Will you sponsor my holiday.. I mean my marathon in NYC.

nhunter100

It's that time of year with NYC marathon looming large and the fundraising for various charities getting more vocal for said event. It would be nice however if those engaged if said fundraising were up front and said how much of that target figure was to fund their trip/accommodation and race entry. It does strike me as somewhat of neck like a Jockeys b*llix to expect others to pay for your jolly. I have ran marathons but I only approach the charity after I pay all my own costs. What i have fund raised has 100% gone to the charity. Rant over.

average_runner

nhunter100 wrote: »

It's that time of year with NYC marathon looming large and the fundraising for various charities getting more vocal for said event. It would be nice however if those engaged if said fundraising were up front and said how much of that target figure was to fund their trip/accommodation and race entry. It does strike me as somewhat of neck like a Jockeys b*llix to expect others to pay for your jolly. I have ran marathons but I only approach the charity after I Pygocentrus all my own costs. What i have fund raised has 100% gone to the charity. Rant over.

Did New York a few years ago for charity, paid for my own entry, wife ticket and my own, accommodation etc as its was a holiday for us. Was always going to run the race, so just did the charity element because my mum had died a few years earlier.

nhunter100

average_runner wrote:

Did New York a few years ago for charity, paid for my own entry, wife ticket and my own, accommodation etc as its was a holiday for us. Was always going to run the race, so just did the charity element because my mum had died a few years earlier.

Fair play, hope you enjoyed it. My issue however is I know 5 individuals going to do NY all for the same charity at a fund raising target of 2500 each. Again no problem with this but I have asked all five how much does the charity get after their costs are paid. A frosty response is the common answer. I think when raising money in this manner you need to be honest with people as to where the money is going.

kit3

nhunter100 wrote: »

It's that time of year with NYC marathon looming large and the fundraising for various charities getting more vocal for said event. It would be nice however if those engaged if said fundraising were up front and said how much of that target figure was to fund their trip/accommodation and race entry. It does strike me as somewhat of neck like a Jockeys b*llix to expect others to pay for your jolly. I have ran marathons but I only approach the charity after I Pygocentrus all my own costs. What i have fund raised has 100% gone to the charity. Rant over.

The whole charity sector is a minefield. I would agree with you completely - if I fundraise then I would make sure to pay any costs myself. Wouldn't think of doing otherwise.

A new(ish) angle on this is the whole 'go fund me' area where people choose to enter events that cost a lot of money & then look for contributions to get there. Whatever about raising money for a specific charity, I don't get fund raising for costs.

nhunter100

kit3 wrote:

A new(ish) angle on this is the whole 'go fund me' area where people choose to enter events that cost a lot of money & then look for contributions to get there. Whatever about raising money for a specific charity, I don't get fund raising for costs.

Go fund me basically begging others to pay for their jolly but somewhat more honest IMHO.

average_runner

nhunter100 wrote: »

Fair play, hope you enjoyed it. My issue however is I know 5 individuals going to do NY all for the same charity at a fund raising target of 2500 each. Again no problem with this but I have asked all five how much does the charity get after their costs are paid. A frosty response is the common answer. I think when raising money in this manner you need to be honest with people as to where the money is going.

Yep agree with you. Alot of the charities facter in the cost of trip and accomdation into their fund raising total.

But people should be upfront

gramar

average_runner wrote: »

Yep agree with you. Alot of the charities facter in the cost of trip and accomdation into their fund raising total.

But people should be upfront

The only thing these people want is cash upfront!

HS3

A friend of mine took a career break a few years ago and decided to go travelling. A month in to her plans she realised she could get sponsorship in it and all of a sudden it changed into a fundraiser for a particular charity. I gave her nothing. It was a holiday pure and simple and I wasn't funding it.

With all charitable donations no matter what generates it, a run, a hike, a 48 hour fast, there will always be a bit of creaming off the top and reducing what goes to actual good work within the charity.

If I enter an associated race, it doesn't matter to me how much of it goes to charity. Common sense would tell you the charity isn't getting much of the fee. Particularly if there are goody bags etc at the end. But isn't something better than nothing?

Murph_D

HS3 wrote: »

But isn't something better than nothing?

Arguably, no, it isn't. If the work a charity does is worth doing, it's worth funding properly, and if it's socially useful or necessary work, I'd rather see it funded officially from public funds. The tax increases necessary would be smaller, probably more progressive, and certainly more efficient than the unwieldy fundraising system that allows individuals and corporations cream off a sizeable chunk via the practices described above, while also allowing profit-oriented events (e.g. Night Run) create an illusion of charitable giving while in reality the nominated charity gets a much smaller chunk of the entry fee (if any) than the vast majority of well meaning punters realise. This kind of fundraising fudginess also allows some highly dubious "charities", some of whom run very high profile events, to raise large sums of money that probably goes towards administrative, travel and salary expenses without having to account for how the relevant cause (e.g. spinal cord research) actually benefits.

