Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Gifts from Charities
Guy
✭✭✭
Working on the theory that I have probably not made it through the ballot, I have been looking into the possibility of getting a charity place. I was surprised to find that a number of charities are offering incentives for runners to run for them, such as mountain bikes, holidays, trips to other marathons etc - in some cases just for agreeing to raise a minimum amount, and in others there is a sliding scale of incentives depending on the amount raised.
I find this somewhat distasteful, and rather odd.
Distasteful because if I am going round my friends/colleagues etc asking for donations to charity I would feel extremely guilty knowing that actually the first £100 or so was going to used to buy me a mountain bike.
Odd, because surely most peoples' motives for running for charity are: (i) because they want to run the marathon; and (ii) because they want to raise money for charity. Getting something in return must be very much at the bottom of the list.
I would rather run for a charity that asked me to raise £1,000, but where I knew that it was all going to that charity, than one that asked me to raise £1,500, with £100 of that going to me.
Am I being over sensitive? Perhaps I should accept that charties are run as businesses these days. However, for me the gifts have had entirely the wrong effect. I would positively avoid running for a charity that offers me a gift in return.
I find this somewhat distasteful, and rather odd.
Distasteful because if I am going round my friends/colleagues etc asking for donations to charity I would feel extremely guilty knowing that actually the first £100 or so was going to used to buy me a mountain bike.
Odd, because surely most peoples' motives for running for charity are: (i) because they want to run the marathon; and (ii) because they want to raise money for charity. Getting something in return must be very much at the bottom of the list.
I would rather run for a charity that asked me to raise £1,000, but where I knew that it was all going to that charity, than one that asked me to raise £1,500, with £100 of that going to me.
Am I being over sensitive? Perhaps I should accept that charties are run as businesses these days. However, for me the gifts have had entirely the wrong effect. I would positively avoid running for a charity that offers me a gift in return.
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Charities are businesses like any other but their "profits" go to good causes. The mountain bike incentive can actually help people raise more money and the chances are the charity got the bikes free in the first place or at a ridiculously discounted rate. So the incentives do probably not cost as much as you think.
If you look at the mountain bike laterally, it's a good way of raising funds as you can raffle it and you'd be a very good way of getting towards your target in the first place.
Many people like incentives cos it does spur them to go beyond their minimum amount. Most of the charities we deal with have the problem of people who stop fundraising once they've reached their minimum & the incentives are a good way of getting people to continue.
Also you can simply see the gift as a thank you for slogging your way around 26.2 miles in return for the cash you've raised for them ;-)
Free sponsorship webpages for the London Marathon.
This really is a fascinating debate. It's good that some people are prepared to think beoynd the flm place and question some of the motivation and commercial drivers behind it. I know we all have a choice not to get involved, but I think it's perfectly OK, and encouraging, that some runners are wanting to debate these thornier issues. Just because the emotive tag of 'charity' is attached to something doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge some of their practices.
Another perspective is that the UK is unique, as far as I know (certainly compared with France and Sweden) in having a culture of fundraising and charity work on the scale that exists. I've been a charity trustee and the way things are going, there will be a ploriferation of charities - eg any group that has an income of over £1000 must now register as a charity.
The more charities, the more amalgamation of the 'big' names, the more branding and tie-ups with commercial events such as the flm, the more we should reflect and debate what the purpose of it all is. And hopefully more and more people connect with particular causes for genuine and committed reasons rather than through self-interest. I can't be alone in feeling a sense of sponsorship fatigue, as any parent will know you can't escape it from the day you walk into your first Bring & Buy Sale!
We don't all work for large organisations where colleagues are well paid and there is a vast network of people to target with your sponsor form.
I doesn't seem to me to be an answer to say that the charity probably got the mountain bike for nothing, or very cheaply. The bike still has a value, and if the charity wasn't giving it to me it could sell it for £100 (or whatever).
Raffling the bike is a possible solution, but: (i) I wonder how many people actually do; and (ii) it only works for the bike example, not the offer of a free holiday/flight etc.
I can quite understand why charities want to offer incentives. However, I do question: (i) whether it is really fair to those who are being asked to donate; and (ii) whether it is not counter-productive, with some runners (such as me) thinking they would rather not run for that charity?
There is a big business in charity treks where it could be argued you are paying for someone to go on holiday to China or Peru or wherever. I am sure the people doing those treks don't feel embarrassed about asking for money because like it or not money does go to the charity.
Most charities work on a return on investment because every single charity in the world unless it is staffed purely by volunteers in someone's house with those volunteers paying for stationary, postage, photocopying etc etc out of their own pocket.
Large charities running TV campaigns think they are doing very, very well if they get a return on investment of two to one. You would not believe how many fundraising services there are where the charity accepts it will not make any money for at least a year!
Yes offering incentives will put some runners off but there are certainly enough who are not put off for it to be worth the charity doing it, at a very good return on investment.
Let the debate continue :-)
Most charities work on a return on investment because every single charity in the world, UNLESS it is staffed purely by volunteers in someone's house with those volunteers paying for stationary, postage, photocopying etc etc out of their own pocket, has fundraising costs. It is a fact of life.
It's a tricky issue - I got into quite an argument with a friend about whether certain charities were as "worthy" as others - e.g. a cancer charity versus (say) a retirement home for donkeys. Ultimately I guess the contributors have to make the choice. There's also concern when selecting a charity about how accepted a charity it is. Some people may be very sympathetic and generous to some charities - e.g. breast canceer which has had a lot of coverage lately, and yet other issues e.g. testicular cancer isn't such a popular one. Other illnesses seem tougher to get sympathy for - people still seem to find some illnesses/diseases a bit of a thing to be scorned/laughed at somehow. I've had some really unpleasant reactions when collecting for an epilepsy charity.
Although it is true that a charity is a business, I think that generally we expect charities to behave differently from other businesses. It would be good business sense for a charity to tell me I could go out with a collecting box, use its name to collect money from the public, and split the proceeds 50/50. However, most donors would be shocked to know that that was happening, and if I told them I was pocketing half the money probably wouldn't give anything.
I agree that it is a tricky issue. I just have my doubts as to whether this is really an appropriate way of raising money, and whether the answer "it's for charity" is sufficient justification. Anyway, I have said enough, but am interested to know what other people think.
Pain in the bum once you get to colleges/schools where money is an issue. Severely disruptive kids are allowed to bugger up other people's education because the school will lose money if they don't keep them there. My experience of fee paying schools anyway. The disruptive kids will then get thrown out if the parents of the rest of the class start complaining. This isn't because anything worse has been done, just because the school will lose even more money if the other six in the class withdraw.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't like the way that things like this (and indeed what you mention) are happening.