target hanging over my head. No matter how much I wanted to do it, I wouldn't go down the GB route as the training would have been stressful enough without worrying about meeting a £ target. Yes I know that not everyone manages to raise the full amount but I would feel so guilty if I didn't. The GFA places are well out of my league so without the ballot I wouldn't be able to take part.

    I agree that there needs fo be someway to put off people who have no real interest in doing it but see it on TV, enter on impulse & gain an entry but never train. Maybe moe the entry even further back so unless you're serious about it, it's been long forgotten. The post entries were probably good at putting people off, but I much prefer the online entry (as frustrating as the constant crashing is!)

    I think the price is good, some races are so expensive to enter so it's refreshing to see VLM are 'keeping it real'.

  • PhilPub wrote (see)

    You'd just get more triathletes asking questions about how useful their cross-training will be.

    image

     one of few remarks that actually made me laugh during this whole lengthy debateimage
  • I don't think the entry fee should be raised,that'll just help prevent people who are less fortunate financially to run but personally i think there should be a cut-off time of 5 hours for recorded times & medals, although this might sound controversial at least it would distract the growing numbers we've seen over the years turning up with little training & virtually walking the whole distance. Running a marathon is tough but when people enter without even bothering to put in the effort i personally think it's devalued the event..
  • I think these ballots are damned silly anyway

    loads peeps nervously waiting and preparing who have no idea what their letting their selves in for

    why, they cannot just work out how many places their are- Elite, Clubs, Charity places etc , etc, incase i've missed anything

    then simply make it clear there's say - ?? 30,000 places - first come first serve -

    as they have absolutely no idea who's running , how expereinced the yare or anything

  • The simplest option would be to make ALL the places ballot, LM is also sponsored so they would easily cover costs of running the event and most people would raise money anyway.

    The simple answer is charging the charities a premium to enter gets them big bucks. Most of the charities don't care as they already have paid fund raisers anyway and it makes a change from paying 'chuggers' etc and they have nothing to lose. If they get charged £1000 for a place and sell it on to a fund raiser for £2000 they are still £1000 up its a win win situation. The highest paid employee at the London Marathon charity gets paid £250.000 that money has to come from somewhere.

  • MrsK8MrsK8 ✭✭✭
    A 5 hr cut off time is a little harsh! I put in months of training but took longer then that, we're not all nature distance runners!

  • I thought we were discussing the ballot and charity places obviously elite runners would get places! image 
  • If you stopped gold bond places then not only would the London marathon charity lose out on 100s of thousands of pounds raised - but so would the charities that rely on VLM for a great part of their funds.

    Also the entry fee would go up and youd Still get people complaining they hadn't got in. Oh and complaining about the cost of it too.

    I believe the title sponsor money basically just pays the appearance money and prize money for the pros. They don't cover the actual cost of the marathon.
  • DeanR7DeanR7 ✭✭✭

    why not first come first served though instead of the ballot

    still have all the same rules in place..GFA, elite, GB, etc...

      .

  • The London Marathon Limited made a profit of £4.45m on a £17.8m turnover in 2010,  £13 million seems like a lot to put on a race when you consider most of the work on the day costs them nothing, the drinks stations are sponsored, local Councils close the roads for a nominal sum, the bag transfer is sponsored etc. The London Marathon is not a charity its a trading arm of the Charity and as such all the gold bond money goes into the running costs and not directly to charity. Charities would probably gain from an open entry system as many runners would still run for charity and the charities would not have to fork out £350-£5000 for a place so every penny raised would go direct to the charity rather than London Marathon Ltd.
  • MrsK8MrsK8 ✭✭✭
    Can you imagine the chaos if they did a first come first served entry? Entering the ballot is bad enough.
  • Dave, I think you're being very naive if you think that it would benefit charities.  The reason why the big and even some small charities are prepared to pay the GB price is because it is very worth their while.  Read back over this and the myriad of other threads about VLM and you'll see that many people do not want the hassle of raising £1.5K+ for a charity, but would happily be able to raise a few hundred.  Remove the minimum targets and and the amount raised would drop for GB charities.

  • It wouldn't be first come first served - it would be who was lucky to get through before the system crashed or just happened to pick the right micro second before it went down again.
  • The high cost of charity entries is because they are passing on the cost of their entry, a ballot runner raising £200 probably donates more to charity than an official charity runner raising £1000. Why do you think charities such as 'help for heroes' don't buy places its because they want all the money raised by its runners to go to the fund. This year they had 321 runners raising money for them all who got places in the ballot. The current corporate shenanigans with big charities buying places stops a lot of small charities actually getting support. How stupid is it that you raise £1500 for cancer research only to see the first £500 go to buy a £30 place in a race? Thats £500 your friends and families have given thinking its going to charity that instead goes to a Ltd company.

