Fund raising .. A Self Gratifying act?

[Mack]

Having talked to a few colleagues recently about the increase in the amount of everyday people feeling the urge to do something for charity the controversial opinion was suggested to me that whilst the motive is partly to do with the charities concerned, in equal proportion the self gratifying feeling delivered by taking part in such an event is also a factor.

Making you feel good about yourself whilst receiving pats on the back from friends and peers is desirable to many, even if it's only in the sub concious.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this here?

I have to say I agree with this point of view.

[James.]

Bit of both and not really much wrong with it either way.

[Greg2607]

I recently did a 10k run for charity, (an "adventure run" through sherwood forest at night). For me, I raised money for the local childrens hospital, but this was more of an after thought following the death of a friends baby.

The "driver" for me was absolutely the event and proving to myself (a tubby git) that I could complete the course. The fund raising was a nice aside and my way of showing support for a friend. I was doing the run anyway.

[I am Rod Hull]

I don`t do the fund raising stuff but I give old clothes and whatnot (including a 3 piece suite to a homeless charity) to good causes.

My mother-in-law works at a save the children shop, and I make my own pickles and chutney for the old girls that work there, they cant get enough of my spicy pickled onions ("young man") , but it is quite warming to do something for these old dears that give their time up for nothing.

[Rincewind]

ATM I'm sort of involved with a new magazine that is coming out at the end of May. I have volunteered for the reporting side of things. Although it is not directly involved in raising money it is raising awareness about homeless. I am happy to do that because my awareness is improving and doing it is something I enjoy and is developing journalistic skills in me I never knew that I had. So is improving things for yourself and doing something that you enjoy self gratifying? Yes and I imagine that a lot of people do charity work/events for much the same reason.

Going to a meeting next Tuesday which is a training course for the project so to do whatever we do for the mag better. If I start back work I wont be able to devote so much time to it but it will be a good part time activity.

Some of the people involve are former homeless people so they have more motivation to see the project as a success.

[Mack]

It sometimes also concerns me how much these charitable organisation founders and employees earn.

[James.]

Not sure what exactly is controversial about the original point you made. As for salaries, etc which organisations are you thinking of specifically?

[I am Rod Hull]

It sometimes also concerns me how much these charitable organisation founders and employees earn.

Well, my sister-in-law used to work for Barnardos in London, within 3 years her wages went up by about £6k to 28k.....

Even she was astounded by it, they used to send her on weekends away on irrelevant courses that hiked her money up.....

[Rincewind]

The editors and sub-editors on the magazine project are salary based. Don't know what they get but it may be more expenses type thing as they are using their own PC's and buying resources to run it. It is lottery funded though so their wages come out of that. They had to sign contracts,, bank details etc so its all above board. No pay for the on ground average reporter though. We are just unpaid volunteers which is why I still need to look for a job.

[Zingari]

It sometimes also concerns me how much these charitable organisation founders and employees earn.

indeed it should ;

High earners: Charity bosses

*Riverside Housing Group: Deborah Shackleton, chief executive, received a salary of £231,000 for 2008-9.

* Barnardo's: Its chief executive, Martin Narey, earns a salary of £166,532.

*National Trust: Fiona Reynolds, the director general, is paid between £160,000 and £169,000.

*British Heart Foundation: Peter Hollins, chief executive, enjoys a salary of £153,000

*Action for Children: Its boss Clare Tickell was paid between £130,000 and 140,000 last year.

*Guide Dogs for the Blind: Bridget Warr, chief executive, earns between £120,000 and £130,000.

*Age Concern: Its director general Gordon Lishman earned £117,488 in 2007-8.

*RSPCA: Mark Watts, chief executive, received £105,500 in pay and perks in the year to April 2009.

*The RSPB: Chief executive Graham Wynne's pay and benefits were up to £100,000 for 2007-8.

*Victim Support: Gillian Guy, the group's chief executive, earns a salary of £100,000.

*World Vision: Justin Byworth, the chief executive, received £99,994 in pay and perks in 2008.

*Greenpeace: The current salary of the organisation's chief executive, John Sauven, is £65,000.

The following charities were contacted by The Independent but refused to name their highest earners:

*NSPCC – highest earner received pay and perks of between £110,001 and £120,000 in 2009.