Bah!

ThisRegard

The problem i have with a lot of the charity runs, and I said it before here, is the cost. I never go looking for sponsorship and usually pony up the full cost out of my own pocket, within reason. However there's been so many I'm interested in which they set a minimum of €100+ etc so I just don't bother. Would they raise more money by having a smaller limit, but more entrants?

joesoap5

Murph_D wrote: »

Arguably, no, it isn't. If the work a charity does is worth doing, it's worth funding properly, and if it's socially useful or necessary work, I'd rather see it funded officially from public funds. The tax increases necessary would be smaller, probably more progressive, and certainly more efficient than the unwieldy fundraising system that allows individuals and corporations cream off a sizeable chunk via the practices described above, while also allowing profit-oriented events (e.g. Night Run) create an illusion of charitable giving while in reality the nominated charity gets a much smaller chunk of the entry fee (if any) than the vast majority of well meaning punters realise. This kind of fundraising fudginess also allows some highly dubious "charities", some of whom run very high profile events, to raise large sums of money that probably goes towards administrative, travel and salary expenses without having to account for how the relevant cause (e.g. spinal cord research) actually benefits.

Bah!

Wherever there's money there's some sort of scam or deceit going on so much of a muchness in my opinion. Public funds are not organised by a band of angels.

ligerdub

Great thread, a necessary point being made.

There are two areas of issue for me.

One is the rather obvious one of "charity affiliated" events e.g. The run is marketed as in benefit to Mental Health or the like. The entry fee is €20, you get a t-shirt and a few bits of fruit at the end. You can also donate to the affiliated charity if you so wish. The unspoken element of this is that the charity only gets money from the voluntary donations. The organisers get 20x c. 3,000 people - cost per runner - fixed running costs : probably a big profit. It's a no brainier for the charity as who are they to say no to the affiliation, it's good for the organisers as the charity element feeds into the feel good factor that the runners get believing they are helping out a worthy cause. The end result is the organisers get both a pat on the back for being such top class guys, but more importantly roll in the dough from the entry fees!

Secondly, this craic of fundraising for somebody to do something they really want to do is a load of hoop. If you want to do it you pay for it. If you want to raise money after setting it up then good for you, but aside from that no way. It's point blank exploitation of people by guilt-tripping people in putting their hands into their pockets to pay for somebody's well located hotel stay!

Henning Wehn does a very good piece on this on Room 101, highly recommend a viewing.

HS3

Murph_D wrote: »

HS3 wrote: »

But isn't something better than nothing?

Arguably, no, it isn't. If the work a charity does is worth doing, it's worth funding properly, and if it's socially useful or necessary work, I'd rather see it funded officially from public funds. The tax increases necessary would be smaller, probably more progressive, and certainly more efficient than the unwieldy fundraising system that allows individuals and corporations cream off a sizeable chunk via the practices described above, while also allowing profit-oriented events (e.g. Night Run) create an illusion of charitable giving while in reality the nominated charity gets a much smaller chunk of the entry fee (if any) than the vast majority of well meaning punters realise. This kind of fundraising fudginess also allows some highly dubious "charities", some of whom run very high profile events, to raise large sums of money that probably goes towards administrative, travel and salary expenses without having to account for how the relevant cause (e.g. spinal cord research) actually benefits.

Bah!

But surely the charity need to agree to their name being used? And part of the agreement reached between the charity and the organisers would be a percentage of the entrance fee. So if the charity are more than happy to be linked with the race, why would anyone else?

RayCun

HS3 wrote: »

And part of the agreement reached between the charity and the organisers would be a percentage of the entrance fee.

Usually no.
Some races will have this agreement, some will give an unspecified amount to the charity afterwards (could be a decent amount, but the race is not obliged to give a set amount ) and sometimes the charity only gets what runners raise in sponsorship

28064212

HS3 wrote: »

And part of the agreement reached between the charity and the organisers would be a percentage of the entrance fee

In many cases (such as the Virgin Media Night Run), that percentage is a big fat zero. This was confirmed by the Virgin Media reps right here on Boards. It was/is a for-profit race that said "hey, if you want to fund-raise for charity, we think that'd be great"

gramar

Charities will be approached by organisers and between them they'll negotiate what they receive. In some cases it will be only
exposure plus whatever participants raise, in others it will be an fixed amount or percentage of the entrance fee.
Either way the charity knows what it's going to get out of it before lending their name to the event.