  • The charities are asking far too much financial committment. If I was lucky enough to get a place, then I would offer to raise money for charity, but at whatever I could get.

    I will go one step further to piss people off - how about not letting anyone (apart from elite) who has raced more than 2 London marathons in the last 6 years be allowed to run, so giving the less fortunate who keep getting turned down a chance to do the thing once in their lifetime ! Then the 'This is my 6th London Marathon' runners can apply for the charity places ! image

    And it has the added benefit of making the race last possibly longer, meaning crowds would spend more, better for the food and economy ....

  • Dave - the reason why Help for Heros haven't got GB places is because they are a relatively new charity (one that takes a hell of a lot of funds away from other Services charities too, but that's an aside) and there is a waiting list for GB places. As soon as they are top of the list, they'll take the places I'm sure. This £1000 figure you keep going on about has already been pointed out to you is for a number of years, not for a single place in a single year.

    Yes, it costs charities to pay for places and administer/look after their runners and that is reflected in the high commitments they expect. But they wouldn't do it if it wasn't worth their while. They budget for the projected income and it is a big thing for them.

    I totally agree that by taking a GB place you are asking your sponsors to pay for your race which is why many here do not want to do that, unless the runner is prepared to pay the first £300 themselves.
  • Badly Drawn Bloke wrote (see)
    Dave - the reason why Help for Heros haven't got GB places is because they are a relatively new charity (one that takes a hell of a lot of funds away from other Services charities too, but that's an aside) and there is a waiting list for GB places. As soon as they are top of the list, they'll take the places I'm sure. This £1000 figure you keep going on about has already been pointed out to you is for a number of years, not for a single place in a single year.

    Yes, it costs charities to pay for places and administer/look after their runners and that is reflected in the high commitments they expect. But they wouldn't do it if it wasn't worth their while. They budget for the projected income and it is a big thing for them.

    I totally agree that by taking a GB place you are asking your sponsors to pay for your race which is why many here do not want to do that, unless the runner is prepared to pay the first £300 themselves.

    Help for heroes has openly stated they will not pay for places because they want all the money raised to go to the charity you are wrong on that point they are not on a waiting list, why would they pay when 300+ run anyway? £300 is the cheapest charity entry it is not the maximum, charities not on the gold bond scheme are offered places in return for buying advertising by a media company run by London Marathon ltd, these places cost between £1,000 and £5,000 as explained in this story about the London 10k http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/349/charities_outraged_at_cost_of_places_in_london_10km?topic=&print=1

     . With a turnover of £17 million from sponsors, TV rights, advertising and merchandise why do they need to charge a CHARITY £300 to enter? Obviously some charities either don't care or have no choice as its not actually them thats paying and they are certain to make a profit, but that doesn't make it ok.

  • That article says nothing about the costs of places for the marathon event.  I agree that £200 for a 10k place is just bonkers though.

    That's great then that HfH has decided against GB places for now.  I'm sure they will take them in the future though.  They are a bit of cause celebre so raising money for them is easier then other causes at the moment.  Plus I don't see their logic.  Ok, 300 runners raising £300 each is £90,000.  100 raising net £1.2k = £120,000, plus the other 200 doing their £300 gives them another £60,000.  Double your money.  But it's good they have a principle on this (that's sincere by the way).

    I still say that the GB places probably end up raising more for the charity then the non GB runners do for their selected charity.  

    Personally, I would rather any money I raised, as I have in the past, was for a smaller local charity so that I know that the money is useful.  Cancer Research for example generates huge funds so my few hundred quid would make very little difference, regardless of the good work they do.

    The simple truth though is that GB system works for most of the charities that buy them.  Like it or not, that makes the charity run a market place and we as consumers can make a choice of buying them or not.  I chose to not buy.

  • Badly Drawn Bloke wrote (see)

    That article says nothing about the costs of places for the marathon event.  I agree that £200 for a 10k place is just bonkers though.

    The simple truth though is that GB system works for most of the charities that buy them.  Like it or not, that makes the charity run a market place and we as consumers can make a choice of buying them or not.  I chose to not buy.


    Its the same company that markets the Marathon but at higher prices due to its prestige I couldn't find the exact costs online.

    I have no problem with charities its just when charity and business come together it becomes a bit blurred most people for example probably think the entire London Marathon business is a charity rather than two entities the trading company and a charity. When you start seeing these big charities like Oxfam and Cancer Research employing  fund raisers on 3 figure salaries it does make you think that someone is being taken for a mug!

