Give a Little ... less

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

dafman

2379 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1102

Trusted

Subscriber

Topic # 198944 29-Jul-2016 09:01

3 people support this post

I reckon it pretty disappointing that Spark are proposing to clip 5% off future ‘Give a Little’ donations to go into their corporate coffers.

Take, for instance, the recent $2+ million gifting towards the public purchase of the Abel Tasman beach. This would have seen $100,000+ going into Spark’s corporate coffers for this one campaign alone. It just doesn’t ‘smell’ right and will taint the perception of what has been a wonderful initiative to date.

While I appreciate it takes resource to maintain the site, and I acknowledge Spark’s contribution to date, it’s a pity they could find a mix of corporate/private sponsorship and advertising options instead, thus leaving the integrity of the donations 100% intact.

To date, Spark have (rightfully) received well-earned public kudos for offering the site. Now the gloss is well and truly coming off.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

956 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 173

Reply # 1600531 29-Jul-2016 09:09

2 people support this post

Yes, particularly for large donations, it would be better to give the money direct to the organisation involved rather than to a third party. This applies to any fundraising where a third party makes money out of it.

Fred

MikeB4

13141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1600541 29-Jul-2016 09:27

5 people support this post

I can understand if it is to cover costs, after all Spark i not a charity however, a blanket 5% seem to indicate that is may be more than that.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

Rikkitic

Glurp
8238 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3791

Subscriber

Reply # 1600601 29-Jul-2016 10:21

4 people support this post

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? One charity I support is Médecins san Frontières. They don't have an office in New Zealand so my donations get converted to Australian dollars. I really resent the fact that the banks charge (excessive) transaction and conversion fees for this. I am a pensioner. If I can afford to donate to charity, so can they.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

MikeB4

13141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1600632 29-Jul-2016 11:12

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? One charity I support is Médecins san Frontières. They don't have an office in New Zealand so my donations get converted to Australian dollars. I really resent the fact that the banks charge (excessive) transaction and conversion fees for this. I am a pensioner. If I can afford to donate to charity, so can they.

You have a choice of when, how, who and how much to donate to charity, surely a company has the same privilege. The Banks, Spark and a good percentage of companies in NZ give to charity lets to jeopardize that.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

andrew027

1243 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 530

Reply # 1600686 29-Jul-2016 11:33

I agree with @frednz and @MikeB4. I have no problem with Spark charging something for hosting the campaign, maintaining the site, etc. but making it a fixed percentage doesn't seem quite right. My initial thought is that it can't cost them a whole lot more to host a fundraiser for $5,000 than for $5,000,000. So perhaps if they said (and I'm just pulling these numbers out of the air) 5% up to a maximum of $5000.

To be fair to them, I don't know much about what they're doing in the background. Does anybody know how the financial processing is managed between me donating and the cause receiving it? Are they getting hit with fees from the banks which vary according to the amount of the donation, in which case they need to recover a lot more for larger amounts raised?

In the short term at least, the wording on some pages is going to have to change: [randomly selected page] 100% of your donation goes towards Elyses parents to assist with purchasing TBL-12, medical care, travel and general costs around making the most of their precious time together.

MikeAqua

5119 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2084

Reply # 1600711 29-Jul-2016 11:37

According to Spark the 5% clipped will not completely cover the costs of administering GAL. They will still need to top it up.

IMO 5% is modest. Charitable foundations I have been involved with spent at least 10% on admin.

Mike

MikeB4

13141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1600716 29-Jul-2016 11:42

One person supports this post

MikeAqua:

According to Spark the 5% clipped will not completely cover the costs of administering GAL. They will still need to top it up.

IMO 5% is modest. Charitable foundations I have been involved with spent at least 10% on admin.

If that is the case and I have no reason to disbelieve Spark then I have no issue with it. Kudos to Spark for keeping Give a Little going and for being upfront with this change.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

MikeAqua

5119 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2084

Reply # 1600738 29-Jul-2016 12:04

frednz:

Yes, particularly for large donations, it would be better to give the money direct to the organisation involved rather than to a third party. This applies to any fundraising where a third party makes money out of it.

Fred

Absolutely true. The power of GAL is that it aggregates small donations into one big one.

Mike

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571

Reply # 1600745 29-Jul-2016 12:22

The cost of processing credit card payments alone costs prob around 2.5%.

Then you have to cover staffing, hosting, moderating,, security, etc etc
Based on what other crowdfunding type sites charge 5% seems pretty fair - maybe even quite low.