*Anchor Trust – Jane Ashcroft, deputy chief executive, stepped in as acting chief executive after the resignation of John Belcher who earned nearly £400,000. The charity said it did not know who will be the permanent replacement and how much they will be paid.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/city-pay-culture-has-spread-to-charities-union-says-1817725.html

[James.]

It's a tricky one but to be honest a lot of those salaries are massively less than an equivalent role in the private sector. The larger charities are multinational organisations with millions of pounds under management, often operating in incredibly tough circumstances and with hundreds of employees - 100-200k to attract the sort of talent that can navigate a large organisation in those conditions sounds pretty reasonable.

Put it like this - I'd be more concerned about what bankers are paid than the leaders of influential charities (and I say that as a banker myself).

[dave the caveman]

People donate because it makes them feel good. Human beings doing something with no reward is unheard of. I don't know if it has ever happened. You could argue that a father throwing himself in front of a car to save his son is selfless, but in reality he only did it to prevent himself from having to live with the guilt of having not done it, so it's still a selfish act.

[dave the caveman]

Also, it's pretty common knowledge that charity shop workers steal all of the best donations. And yes people at the top take huge salaries. The money gets pillaged all the way through the chain. Makes me wonder why anyone ever gives to charity, but then I remember that they do it because it makes them feel good and they don't really care enough to make sure their donation is actually worthwhile

[Guest]

Think it original point is irrelevant. Doing an event for yourself is good, earning money for someone else while doing it is good.

Knowing that you are doing it for yourself primarily is important.

High earners - admittdely they can say but I'd get more in another company ( maybe maybe not) but it's a charity. Anyone with a top job in a charity should take that into account and only earn a reasonable wage. Isn't £30,000 enough to live a decent life?

People donating is all well and good but too often so little of the contribution gets to the end product. I'd always prefer to pay a donation directly to the source or better still help people closer to home, Giving time as well/instead of money is another thing I support.

[AyewJoking]

People donate because it makes them feel good. Human beings doing something with no reward is unheard of. I don't know if it has ever happened. You could argue that a father throwing himself in front of a car to save his son is selfless, but in reality he only did it to prevent himself from having to live with the guilt of having not done it, so it's still a selfish act.

Does the father have a minute or two before the car hits his son to consider the pro's and cons or did the father have a plan for such an occurance?

[Guest]

You could argue that a father throwing himself in front of a car to save his son is selfless, but in reality he only did it to prevent himself from having to live with the guilt of having not done it, so it's still a selfish act.

I don't think you could argue that with any strength at all. Are you a father?

[Captain...]

Well, my sister-in-law used to work for Barnardos in London, within 3 years her wages went up by about £6k to 28k.....

Even she was astounded by it, they used to send her on weekends away on irrelevant courses that hiked her money up.....

Depends how long ago that was and what she did, but if you want to keep people you need to pay them a decent wage, if you are living in London and you want to have a house, mortgage, kids, and a decent standard of living, then these days 2 people earning 28K each will find that difficult. So charities need to provide a wage for people to be able to work for them. If you get offered the same job for twice the money, and you have commitments you will take it, even if it means leaving the charity sector.

As for the people at the top of charities, you have to look at it as to whether or not they are worth that money by how succesful they have been, I could run a charity, and I would accept a quarter of what they earn to do it, but I would be shit at it and end up costing the charity more money. Even though I really, really believe in the charity. It is like using just giving, yes they take some of the money that is meant for charities, but they more than make up for it by increasing revenue streams and saving costs on admin and on having to create a bespoke website for the charity.

What it comes down to is money, and if a charity will make more money by having this person in charge then they can justify paying them more, the worry I would have is the competition this could create in the charity market, Alan Sugar could make a charity an extra 10 million a year, and you would only have to pay him a million to do it, sounds good, but if he makes this extra money by taking potential donations from "rival" charities, then it is a net loss to the charitable market overall, and thus the well being of the planet.

[Zingari]

Also, it's pretty common knowledge that charity shop workers steal all of the best donations. And yes people at the top take huge salaries. The money gets pillaged all the way through the chain. Makes me wonder why anyone ever gives to charity, but then I remember that they do it because it makes them feel good and they don't really care enough to make sure their donation is actually worthwhile

you're so cynical

but probably not far from the truth

[purpleronnie]

Its tough to criticise anyone for rasing money for charity but something doesn't quite sit well with me wen people want 'sponsors' to climb kilimanjaro or to do a skydive...it doesn't sit well because they seem to be using charity to fulfill some life long dream.