  • dave taylor 13 wrote (see)

    When you start seeing these big charities like Oxfam and Cancer Research employing  fund raisers on 3 figure salaries it does make you think that someone is being taken for a mug!


    Not at all. It's when you see comments like that you realise how little the average man in the street understands what activities these charities are involved in.

    For example. Just take the legal complexities of dealing with a will from someone who has left their house to a charity.

  • TimR wrote (see)
    dave taylor 13 wrote (see)

    When you start seeing these big charities like Oxfam and Cancer Research employing  fund raisers on 3 figure salaries it does make you think that someone is being taken for a mug!


    Not at all. It's when you see comments like that you realise how little the average man in the street understands what activities these charities are involved in.

    For example. Just take the legal complexities of dealing with a will from someone who has left their house to a charity.

    Whats that got to do with anything? Charity fund raisers aren't employed to deal with probate issues? Next you will be telling me its acceptable that 'chuggers' get £130 for signing you up to a direct debit because standing in the street being annoying is a stressful job. If I sign up to a British Heart Foundation Direct debit for a tenner a month I would not expect the first 13 months to go to a nutter in a cagoule rather than research into heart disease.
  • WilkieWilkie ✭✭✭
    dave taylor 13 wrote (see)

    When you start seeing these big charities like Oxfam and Cancer Research employing  fund raisers on 3 figure salaries it does make you think that someone is being taken for a mug!

    Er, a three figure salary would not be worth getting out of bed for!

    I expect that a good fundraiser is worth their salary, in that they raise far more than they cost. 

    As long as they are doing a good job, they are worth their cost. 

    Similarly, GB places are worth their cost because the charity raises several times that from the runner.

  • PhilPubPhilPub ✭✭✭

    Whilst I'm not a great fan of the chugger strategy (although they're easily ignored, especially if you have that "I've had a really bad day" look about you on approach...) I don't think there's any getting round the fact that charities are basically companies with costs and revenues who are trying to maximise their gross profits (donations minus costs). 

    I presume the charities have done their sums and worked out commission/incentive schemes that maximise the return they can get from various forms of fund raising.  (Standing in the street being annoying probably isn't the most stressful job in the world, but like most others it's not likely to be high on job satisfaction either, so presumably people do it because it pays the money.)  If they went with the ideological plan of relying on volunteers to work out of the goodness of their hearts, my guess is the returns would be miniscule.  IMO the same argument extends to the three figure* salaries paid to employees, the economics of golden bond places, etc.

    * [edit]  On the continent, they use a full stop instead of a comma.  That's my excuse anyway.  image

  • dave taylor 13 wrote (see)
    TimR wrote (see)
    dave taylor 13 wrote (see)

    When you start seeing these big charities like Oxfam and Cancer Research employing  fund raisers on 3 figure salaries it does make you think that someone is being taken for a mug!


    Not at all. It's when you see comments like that you realise how little the average man in the street understands what activities these charities are involved in.

    For example. Just take the legal complexities of dealing with a will from someone who has left their house to a charity.

    Whats that got to do with anything? Charity fund raisers aren't employed to deal with probate issues? Next you will be telling me its acceptable that 'chuggers' get £130 for signing you up to a direct debit because standing in the street being annoying is a stressful job. If I sign up to a British Heart Foundation Direct debit for a tenner a month I would not expect the first 13 months to go to a nutter in a cagoule rather than research into heart disease.


    It was an example of what type of activites charities would get involved in. They would be employing lawyers to deal with those sorts of issues. I was involved in a case where a relative was left half and the charity the other half, It got very messy and lawyers aren't cheap. Its not as simple as you give a tenner to someone and they sent it to Africa and bys some food with it. Cancer Research in particular run large laboratories with complex equipment, plant and animal rooms. Along the lines of pharmacutical companies like Welcome/Glaxo etc.

    I assume that you have to emply people to process direct debits and keep accounts etc. Accountants aren't cheap, especially the type you need to employ to ensure millions of pounds are looked after properly.

    £300 is a drop in the ocean to a big charity and really what is happening when you set a minimum target is it forces people to publicise your charity to their friends and family (or stup up £2000) themselves. So that £300 can also be seen as an advertising cost.

    Help for Heros is a strange charity. They have several millions of pounds that they can't actually give away because they have become a victim of thier own success. Their rules state that they are fund raising for soldiers injured since 9/11.

    I ran a race for the benifit of the Army Benevolent Fund who are struggling due to the popularity of Help for Heroes and who provide funds for all soldiers who have been injured in any conflict. Many people in the race thought they were running for Help for Heros - go figure.

  • didn't realise that help the heroes only helped those since 9/11........hadn't noticed that in all the hype..........so those who were injured before are not heroes...........image
Sign In or Register to comment.