Kickstarter, for example, charges 5% fee AND between 3 and 5% for payment processing (although it's free if you don't meet your goals - (because you don't get any of the money)

"If your project is successfully funded, the following fees will be collected from your funding total: Kickstarter's 5% fee, and payment processing fees (between 3% and 5%). If funding isn't successful, there are no fees."

throbb

489 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 107

Reply # 1600748 29-Jul-2016 12:40

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? One charity I support is Médecins san Frontières. They don't have an office in New Zealand so my donations get converted to Australian dollars. I really resent the fact that the banks charge (excessive) transaction and conversion fees for this. I am a pensioner. If I can afford to donate to charity, so can they.

All charities take administration $$$ out of donations, some more so than others. 5% seems pretty low.

Médecins san Frontières take 20% off the top.

"MSF is a non-profit organisation and more than 80 per cent of our resources are allocated to our humanitarian activities. The remaining 20 per cent is spent on management and administration, and reinvested in fundraising."

robjg63

2720 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 537

Reply # 1600765 29-Jul-2016 13:13

Yup - 5% is not much of a haircut off the donations.

Those kids you see in the street flogging signups to Barnadoes/WWF/Save the Children etc etc all have to get paid.

The charities usually use fund raising businesses to perform professional touting - pretty sure they take a lot more than 5%.

If you dont like the thought of that modest amount being taken off, find a way to donate directly.

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - A. H. Weiler

tangerz

536 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154

Reply # 1600769 29-Jul-2016 13:19

andrew027:

I agree with @frednz and @MikeB4. I have no problem with Spark charging something for hosting the campaign, maintaining the site, etc. but making it a fixed percentage doesn't seem quite right. My initial thought is that it can't cost them a whole lot more to host a fundraiser for $5,000 than for $5,000,000. So perhaps if they said (and I'm just pulling these numbers out of the air) 5% up to a maximum of $5000.

To be fair to them, I don't know much about what they're doing in the background. Does anybody know how the financial processing is managed between me donating and the cause receiving it? Are they getting hit with fees from the banks which vary according to the amount of the donation, in which case they need to recover a lot more for larger amounts raised?

In the short term at least, the wording on some pages is going to have to change: [randomly selected page] 100% of your donation goes towards Elyses parents to assist with purchasing TBL-12, medical care, travel and general costs around making the most of their precious time together.

From the figures given in the Herald for last financial year:

$22m Annual donations.

$1.7m Running costs (currently paid Spark Foundation).

From that:

$1.1m Amount that would have been raised by 5% levy.

$600k Amount Spark Foundation would have contributed.

Given the massive rise in the use of Give a Little in recent years I see no problem with Spark recovering some of the associated costs. The 5% level chosen by Spark would seem intentionally low so that while it would cover some of the cost, they, (Spark), would still be making up the balance of those costs.

While it would be nice to think that 100% of donations could continue to make it through to your given cause, as others here have mentioned, ALL charities have administration costs, costs that any charity/cause using the Give a Little system has been insulated from until now. (The change will come in September 1)

Rikkitic

Glurp
8238 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3791

Subscriber

Reply # 1600773 29-Jul-2016 13:26

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. I know some money has to go on overheads. I know those who work for charities also have to eat. I don't have a problem with Médecins san Frontières spending 20% on costs because that is inside their organisation and they are open about it, which is one of the reasons I support them. What I don't get is why everyone else along the way feels they have to clip the ticket as well. I think banks in particular could waive their endless and ever-present fees for charitable donations. I also don't support any charity that uses professional fund-raisers. For me that really is a step too far.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

robjg63

2720 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 537

Reply # 1600801 29-Jul-2016 13:56

Rikkitic:

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. I know some money has to go on overheads. I know those who work for charities also have to eat. I don't have a problem with Médecins san Frontières spending 20% on costs because that is inside their organisation and they are open about it, which is one of the reasons I support them. What I don't get is why everyone else along the way feels they have to clip the ticket as well. I think banks in particular could waive their endless and ever-present fees for charitable donations. I also don't support any charity that uses professional fund-raisers. For me that really is a step too far.

Yes - you could argue that banks make plenty of money - why dont they do it for free? - But they have shareholders who want profit so thats what drives them - or any business for that matter. They would be not for profit organisations if they didnt care about profit.

The ethical argument about how much profit is too much is another matter altogether.

It appears in this case that Spark is subsidising Give a Little - even with the 5% 'tax' - so they are contributing to its ongoing running costs.

If you want all your donations to go to the target - give directly.

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - A. H. Weiler

dafman

2379 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1102

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1600807 29-Jul-2016 14:11

2 people support this post

Somewhat ironic, me thinks, that Spark virtually have to give Lightbox away for free, but will soon start charging for their charitable arm (-;

1 | 2 | 3 | 4