3 ms·

It seems like some of the charities need to spend money on marketing to get their message out and attract/convince new donors. It's hard to raise money and get

by jartelt 10y ago

It seems like some of the charities need to spend money on marketing to get their message out and attract/convince new donors. It's hard to raise money and get donations if people do not know what you do. Unfortunately, many people get angry when charities spend money on marketing because they say it's wasteful and doesn't go directly to helping people. But, sometimes you have to spend some money in order to make more money in order to help more people...

bb611 10y ago
My sister has spent the last ~15 years in nonprofit management, she consistently says that marketing and outreach are 30-40% of the budget at the nonprofits she works with, many of which have annual donations in the 8 figures. Socially it's really unacceptable to say "we spent $3 million on marketing this year" because people think you should have spent it helping people, but if you don't spend it this year your doors close next year.
iamatworknow 10y ago
>many people get angry when charities spend money on marketing because they say it's wasteful and doesn't go directly to helping people I'm one of those people. Not that I think they shouldn't be marketing, but they could do a better job at it. For example, I sponsored someone who was running a race to benefit St. Jude's a few years ago. Not a big donation, but I figured I'd contribute. They have since spent much, much more than my donation amount on marketing targeted at me -- in postage alone. Once per month I get something in the mail with glossy prints and promises of gifts and so on. I'm sure this strategy works to pull in donations (or they wouldn't do it). But I can't help but think if they tapered down the frequency of mailings based on my history of non-response they could save a lot of money. If I don't respond monthly, switch me to quarterly. If not quarterly then semi-annually, and so on. Even if they continued sending them once per year, that's a 92% savings over the current model.

by jartelt 10y ago

bb611 10y ago

My sister has spent the last ~15 years in nonprofit management, she consistently says that marketing and outreach are 30-40% of the budget at the nonprofits she works with, many of which have annual donations in the 8 figures. Socially it's really unacceptable to say "we spent $3 million on marketing this year" because people think you should have spent it helping people, but if you don't spend it this year your doors close next year.

iamatworknow 10y ago

>many people get angry when charities spend money on marketing because they say it's wasteful and doesn't go directly to helping people I'm one of those people. Not that I think they shouldn't be marketing, but they could do a better job at it. For example, I sponsored someone who was running a race to benefit St. Jude's a few years ago. Not a big donation, but I figured I'd contribute. They have since spent much, much more than my donation amount on marketing targeted at me -- in postage alone. Once per month I get something in the mail with glossy prints and promises of gifts and so on. I'm sure this strategy works to pull in donations (or they wouldn't do it). But I can't help but think if they tapered down the frequency of mailings based on my history of non-response they could save a lot of money. If I don't respond monthly, switch me to quarterly. If not quarterly then semi-annually, and so on. Even if they continued sending them once per year, that's a 92% savings over the current model.