Some local races here (Spain) are organised by local companies who usually state that the totality of the entrance fee goes to the associated
charities. They along with other sponsors will pay all the rest of the costs. Gives them the some positive local publicity, helps them
spent part of the sponsorship budget and ticks the corporate social responsibility box.

HS3

28064212 wrote: »

In many cases (such as the Virgin Media Night Run), that percentage is a big fat zero. This was confirmed by the Virgin Media reps right here on Boards. It was/is a for-profit race that said "hey, if you want to fund-raise for charity, we think that'd be great"

RayCun wrote: »

Usually no.
Some races will have this agreement, some will give an unspecified amount to the charity afterwards (could be a decent amount, but the race is not obliged to give a set amount ) and sometimes the charity only gets what runners raise in sponsorship

That is interesting. ..its hard to see the point in charities lending their name to something when they get nothing out of it. Maybe it's a case of if the don't pick my charity, they'll just use someone else.

I looked at the Night Run page one to see if it was promoted differently. You wouldn't really know it was linked to Simon at all, except for the icon at the bottom. But then the advertisement on Athletics Irelands page, does make you think Simon are getting something out of it. A 30 entry fee is pretty steep and then they ask you to text to donate 4 to the charity. Pretty cheeky!

The "Charities" who gain the most are the companies who organise these trips. A few years ago my daughters school was visited by a very inspirational character who was leading walks in a certain mountain range. The suggestion was each child would raise €2,800 with €400 going to the good cause! Flights, accommodation, guides, food etc was paid out of the rest. He was told "Thanks, but No Thanks"
Another time funds were needed for equipment for a new gym. A night at the dogs was put forward. The dog track wanted €2,500 upfront and €100 per page of adverts. (A full page advert cost €250, so the school would have €150 and track €100) Again, this was rejected.
A table quiz was held in the school instead and was very successful and enjoyable, involving teachers, students and parents.
Charities are not just good causes, they are business' and are run as such.

ThisRegard

Not all charities are ran like that. And the costs of an event at the dogs (an odd choice for a school fund raiser imo) had nothing to do with any charity, the dog track is a straightforward business.

HS3

Deleted User wrote: »

The "Charities" who gain the most are the companies who organise these trips. A few years ago my daughters school was visited by a very inspirational character who was leading walks in a certain mountain range. The suggestion was each child would raise 2,800 with 400 going to the good cause! Flights, accommodation, guides, food etc was paid out of the rest. He was told "Thanks, but No Thanks"
Another time funds were needed for equipment for a new gym. A night at the dogs was put forward. The dog track wanted 2,500 upfront and 100 per page of adverts. (A full page advert cost 250, so the school would have 150 and track 100) Again, this was rejected.
A table quiz was held in the school instead and was very successful and enjoyable, involving teachers, students and parents.
Charities are not just good causes, they are business' and are run as such.

Im a bit hungover, so maybe im missing something. Was the inspirational leader from the charity or from a company who organised the walks? Was he looking for money for his company? Or for himself to do the walk?

If every child was to raise 2,800...and there are how many in the class? Say 30 kids...That's 2800 x 30 = 84000 from one class? With 12000 going to charity and 72000 going on trip expenses? That can't be right? How many schools was this guy visiting? Did he go to every class in the school?

I'm missing something obvious aren't I?

HS3

HS3 wrote: »

Im a bit hungover, so maybe im missing something. Was the inspirational leader from the charity or from a company who organised the walks? Was he looking for money for his company? Or for himself to do the walk?

If every child was to raise 2,800...and there are how many in the class? Say 30 kids...That's 2800 x 30 = 84000 from one class? With 12000 going to charity and 72000 going on trip expenses? That can't be right? How many schools was this guy visiting? Did he go to every class in the school?

I'm missing something obvious aren't I?

He used do the walk with the kids, sort of a leader. He definitely wasn't from the charity. I'm not sure of his connection with the organisers. It was usually Transition Year and a few schools would get together and go in one big group.

dastardly00

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He used do the walk with the kids, sort of a leader. He definitely wasn't from the charity. I'm not sure of his connection with the organisers. It was usually Transition Year and a few schools would get together and go in one big group.

It sounds like this guy!

rooneyjm

Did NY last year and went through a company. The vast majority were doing it for "charity". Talking to a lot of them some raise savage money which is admirable some the bare minimum. A good few just there for the piss up and I doubt the people who sponsored them would have been impressed.