5 ms·

I think charities also become less frugal when they have many monthly subscribers. If they know they are getting a large repeat income every month, they will hi

I think charities also become less frugal when they have many monthly subscribers. If they know they are getting a large repeat income every month, they will hire a chief executive with a big salary, and generally become inefficient with doners' money. If instead they have to ask repeatedly for money, they have to continually justify why they should receive it. I think the same is true for online news.

jdietrich 9y ago
>If instead they have to ask repeatedly for money, they have to continually justify why they should receive it. They also have to repeatedly spend money on fundraising. Monthly donations are good for charities, just like monthly subscriptions are good for software businesses - they have a very high LTV if churn is properly controlled and make the finances of the organisation far more predictable.
- sleavey 9y ago
  Many still spend vast sums on fundraising even with healthy recurring donations - it just means they spend more on prime-time TV advertisements. Charities should not be trying to sell their services along side perfumes, car insurance and supermarket advertisements - single-use "things" - they should be going for the long term organic growth by fostering a great reputation for efficiency ("good done" per unit currency).
  - jdietrich 9y ago
    People selling perfume and car insurance clearly believe that prime-time advertising is cost-effective. Why shouldn't charities use the same media? If I give $1 to a charity, I'm more than happy for them to spend it on fundraising if they're getting $1.05 ROI. That's a fantastically effective use of my money, as long as the $1.05 gets used effectively to deliver on their charitable purpose. There's probably a good game-theoretic argument against fundraising activity if charitable donations are zero-sum, but I've yet to see any evidence that they are.

jdietrich 9y ago

>If instead they have to ask repeatedly for money, they have to continually justify why they should receive it. They also have to repeatedly spend money on fundraising. Monthly donations are good for charities, just like monthly subscriptions are good for software businesses - they have a very high LTV if churn is properly controlled and make the finances of the organisation far more predictable.

sleavey 9y ago
Many still spend vast sums on fundraising even with healthy recurring donations - it just means they spend more on prime-time TV advertisements. Charities should not be trying to sell their services along side perfumes, car insurance and supermarket advertisements - single-use "things" - they should be going for the long term organic growth by fostering a great reputation for efficiency ("good done" per unit currency).
- jdietrich 9y ago
  People selling perfume and car insurance clearly believe that prime-time advertising is cost-effective. Why shouldn't charities use the same media? If I give $1 to a charity, I'm more than happy for them to spend it on fundraising if they're getting $1.05 ROI. That's a fantastically effective use of my money, as long as the $1.05 gets used effectively to deliver on their charitable purpose. There's probably a good game-theoretic argument against fundraising activity if charitable donations are zero-sum, but I've yet to see any evidence that they are.