[Zingari]

Its tough to criticise anyone for rasing money for charity but something doesn't quite sit well with me wen people want 'sponsors' to climb kilimanjaro or to do a skydive...it doesn't sit well because they seem to be using charity to fulfill some life long dream.

will you sponsor me to shag Carol Vorderman ?

[Captain...]

Its tough to criticise anyone for rasing money for charity but something doesn't quite sit well with me wen people want 'sponsors' to climb kilimanjaro or to do a skydive...it doesn't sit well because they seem to be using charity to fulfill some life long dream.

I think the thing is that back in the day, it was seen as a real challenge, and actually had a big risk associated with it and not many people had done it, but now everyone knows someone who has jumped out a plane, or climed a mountain, which is why people go to even more extreme lengths to raise money, such as swimming the Thames or doing 10 marathons in 10 days.

I do agree with you entirely, and there is nothing worse than being guilted into forking out money for someone to do something they want for a cause they have no real interest in. My sister is currently pissing me off, because she wants to run the marathon, so she has created a few extra e-mail accounts and entered herself, and me and her friends into the ballot to increase her chances. If she doesn't get in through the ballot she is going to apply for charity places (and planning to lie on the form about how much other fundraising she does). It is good that she could potentially be earning money for charity, but in reality she is only going to raise the minimum and is taking the place away from somebody who might actually care about the charity and give everything to raising money for. The thing is I am sure there are a number of other people looking at doing the same thing.

[purpleronnie]

will you sponsor me to shag Carol Vorderman ?

Only if I can watch.

[James.]

Its tough to criticise anyone for rasing money for charity but something doesn't quite sit well with me wen people want 'sponsors' to climb kilimanjaro or to do a skydive...it doesn't sit well because they seem to be using charity to fulfill some life long dream.

Do you agree that it depends on whether they are using the donations to fund their trip or not?

People saying "your donations will pay for my travel and expenses and anything left over will go to the charity" is very different to "we are paying for the trip ourselves so your donations will all go to the charity".

[Zingari]

Only if I can watch.

i doubt if it would last very long

[Mack]

indeed it should ;

High earners: Charity bosses

*Riverside Housing Group: Deborah Shackleton, chief executive, received a salary of £231,000 for 2008-9.

* Barnardo's: Its chief executive, Martin Narey, earns a salary of £166,532.

*National Trust: Fiona Reynolds, the director general, is paid between £160,000 and £169,000.

*British Heart Foundation: Peter Hollins, chief executive, enjoys a salary of £153,000

*Action for Children: Its boss Clare Tickell was paid between £130,000 and 140,000 last year.

*Guide Dogs for the Blind: Bridget Warr, chief executive, earns between £120,000 and £130,000.

*Age Concern: Its director general Gordon Lishman earned £117,488 in 2007-8.

*RSPCA: Mark Watts, chief executive, received £105,500 in pay and perks in the year to April 2009.

*The RSPB: Chief executive Graham Wynne's pay and benefits were up to £100,000 for 2007-8.

*Victim Support: Gillian Guy, the group's chief executive, earns a salary of £100,000.

*World Vision: Justin Byworth, the chief executive, received £99,994 in pay and perks in 2008.

*Greenpeace: The current salary of the organisation's chief executive, John Sauven, is £65,000.

The following charities were contacted by The Independent but refused to name their highest earners:

*NSPCC – highest earner received pay and perks of between £110,001 and £120,000 in 2009.

*Anchor Trust – Jane Ashcroft, deputy chief executive, stepped in as acting chief executive after the resignation of John Belcher who earned nearly £400,000. The charity said it did not know who will be the permanent replacement and how much they will be paid.

http://www.independe...ys-1817725.html

In my opinion these salaries are disgusting.

Everyone who works for a charity should take the minimum amount possible out to maximise the charitable donations to the people they are for.

I wonder if the CEO of Barnardos sits around the pool in some exclusive holiday resort and thinks of all the poor, abused defenceless kids that could have benefited if he wasn't living the good life on their money.

I wonder if he thinks or cares when someone donates to his charity that a chunk of that money is going to paying the mortgage on his huge house?