Give a Little ... less

Forums › Off topic › Give a Little ... less

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1601876 31-Jul-2016 20:10

Handle9: I don't get it. Spark have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars. Its grown to the point where thay cant fully fund it themselves and suddenly they are the bad guys. Sometimes I don't get what people think that companies should do.

I don't buy this. It's not a case of "can't" it's a case of "don't want to", or "won't". 5% of this cost isn't the difference between the doors being kept open or not, and I agree with others sentiments that their raised brand awareness probably should have covered a good portion of this 5%.

I agree they should find another partner or a group of partners in an effort to keep 100% of donations going to the recipients, or offer a tickbox that asks for an extra 5% to help with admin costs, or something similar.

I am not of the opinion that adding this fee automatically makes this large corporate "evil" but I do think there were other options.

mattwnz

20153 posts

Uber Geek

#1601943 31-Jul-2016 21:57

From the media it looks like they are waving the cost in some situations. But that gets them into dangerous territory, as what makes them have the ability to judge what is more deserving than another. Effectively what the charge speed so is delay the amount of time out takes to reach the goal which in some cases could be there difference between life and death. But I am guessing it was always their intention of either eventually charging a contribution of costs of running it, or finding another way of paying for it

kinsten

240 posts

Master Geek

#1603698 3-Aug-2016 16:20

I recently donated via GAL for a cancer sufferer who also has been working to raise funds for other cancer sufferers. The option was presented to either contribute the additional 5% or allow it to be removed from my donation amount. I think this option was fair. I decided to contribute the additional 5% so that the recipient received the full amount I intended for them.

I agree that additional businesses could get in behind and help with the obviously vast administration costs that have occurred between 500k & over 20 MILLION. I think Banks could create a facility for this, they already donate to charities anyway. Why not the bank Spark uses, combine with them to create this amazing association. The Payment Gateway services could also get on board. There we would have the 3 or 4 contributing parties which make the entire system work, all offering their service fee's towards this amazing resource for nothing.

After setting up a page myself a few years ago, we were contacted by someone from GAL to ask if we wanted our story shared further. They review the posts, and understand peoples struggles, they go out of their way to try and help where they think people need it most. Sometimes this works, sometimes this does not. There are a lot of VERY sad stories on there. Also there are other charitable trusts on GAL, reducing their own collection administration fees.

Also 5% is quite low, considering a lot of their overheads are potentially covered already, having servers and developers in house for their regular business, they can easily assign tasks to GAL development, and server hosting. The internet hosting costs are almost non-existent, as its all on their own servers using their own network. So the fact that administration & transaction costs are over $1 Million is just incredible.

Look how awesome we are for taking this site into such a massive resource, to help each other, every day, wherever we are, whether we know you or not. You can share and help market the campaigns that matter to you. The site would not have reached such heights without YOU. You have helped people through GAL. You have assisted in making someones life easier, or benefit a cause, or accomplish what someone always wanted to accomplish.

I think you should all stop focusing on the fact that 5% is a negative. And instead focus on how amazing we are for forcing them to require this surcharge in the 1st place.

GO NZ!

mattwnz

20153 posts

Uber Geek

#1603699 3-Aug-2016 16:22

kinsten:

I recently donated via GAL for a cancer sufferer who also has been working to raise funds for other cancer sufferers. The option was presented to either contribute the additional 5% or allow it to be removed from my donation amount. I think this option was fair. I decided to contribute the additional 5% so that the recipient received the full amount I intended for them.

I agree that additional businesses could get in behind and help with the obviously vast administration costs that have occurred between 500k & over 20 MILLION. I think Banks could create a facility for this, they already donate to charities anyway. Why not the bank Spark uses, combine with them to create this amazing association. The Payment Gateway services could also get on board. There we would have the 3 or 4 contributing parties which make the entire system work, all offering their service fee's towards this amazing resource for nothing.

After setting up a page myself a few years ago, we were contacted by someone from GAL to ask if we wanted our story shared further. They review the posts, and understand peoples struggles, they go out of their way to try and help where they think people need it most. Sometimes this works, sometimes this does not. There are a lot of VERY sad stories on there. Also there are other charitable trusts on GAL, reducing their own collection administration fees.

Also 5% is quite low, considering a lot of their overheads are potentially covered already, having servers and developers in house for their regular business, they can easily assign tasks to GAL development, and server hosting. The internet hosting costs are almost non-existent, as its all on their own servers using their own network. So the fact that administration & transaction costs are over $1 Million is just incredible.

Look how awesome we are for taking this site into such a massive resource, to help each other, every day, wherever we are, whether we know you or not. You can share and help market the campaigns that matter to you. The site would not have reached such heights without YOU. You have helped people through GAL. You have assisted in making someones life easier, or benefit a cause, or accomplish what someone always wanted to accomplish.

I think you should all stop focusing on the fact that 5% is a negative. And instead focus on how amazing we are for forcing them to require this surcharge in the 1st place.

GO NZ!

I didn't think they were charging the 5% in that type of situation.

kinsten

240 posts

Master Geek

#1603703 3-Aug-2016 16:31

mattwnz:

kinsten:

I recently donated via GAL for a cancer sufferer who also has been working to raise funds for other cancer sufferers. The option was presented to either contribute the additional 5% or allow it to be removed from my donation amount. I think this option was fair. I decided to contribute the additional 5% so that the recipient received the full amount I intended for them.

....

I didn't think they were charging the 5% in that type of situation.

Ohh I am not 100% certain now what it said at the time, I see now they have an option to "Help support GAL" and there is a Yes or No option. I chose to do this, but I suspect I did this because the wording looked like they might take the fees from the donation otherwise. It is possible the wording and options have been "tweaked" several times over the past few weeks?

