8 ms·

Some years ago I organized some bridge* events for charity. It was as simple as selecting a worthy cause (a children’s hospital), signing an agreement that we w

Some years ago I organized some bridge* events for charity. It was as simple as selecting a worthy cause (a children’s hospital), signing an agreement that we were going to turn over the funds, collecting the funds, and handing them over. These were a minuscule success, and I later thought that a “fun run” would be a good way to raise some money. I asked around about how to organize such things, and I was connected to a firm that organized these things as a service. They took me to a nice lunch, which I thought was a bad sign. “Never buy anything in a room with a chandelier,” is the old saying, and while there was no chandelier in the restaurant, the metaphor was nevertheless on point. When I finally got the actual details of how the run would operate, I realized that the firm’s fees would greatly exceed the amount of money that would end up going to the charity. I speculate that the “market” for these services are people who want to buy some respectability. Had I gone though with the deal and the run was a success, everyone would think I was a nice person doing nice things for people in need, even if the actual numbers would show that I was a nice person doing nice things for a service company’s revenues. N=1, of course, but I have had an extremely cynical view of charity events ever since. There appears to be an entire industry built around siphoning away 90%-99% of every dollar adjacent to charity. ——— * Bridge the card game, not the BASE-jumping location.

tareqak 7y ago
Reputation-laundering. I would not be surprised if such an adjacent industry also exists for foreign aid.
nradov 7y ago
I've participated in many such charity fun runs and see no problem with this type of arrangement. It takes a lot of work and experience to host successful running events: registration, insurance, web site development, course marking, permits, aid stations, timing, t-shirts, clean up, etc. It's worth paying an event management company to ensure everything runs smoothly. Shop around and you might find a smaller local company willing to do it for a lower price. In the end the charity still gets more money than they had before and the runners get some exercise: win / win. Plus you've raised awareness of the cause and some participants will go on the become regular donors.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  But people think they are donating money to a charity, not purchasing an experience from an event company. It’s misleading at best.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >It’s misleading at best. Is it though? Not everyone who participates does it to support a charity. Some people just want to do the event. Obviously it's more efficient to simply not hold the event and have all the resources that would be spend on running an event simply go to the charity ... but that's not the point. You're doing the event, because you want the event.
  - nradov 7y ago
    There's no need to mislead potential participants. Just post information on the event web site showing where their registration fees go and let them decide.
    - elliekelly 7y ago
      I don’t think it’s the participants who are being mislead the most, though. It’s the donors. The people who “sponsor” the participants.
      - nradov 7y ago
        Arrangements vary by event and production company but typically participant registration fees cover the management company's charges. Any additional donations from sponsors go directly to the charity, minus a small processing fee. Of course you might be able to find exceptions to that rule.
  - jonlucc 7y ago
    As someone involved in a very local run this weekend, people aren't that dumb. They know that there will be a company making sure the run actually works, and a small portion of proceeds goes to the charity. Actually, it really depends on the number of runners, so after a hundred or so runners, the amount to charity increases per additional runner. It's a bit like saying that people play the lottery and think it is an effective way to support education in their state. No they don't. They know most of the money doesn't support education, but even if a small amount does, the other benefit (playing the lottery or running a 5k) is still worth something to them.
klenwell 7y ago
There was a great HN comment a few years ago that broke down the "Charitable-Industrial Complex" using The Real Housewives as an example. I found it: One thing I've learned from many so-called "philanthropists" is that hosting charity events can be a great status and money making/saving opportunity for those in the business of it. If you've ever watched a "real housewive of ..." episode, those wacky ladies are constantly hosting charity events and provide a pretty good example of how this works: Full comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6113969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6113969
shermablanca 7y ago
Plenty more examples abound. Even the American Red Cross — raised $500mm in 2015 for Haiti earthquake relief. Used $125mm for internal expenses[0] [0] https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-finds-fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-fin...
conjectures 7y ago
"everyone would think I was a nice person doing nice things for people in need" Notwithstanding effective altruists. That aside, when I spent more time doing running & triathlon there was an unspoken rule that people don't ask the group for charitable funding for these things. A large number of charity marathon runners will be effectively buying a place in a race they did not good-for-age qualify for. There's nothing wrong with that and cool that a proportion of the ticket price goes to charity, but it would be great if more people could just own it. The general rule is don't ask other people to pay for your fun adventure activities.
ticmasta 7y ago
Well, check out the annual reports from your favourite charitable organizations; the most successful ones have a high correlation with those where fund raising costs is the biggest line-item expense. It seems to be this "grow or die" mentality spilling over from the corporate world. United Way is one of the biggest offenders. I wish more charities would constrain themselves to their original narrow mandate without success inevitably growing their "addressable market"...
- Ntrails 7y ago
  Big Charities are fundraising companies with a branch of operations which do some actual good.
  - VBprogrammer 7y ago
    I feel like this is an obligatory reference: https://www.fastcompany.com/3035734/ikea-is-a-nonprofit-and-yes-thats-every-bit-as-fishy-as-it-sounds https://www.fastcompany.com/3035734/ikea-is-a-nonprofit-and-...
    - alasdair_ 7y ago
      Other groups who have been "nonprofit" until recently include Visa (the credit card network) and the NFL.
