Charities

RE: Charities

KizzieB — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 22:26:30 GMT

If you were really soft hearted and tried to give even a small amount to these Charities there would be nothing left at the end of the month. An aunt of mine worked with a charity in the 80's when there was a massive famine in south Sudan and Ethiopia, she now works with the Red Cross and she has massive distrust in big charities as the money does not get to where it's needed. But yet people like her need to be paid. We are constantly being asked for money and I feel like I'm becoming hard to it. It's funny I'm watching the 10 o'clock news and they are talking about monitoring the spending of big aid charities and how they spend our tax pennies in Kenya. Surely there is somewhere that these charities can work together especially when it comes to TV advertising at prime times.

That reminds me I've knitting to finish somewhere too.........

RE: Charities

Sal the 1st — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:37:03 GMT

yes that made perfect sense, I take your point - and that is the way I used to think but after I saw so many ads - (and they weren't all animal ones) in such a short space of time I started to wonder just how much was spent on advertising and couldn't the charities at least get together on this split the cost of the ads and split the income from them?.

With so many ads all asking for money is there not the risk that people watching would just start to think (as I did) 'bleeding hell how many more people are there after my money?' and 'how much of my donation would actually go to where it was needed and how much of it would be spent on paying for the next ad?

Perhaps I need to avoid daytime telly and stick with the knitting

RE: Charities

Ian M — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:54:48 GMT

Used to think like you, but then again when you look at what has happened to Corporate Social responsibility budgets of drug companies after they merged, the sum is not always equal to the parts.

For example - Dogs Trust Merges with Battersea. They lose Battersea supporters who don't like DT, and DT supporters who don't like Battersea. Then Those that used to give a fiver to Battersea and a fiver to DT just end up giving a fiver to the new combined thing. Hence less money circulating, same amount of work to do, but does the new charity think "We need less income generating people so that will offset it" or do they think "shit, we need to up our game as we have less cash coming in".

Did that make sense>?

RE: Charities

Sal the 1st — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 19:13:00 GMT

[quote user="Celine"]

I find once a charity /NGO has gotten too big, one hand stops talking to the other, and common sense goes out the window along with the internal communication and the sight of the end-goal. [/quote]

absolutely agree with you there - I just think sometimes there is an obscene amount of money wasted. The national charity I used to work for was a prime example, in fact that was one of the reasons I left

RE: Charities

Celine — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:46:35 GMT

Yep, it'll all be about "we were here first" (never mind the fact that the duplicate charities were probably set up by a disgruntled former associate of charity #1 seeking to do it better than the perceived failings of the original)

On the flip side, I find once a charity /NGO has gotten too big, one hand stops talking to the other, and common sense goes out the window along with the internal communication and the sight of the end-goal. I mean, who among us can say they're a particular fan of the RSPCA any more? (*ducks to dodge sniper fire*)

Doesn't stop the duplication of effort being very frustrating though!

RE: Charities

Alison Clare Hickman — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:33:14 GMT

Sensible thinking again from our trusty Sal! .It's probably something to do with internal policies (politics) that they don't share but, hey, this makes total sense to me!!!

Ali h