Either way I will continue to support GAL and the campaign for all future donations.

Weirdly enough I also see the "created" date now = the "closed date" on the campaign I supported. Perhaps a bug where its using the edit date as the create date. Not sure. Obviously the website requires maintenance. lol

kinsten

240 posts

Master Geek

#1604760 5-Aug-2016 08:32

kinsten:

....

Either way I will continue to support GAL and the campaign for all future donations.

Weirdly enough I also see the "created" date now = the "closed date" on the campaign I supported. Perhaps a bug where its using the edit date as the create date. Not sure. Obviously the website requires maintenance. lol

OK, after re-reading the page I noticed the start date was 1 year prior, and misread the dates as the same day. Just wanted to clarify this.

rmt38

320 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1604857 5-Aug-2016 10:21

Rikkitic:

I'm not sure how I feel about 'covering costs'. Most private individuals who donate are ordinary people with ordinary incomes. Giving to charity is a real cost to them. Businesses exist and operate in their communities. They cannot do either without support from those communities. It is not unreasonable to expect them to give something back. Why should it be assumed that businesses have some kind of special status that exempts them from ordinary community responsibility?

I am generally against businesses donating to charity. Especially large dominating businesses.

A business charges a price for a service. If someone wants the business to donate to a charity, then that someone is forcing everyone who pays for that service, to pay extra to their preferred charity. I never see analysis of the management costs of the charity in question, or how much actually goes to the people they represent.

People should donate to the charities they have looked into and trust themselves. Not be forced to donate to charities through a cost they in the end bear, for a service they might have to choose for lack of better alternatives. I give to the the ambulance people whenever I see them, or a container for donations to be deposited into.

The worst is the warehouse with their "Would you like to give $1 to help the children.. (or whatever)" at the counter. Can you stand there in front of people and say.. where are the facts on this "donation" and how much actually reaches the "children"? Do you feel like a selfish person saying "no (I do not care to give you $1 to help the children)".

To bring it back on topic, I think that it is fair for Vodafone to take costs out of this to run it. But it should be 100% non profit and transparent, and any excess over running costs should be apportioned back to the cause it came from (if feasible).

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1604859 5-Aug-2016 10:25

rmt38:

Rikkitic:

I'm not sure how I feel about 'covering costs'. Most private individuals who donate are ordinary people with ordinary incomes. Giving to charity is a real cost to them. Businesses exist and operate in their communities. They cannot do either without support from those communities. It is not unreasonable to expect them to give something back. Why should it be assumed that businesses have some kind of special status that exempts them from ordinary community responsibility?

I am generally against businesses donating to charity. Especially large dominating businesses.

A business charges a price for a service. If someone wants the business to donate to a charity, then that someone is forcing everyone who pays for that service, to pay extra to their preferred charity. I never see analysis of the management costs of the charity in question, or how much actually goes to the people they represent.

People should donate to the charities they have looked into and trust themselves. Not be forced to donate to charities through a cost they in the end bear, for a service they might have to choose for lack of better alternatives. I give to the the ambulance people whenever I see them, or a container for donations to be deposited into.

The worst is the warehouse with their "Would you like to give $1 to help the children.. (or whatever)" at the counter. Can you stand there in front of people and say.. where are the facts on this "donation" and how much actually reaches the "children"? Do you feel like a selfish person saying "no (I do not care to give you $1 to help the children)".

To bring it back on topic, I think that it is fair for Vodafone to take costs out of this to run it. But it should be 100% non profit and transparent, and any excess over running costs should be apportioned back to the cause it came from (if feasible).

I guess we would be better off without Westpac Rescue Helicopters, Ronald McDonald House etc etc etc

rmt38

320 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1604862 5-Aug-2016 10:32

MikeB4:

I guess we would be better off without Westpac Rescue Helicopters, Ronald McDonald House etc etc etc

If you think so. That's not what I said though, to be clear. Those are known causes that offer a fixed known service that can be directly appreciated. Apples and oranges.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1604868 5-Aug-2016 10:38

rmt38:

MikeB4:

I guess we would be better off without Westpac Rescue Helicopters, Ronald McDonald House etc etc etc

If you think so. That's not what I said though, to be clear. Those are known causes that offer a fixed known service that can be directly appreciated. Apples and oranges.

I responded to this "I am generally against businesses donating to charity. Especially large dominating businesses." The sad fact is without the large corporate sponsorship or donations a large percentage of the charities we take for granted would struggle and disappear. Others include Plunket (badly needed given our woeful record with children in NZ) Wellington Free Ambulance, CCS, Blind Foundation, IHC, Surf Rescue...... So many would not get the vital funding without Corporate involvement.

rmt38

320 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1604870 5-Aug-2016 10:40

MikeB4:

I responded to this "I am generally against businesses donating to charity. Especially large dominating businesses." The sad fact is without the large corporate sponsorship or donations a large percentage of the charities we take for granted would struggle and disappear. Others include Plunket (badly needed given our woeful record with children in NZ) Wellington Free Ambulance, CCS, Blind Foundation, IHC, Surf Rescue...... So many would not get the vital funding without Corporate involvement.

It's a selective quote from a larger post that contained qualifiers. And off topic.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1604885 5-Aug-2016 10:52

rmt38:

MikeB4:

I responded to this "I am generally against businesses donating to charity. Especially large dominating businesses." The sad fact is without the large corporate sponsorship or donations a large percentage of the charities we take for granted would struggle and disappear. Others include Plunket (badly needed given our woeful record with children in NZ) Wellington Free Ambulance, CCS, Blind Foundation, IHC, Surf Rescue...... So many would not get the vital funding without Corporate involvement.

It's a selective quote from a larger post that contained qualifiers. And off topic.

OK you raised it but never mind. Move on

1 | 2 | 3 | 4