Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
London Marathon and charities
Peter Collins
✭✭✭
I post this link without comment and await the debate.
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/Article/1064969/small-charities-struggle-fill-London-Marathon-places/
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/Article/1064969/small-charities-struggle-fill-London-Marathon-places/
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
Edited for clarity
.
(I'll leave that to others instead
)
I'm not surprised smaller charities can't get people to raise £2,000, or even £1,000.
It's much harder to get cash out of people for the third world, whales, animals in general and diseases which affect only a small number of people. A couple of years ago the League Against Cruel Sports were asking for £1,500, and advertising on this forum for runners up to the last possible moment.
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read that FF.
I got a ballot place in last year's VLM but still raised money for Macmillan. Picking a charity that everyone has heard of made fundraising much easier (but that wasn't the main reason I chose them).
I think when it comes to fundraising you need to be passionate about the charity, so unless these charities have personally helped someone then they will struggle.
After my first R4L years back I said I'd never run for a charity again unless it was something big like VLM. When you become more of a serious* runner, people think you're taking the piss if you asked them to sponsor you for a 5k.
I do think the smaller charities are putting people off by asking for £2k sponsorship. Even someone fundraising for a big charity would find it hard given the current economical climate.
* Serious, as in someone who runs regulary rather than the one off fun-runner**
** Thought I'd better get that in before anyone gets offended
It’s interesting as I thought the complaint raised by smaller charities previously was that they couldn’t get the places under the gold/silver bond schemes. Now they seem to be saying that securing the places is no problem but filling them is another matter.
I question if this is a running issue or just a marketing problem for the charities. I’m guessing that the smaller charities listed here have also struggled to fundraise outside of the marathon. It’s tough for smaller charities and it’s not surprising that when prospective runners are trawling around for places on April 18th they go to NSPCC etc first. I used to know someone who worked in fundraising for one of the major children’s charities and they dreaded the week after the marathon because the phone literally wouldn’t stop ringing.
Given the number of ballot runners who choose to fundraise I do wonder if a better outcome for these smaller charities would just be to allow their places back into the ballot and concentrate on marketing, rather than having the hassle of paying for, administering and ultimately losing places.
What happens if you don't hit your target? Are you expected to put your hand in your own pocket?
They could always offer a guide minimum and then if they're struggling to fill places reduce it down to a more sensible level. I bet there's hundreds of runners out there that would take a charity place last minute if they only needed to raise say £200
Historically the London charity fun run... sorry marathon... has been a good bet for fundraising so paying for a silver or golden bond has been a good investment. It's been such a good bet that charities jealously guard their places and it's almost impossible for small charities to get a place. It seems that the gravy train has finally hit the buffers and it's no longer such a good bet. Is it time for them to change the way charity places are allocated? Should charities be obliged to find runners then apply for places?
A sign of the times but I actually don't think this is such a bad thing.
The amount of sponsorship some charities were asking for was beginning to get silly IMO. Even when I ran the FLM in 2007 there were a few charities asking for 3,000 - 4,000.
Perhaps this will mean more charities bring the amounts down to a level that's doable for the average person.
The charity cant ask for £200 - as it costs them £350 or so for their charity places ?
2 grand is taking the pee really, but some people will easily raise the cash. It depends on who you know and the circles you move in.
Yes, the charity will expect you to put your hand in your pocket. They take the (fairly reasonable) view that if you say you can raise £2k, then you must live up to it.
If you doubt that you can do it, don't say that you can.
Otherwise there would be plenty of people taking on charity places with no intention of really trying to raise the £2,000, knowing that they could get away with it.
I would guess that as it gets down to the final days before charities have to register their runners, they will in fact let the places go to runners who can raise whatever they can, but they'll hold out as long as possible.
I dont believe they can force you to make up the difference though - something about that would be classed as selling the place rather than having donations ?
If you did do that - you'd not be allowed to run for a charity again. Understandable eh ?
I believe Cougie is right on that point, but they will put a lot of pressure on you (or certainly some charities have done) to come up with the difference.
The runner signs a contract with the charity, so should read it carefully.
There is a 'blacklist' of people who've failed to come up with the money, so they won't get another charity place. Not that they'd probably want one.
This just highlights why I wouldn't do it. I'll stick to fell running thanks
Now you see why they ask for £2,000!
Entry for runners is something like £28, which is a bargain compared to many other big city marathons (and Brighton!).
I think the normal entry fee is subsidised by all of the charitys buying the gold bond tickets ?
London would surely cost a lot more otherwise ? I think the race sponsorship from Virgin is just to pay out the prize fund - or it was back in Floras day ?
The London Marathon itself is a charity though - so it should charge charities a decent amount. London Marathon is also one of the charities who support the parkruns too ?
There was a thread last year about a charity forcing someone to cough up the £2k despite the runner having to pull out due to injury.
I don't know how it ended up as it was a friend of the person posting, but apparently the charity were getting pretty nasty. I think they might have been threatening legal action but someone pointed out that the £2k was a pledge & not a legally binding contract.
If these charities are getting so desperate for runners, why not advertise the places for £500 etc. That only leaves a tiny profit but surely better than a loss?
I've applied 6 times & got in once. I'd rather take my chance on the ballot then have the added pressure of trying to raise so much money.
Exactly. Is it really fair to penalise people for having a smaller circle of friends/colleagues which is effectively what the greedier charities do?
And yes, if a charity has paid £350 for a place and can't fill it then why not offer it offer it up a month before the race for £450 ? That's £100 quid profit and an achievable for most people to raise.
But then if you know you will struggle to raise £2,000 because of your small circle of friends/colleagues why sign up? I would never take a charity place because I don't want to pester people and know I would struggle, but I do lose sympathy for people who sign up and don't think about what it means to raise £2,000.
The fact is a lot of people smash their fundraising target and it's in the charities' interest to find those people. (which is why I'm sure a lot of people would admit there's a bias towards people who work for large organisations). Yes £150 profit is better than nothing, but it's not a sustainable model if they have staff employed to find the best fundraisers and support them.
I agree you should be realistic about the amount you can raise and if you can raise £2,500 - go for it!
I just think there should be places available for smaller amounts otherwise it turns into a perverse kind of popularity contest.
I'll probably never be looking for a charity place again but if I did I know my limit would be about £1000.
To say charities are penalising people who can't raise certain amounts is like saying Aston Martin are penalising people who can only afford a 4th hand Skoda.
VLM is all about shifting product. Why do people struggle to understand that? The charities in turn re-sell some of that product to the highest bidder. Current economic conditions mean that not all of the re-sold product will get shifted. A last minute sell off of the available spaces would make sense to recoup some of the money splashed out by the charities but that's up to them.