nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Concern

cson

Likely this has been done before but I searched and it turned up nothing...

Where the **** did they pull this €40 out of? I mean, have they any rationale whatso-****ing-ever for picking 40? Why not 50/60/400?

Those adds are pissing me off tbqh, I don't like being told an amount to give. 40 quid is a lot to most people these days and their begging ads would put me off giving anything at all if I'm honest.

Them and their damn chuggers.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Celly Smunt

€2-pakistan
€20-overheads
€18-profit

= good days work

Superbus

Hi, would you like to learn about some of the work we do at Concern?

*smiles terrifyingly*

AckwelFoley

cson wrote: »

Likely this has been done before but I searched and it turned up nothing...

Where the **** did they pull this €40 out of? I mean, have they any rationale whatso-****ing-ever for picking 40? Why not 50/60/400?

Those adds are pissing me off tbqh, I don't like being told an amount to give. 40 quid is a lot to most people these days and their begging ads would put me off giving anything at all if I'm honest.

Them and their damn chuggers.

Thats why there called concern.

Id have to be really fcuking concerned to give 40 quid away

admiralofthefleet

i wouldnt and wont give them a cent, if they can afford ad's on the telly during the rte news at 6:01 they dont need the money

the rest goes on admin

[Deleted User]

Would never give to Concern.. They don't seem to realise that people have a basic knowledge of business and know that if they can afford the ad campaigns and chuggers, the money isn't going where it should. Sure the executives of those charities make fortunes...

When the Madoff 65billion fraud hit, so many charities were wiped to zero. Why weren't all those billions being used? Why was it sitting in hedge funds?

BS.

NoHornJan

Should've tried the Dunnes Stores tactics:-

Only €39.99.
or Special Offer
Get 2 for €60.00.

Ruu_Old

<E-Chugger> Here, have you got a minute? </E-Chugger>

Yakult

Why do they always have those ad's on tv at diner time. Seriously, I have to change the channel everytime.

BigBenRoeth

They're nothing short of fcuking conmen,often came close to slapping on of them begging tramps hassling me on the street.

artanevilla

This is none of my concern.

Ruu_Old

artanevilla wrote: »

This is none of my concern.

*bangs table* hehehehehehehhehahahahhahahhaha

sponsoredwalk

Deleted User wrote: »

Would never give to Concern.. They don't seem to realise that people have a basic knowledge of business and know that if they can afford the ad campaigns and chuggers, the money isn't going where it should. Sure the executives of those charities make fortunes...

If only that basic knowledge extended beyond a superficial knowledge of
business and advertising practices :rolleyes:

http://wheel.ie/news/get-tv-exposure-your-charity-christmas

5. Negotiate with channels
One positive aspect of the recession is that there is less demand from commercial organisations for television airtime, so many of the channels are willing to sell it to charities at heavily discounted rates.
The NSPCC, Dogs Trust, WaterAid and Action for Children have all reported in recent weeks that they have benefited from this trend. The NSPCC saved about 25 per cent on what it paid for the same space only a year ago.
Louise Dean, senior TV planner at direct response media company Mike Colling & Co, which has booked space for Cancer Research UK and Oxfam among others, says: "There are some great deals to be had, so it is important that your agencies are in regular contact with the sales houses. That way, as soon as an offer is available, you'll be the first to know.
"Have readily available creative and telemarketing in place so that you can react quickly - cheap offers are generally very last-minute and a lot of advertisers aren't able to take advantage because there is no call handling in place."
It's worth noting that cheap airtime might also be available outside a recession. For example, the period between Christmas and New Year is typically cheaper and some channels are always willing to offer discounts to entertaining and inspiring adverts.

http://wheel.ie/news/get-tv-exposure-your-charity-christmas

These are kinds of things that get charities on-line/-tv a lot of the time so
just because you feel the need to lash out at charities due to some
personal guilt or whatever doesn't mean your "grievances" are
justified...

Nobody wants your money if you don't feel happy departing with it but
starting a rabble rabble gets us nowhere...

What purpose could it serve? Methinks alleviation of personal issues :pac:

Glenster

cson wrote: »

Where the **** did they pull this €40 out of? I mean, have they any rationale whatso-****ing-ever for picking 40? Why not 50/60/400?

Asking for 40 maximizes the amount of money given. Simple.

There's no rule that says you have to give 40, you can give any amount.

Also less than 7% of total money recieved goes to overheads.

And no money given by individuals goes towards overheads.

Overheads are made up by grants from the EU, The Irish State, and various other governments.

Also, grow a ****ing soul you cheap banshees.

starbelgrade

Glenster wrote: »

Asking for 40 maximizes the amount of money given. Simple.

