Aggressive charity ads

[Critique]

We need to remember that 20% of money donated to Oxfam actually goes to helping people, and that 80% goes to plane fares, wages and what not.

[Malpass93]

We need to remember that 20% of money donated to Oxfam actually goes to helping people, and that 80% goes to plane fares, wages and what not.

Without wanting to sound naïve, is that true?

[Nick Harvey]

Without wanting to sound naïve, is that true?

Whether the percentages are precisely accurate or not, I don't know, but it's well known that you should never give to Oxfam because more than half of what you give is "wasted" on administration and never gets to its destination.

[Sput]

Sounds like a number plucked from thin air to me...

[Sput]

Just looking at oxfam's annual report, it's a tough call (well it is at 10pm). You could definitely argue that more than half of the money generated in the SHOPS is "wasted" because the shops have to spend money on being shops, but it appears that only 10% of the overall income (which includes donations) is used on non-charitable stuff. Now, you could always argue that the campaigning costs are included in charitable stuff, but that's probably a no-no with the accounting rules.

Perhaps someone who isn't mindfucked from staring at numbers all day already can have a look at page 44 of their report, but I have to say it looks like we're dealing with <20% for campaigning and general costs though.

http://oxfam.intelli-direct.com/e/d.dll ... s09_10.pdf

[marksi]

Charities are all businesses. The staff running them are most likely to be more interested in making sure they get paid at the end of the month more than anything else. That's understandable.

What is less understandable is the endless stream of charity adverts on 2nd and 3rd rate TV channels (I'm looking at you, ITV2) in daytime. OK, the costs aren't high, but there is a reason for that. The small number of people watching have fuck all money. If they did have money, or more people were watching the ads would be more expensive and "real" advertisers would come along.

If the airtime is of no use to DFS, I don't understand how it makes financial sense to charities to buy it.

[Chie]

We need to remember that 20% of money donated to Oxfam actually goes to helping people, and that 80% goes to plane fares, wages and what not.

Without wanting to sound naïve, is that true?

It's true. Store managers and deputy store managers are paid a wage.

I was able to reel off exactly how much is spent on admin/marketing/building costs and how much actually goes to poorly African people whenever a customer wanted to know, but I'm afraid I've forgotten it all.

[Sput]

Note that the original post says "donated to" rather than "spent in". I think this is where the confusion occurs.

[On The Rocks]

It's frustrating when any percentage of a donation goes to admin but what is the alternative? If we just put a fiver in a letter to South Africa. Even if it got there would the needy get it?

I think admin of charity is needed and these people need to live too so need to get paid.


-

[Inspector Sands]

It's frustrating when any percentage of a donation goes to admin but what is the alternative? If we just put a fiver in a letter to South Africa. Even if it got there would the needy get it?

I think admin of charity is needed and these people need to live too so need to get paid.

Of course. The Oxfam shop might be a charity but it's landlord and the electricity company certainly isn't and any full time staff have mortgages to pay and kids mouths to feed.

[Pete]

I once gave £5 to oxfam online. They have since spent £6 posting me shite every month.