>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

>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.