There's no rule that says you have to give 40, you can give any amount.

Also less than 7% of total money recieved goes to overheads.

And no money given by individuals goes towards overheads.

Overheads are made up by grants from the EU, The Irish State, and various other governments.

Also, grow a ****ing soul you cheap banshees.

Eh.... where exactly do you think governments get the money to pay for the overheads.... the friggin' magic money bush?

So yeah, every penny they waste on overheads is given by individuals, like you & me, only we don't really have any say in the matter and they have f*ck all accountabilty as to how the money is actually spent & who exactly benefits from it.

Owwmykneecap

pmcmahon wrote: »

€2-pakistan
€20-overheads
€18-profit

= good days work

And do you have anything to back that up?

Glenster

starbelgrade wrote: »

So yeah, every penny they waste on overheads is given by individuals, like you & me, only we don't really have any say in the matter and they have f*ck all accountabilty as to how the money is actually spent & who exactly benefits from it.

That's a snivelly point.

"I dont get to control exactly where each penny goes so I give nothing to charities"

Well here's your bouquet of flowers, you've been elected person of the year.

Concern publishes exhaustive (and exhausting to compile) accounts every year, all the information on what is spent where is delivered in minute detail there, completely and freely available to the public. There's usually loads at the reception desk, just ask for one.

Unless the truth is that you dont care about overhead and you are, in fact, just a cheap **** looking for an excuse.

Ruu_Old

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wICUnZzZ4t4

BigBenRoeth

Glenster wrote: »

"I dont get to control exactly where each penny goes so I give nothing to charities"

.

The man never said that.

starbelgrade

Glenster wrote: »

That's a snivelly point.

"I dont get to control exactly where each penny goes so I give nothing to charities"

Well here's your bouquet of flowers, you've been elected person of the year.

Concern publishes exhaustive (and exhausting to compile) accounts every year, all the information on what is spent where is delivered in minute detail there, completely and freely available to the public. There's usually loads at the reception desk, just ask for one.

Unless the truth is that you dont care about overhead and you are, in fact, just a cheap **** looking for an excuse.

I don't give to charities because I believe they do more harm that good, but that is another days discussion.

Concern may well publish accounts, but there is little or no regulation in Ireland regading these publishings. The Revenue have the right to audit their accounts, but are prevented from making their findings public.

So, in essence, Concern can publish whatever the hell they like & we are none the wiser as to their real overheads. They accounts may well be as they would lead us to believe - but until the Charities Bill is properly enacted, people have the right to question how they & all other Irish registered charities really & actually spend their money.

I'm not a "tight c*nt looking for an excuse" - as you so nicely put it - but if I did need one, that would certainly be high up on my list.

Glenster

BigBenRoeth wrote: »

The man never said that.

He said

starbelgrade wrote:

they have f*ck all accountabilty as to how the money is actually spent & who exactly benefits from it.

And I thought "Accountability to who?"

Working off the assumption that this guy isn't a total neckbeard I figured he knew that the governments and major donors do, of course, keep track of where their donations are spent (and have a certain amount of say in it) and so I reached the conclusion that he was refering to public donors.

Of course how that money is spent is dealt with in the yearly accounts (still freely available guys!).

So I suppose you're right, I misrepresented this guy, a more accurate paraphrase would be,

"Derp a Herrrrrrrr, I'm a leper who talks about things I dont understand."

Apologies for any misunderstandings.

BigBenRoeth

Glenster wrote: »

He said

And I thought "Accountability to who?"

Working off the assumption that this guy isn't a total neckbeard I figured he knew that the governments and major donors do, of course, keep track of where their donations are spent (and have a certain amount of say in it) and so I reached the conclusion that he was refering to public donors.

Of course how that money is spent is dealt with in the yearly accounts (still freely available guys!).

So I suppose you're right, I misrepresented this guy, a more accurate paraphrase would be,

"Derp a Herrrrrrrr, I'm a leper who talks about things I dont understand."

Apologies for any misunderstandings.

Will you lie down lad
I for one,have come to the logical (and yes it is logical) conclusion that any charity that can afford to put ads on tv/their heavies on the streets,must have plenty of spare cash to do so.
However i do give to charity,i have no problem with,for example,giving blankets to the simon community or giving money to the lads that do go over to underdeveloped countries and build houses and that,or giving a couple of tins of food or a few pot noodles to local lads that go around collecting food to bring over,but i don't give to any "big name" charities like Trócaire or Concern.

sponsoredwalk

BigBenRoeth wrote: »

Will you lie down lad
I for one,have come to the logical (and yes it is logical) conclusion that any charity that can afford to put ads on tv/their heavies on the streets,must have plenty of spare cash to do so.
However i do give to charity,i have no problem with,for example,giving blankets to the simon community or giving money to the lads that do go over to underdeveloped countries and build houses and that,or giving a couple of tins of food or a few pot noodles to local lads that go around collecting food to bring over,but i don't give to any "big name" charities like Trócaire or Concern.

Lets get this one straight, because charities have enough to pay for
advertising in order to appeal to their primary source of funding -
public goodwill!!! - you think it fit to fault them for doing something that,
if they didn't, would drive them out of "business" (as you imply).

You want them to be poor enough so that they are stuck on the streets
handing out blankets, not actually making real money to go overseas and
help people in dire need.

Logical, especially when you see that charities have to rely on christmas
fundraisers like the links in my first post I assume you logically ignored...

Owwmykneecap

If I had a thousand pounds to give to a Pakistani village, that would be great.

If I spent it on Adverts which brought back in several times that amount which we could then give that would be better no?

Why would the defining principal of advertising not work for charities?
Spend money to make money.

I get the discomfort it can cause, etc, but It sounds to me some people are just tight and need the excuse.

BigBenRoeth

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You want them to be poor enough so that they are stuck on the streets
handing out blankets, not actually making real money to go overseas and
help people in dire need.

I implore you,quote me on that.

Dman001

I have often given money to Concern and I would do it again. Even if a tenner out of the €40 actually went to those in need it would be worth it, a tenner would go a long way in the less developed countries. They have to advertise in some form so if some of my donation went to that I wouldn't care, they have to spend money to receive money.

Glenster

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't give to charities because I believe they do more harm that good, but that is another days discussion.

Concern may well publish accounts, but there is little or no regulation in Ireland regading these publishings. The Revenue have the right to audit their accounts, but are prevented from making their findings public.

So, in essence, Concern can publish whatever the hell they like & we are none the wiser as to their real overheads. They accounts may well be as they would lead us to believe - but until the Charities Bill is properly enacted, people have the right to question how they & all other Irish registered charities really & actually spend their money.

WARNING WARNING The quoted post is not based in fact WARNING WARNING

1. Giving out life saving food and shelter to victims of natural disasters does more harm than good.

2. There are ****ing reams of regulation regarding the publication of accounts, it is the bane of my life.

3. Concern are audited/inspected by auditors about 8 times a year, 1 of which is a full audit of everything they've spent money on, line by line. If concern were found to have published anything which went against the spirit of the findings of any of these reviews the fines and scandal would cost the company 10's of millions. AND THE AUDITORS THAT CONCERN PAYS TO AUDIT THEM WOULD BE LEGALLY BOUND TO POINT ANY SUCH INFRACTION OUT.

4. What parts of the charities act would you enforce more stringently? I'll give you a few minutes to google it.

sponsoredwalk

BigBenRoeth wrote: »

However i do give to charity,i have no problem with,for example,giving blankets to the simon community or giving money to the lads that do go over to underdeveloped countries and build houses and that,or giving a couple of tins of food or a few pot noodles to local lads that go around collecting food to bring over,but i don't give to any "big name" charities like Trócaire or Concern.

So you'll give your money to the ones that go overseas and build in
underdeveloped countries but not the big-name ones that make the
most difference because it doesn't soothe your preconceptions of
what a charity should be. I think the quote is there my friend...

I don't understand why you're so in favour of giving money to those that
make a difference overseas yet don't give it to the "big name" ones that do
the most work :rolleyes:

Glenster

Dman001 wrote: »

I have often given money to Concern and I would do it again. Even if a tenner out of the €40 actually went to those in need it would be worth it, a tenner would go a long way in the less developed countries. They have to advertise in some form so if some of my donation went to that I wouldn't care, they have to spend money to receive money.

Be secure in the knowledge that 100% of that €40 will go to real aid on the ground in Pakistan in the form of food and water aid and temporary shelter assistance.

BigBenRoeth

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So you'll give your money to the ones that go overseas and build in
underdeveloped countries but not not the big-name ones that make the most difference because it doesn't soothe your preconceptions of
what a charity should be. I think the quote is there my friend...

I don't understand why you're so in favour of giving money to those that
make a difference overseas yet don't give it to the "big name" ones that do
the most work :rolleyes:

Proof.

sponsoredwalk

BigBenRoeth wrote: »

I implore you,quote me on that.

You're actually right, I did kind of misquote you, in fact you don't even want
them on the street;

BigBenRoeth wrote: »

They're nothing short of fcuking conmen,often came close to slapping on of them begging tramps hassling me on the street.

that is, unless you are happy with conmen on 'dem streets... :pac:

There is no logic behind that mentality, it's just unfounded suspicion of the wrong people & you're not the only person & this isn't the only thread...