    - Ntrails 7y ago
      Today I learned - thank you!
- ahi 7y ago
  A career ago I spent a good chunk of my time going over the financials of non-profits large and small. It's an entire industry passing grants back and forth, skimming a percentage each time. United Ways are typically run by a board of trustees consisting of the local elite; lawyers, accountants, small business owners. The UW sends money to other local non-profits who spend it on services and rent from those same lawyers, accountants, and small business owners while employing their failsons. Thousands of donations go in, and at the end someone gets a bag of dented cans of cream of mushroom soup.
wtvanhest 7y ago
When I worked in Boston I organized a company event for habitat for humanity. First year was great, we worked on a house all day, paid HforH somewhere between 1k and 5k (i cannot remember). A year later we returned to the same site. But... the house we worked on the year before wasnt finished yet... That kind of blue my mind. I always wondered whether the money donated by companies would have been better used to just hire contractors.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  It actually does go to hire contractors. The dirty not-so-hidden secret is that HFH sets aside houses for volunteers to work on. The majority of HFH houses are actually built by contractors without any volunteers messing shit up.
  - wtvanhest 7y ago
    ah, that makes sense, but also feels pretty lame overall. I definitely won't volunteer again or org anything for them.
mikestew 7y ago
I saw what I consider to be the epitome of money-grubbing "charity fun run" about five years ago with the "Ugly Sweater Run". They blatantly advertised that there would be no clock, no results, and it would be "about 5K/3.1 miles". For $85. On a private road that was unlikely to require any permits or even much traffic control (Remlinger Farms, for those familiar with the Seattle/Carnation area). I've run plenty of 5K runs with awards, traffic control, support, timing and placing for $35 (and this old man thinks that's high). But wait, you might ask, what about the charity? Toys for Tots. Bring your own damned toy, because the organizers sure as hell weren't giving the little shits any toys. None of the money was earmarked for the charity, right into the event organizers' pockets it goes. That's the most egregious example. Other examples abound to solidify my belief that charity fun runs are a racket. Write a check directly, and go find a run that isn't trying to bullshit you with a coat of "it's for charity".
- SamBam 7y ago
  Fun runs are probably generally cost-inefficient, and if what you're saying about the Toys for Tots is true, thats terrible, but I don't quite understand how the pricing relates to the story. > with awards, traffic control, support, timing and placing for $35 Surly those must struggle to break even? Wouldn't a higher fee, and, more importantly, nearly-zero costs be exactly what you want for a charity run?
  - dwild 7y ago
    > Surly those must struggle to break even? Wouldn't a higher fee, and, more importantly, nearly-zero costs be exactly what you want for a charity run? The one for 35$ wasn't the charity run, that was the commercial one. The charity one was 85$, thus even if they just paid the commercial one 35$ per runner, they would still comes out with 50$ per runner given, yet if his story is true, they gave 0$ per runner.
  - conjectures 7y ago
    To put a lower bound on how much these things can cost. The Kent Fitness League (UK) runs an old school cross country event. It costs two pounds (2015).
alias_neo 7y ago
Are there many people playing bridge these days? I'm in my early 30s and was one of only half a dozen members of my school's bridge club (Grammar school, in England), most of our opponents were older folk, we all thoroughly enjoyed match days but I doubt many British schools have bridge clubs, is it popular elsewhere in the world?
stallmanite 7y ago
Glad to know my intuitive revulsion at how fake this type of corporate “charity” seems is borne out by the facts. Something always seems off. Edit: It seems to me that it’s an amazingly potent form of evil to poison the well of charity so that there’s no air/light/goodwill left for those who would legitimately try to help the unfortunate.
capableweb 7y ago
Off-topic but I'm curious, what does "Never buy anything in a room with a chandelier" mean? Tried searching everywhere to get some explanation, but the closest hit I get is from Google which is a link to your comment here.
- muttled 7y ago
  If they can afford to take you to a really nice place for a sales meeting, it means the margins are crazy high and you're getting ripped off.
  - Enginerrrd 7y ago
    That's how I feel about almost every real-estate office I've ever been in. The agent is always driving some flashy car, like a maserati or tesla, and everything in the office is way too nice.
  - braythwayt 7y ago
    Basically, yes. But not exactly, or at least, not as I understand it. Someone can be crazy-successful and be able to afford to take customers to a really nice place. What makes it a “room with a chandelier” is when it is artifice, designed to impress those who mistake flash for function. And here is the kicker: They are trying to close the business while the “mark” is overwhelmed by the spectacle. It’s a judgment call, in my opinion. If Tim Cook flew me to California and took me to his favourite place to talk about working at Apple, I wouldn't think he was trying to con me with opulence. But of he just happened to have an employment agreement in his pocket, and would I care to sign it over the cigars and brandy... That would be buying something in a room with a chandelier. Likewise, if a block-chain startup took its angel money and bought themselves a party at CES with an open bar... I’d look askance at my “VIP Invite.” But if, during the party, all they said was, “Hey, keep us in mind if you or someone you know is looking...” well, that’s buying exposure, and maybe I’m not impressed, but they aren’t trying to sway me at the moment I’m making a decision, so it wouldn’t be buying something in a room with a chandelier. 100% bias in my characterization, as you can tell.
rwmj 7y ago
My niece is currently soliciting sponsorship for some kind of charitable visit to a foreign country. As far as I can tell it's simply a holiday. No actual charitable work will be done (it's meant for the children to "experience the world" or something). She, or rather, the donors, have to pay the full cost and at over £3000 it's quite a lot more than a two week package holiday to the same place. I declined to donate.
- Daviey 7y ago
  World Challenge? Yeah.. On sign-up, the children seemed to think the organisation was a charity, which felt a bit more acceptable. The company didn't hide the fact they were for-profit. To be fair, they are doing more than a simple package holiday offers, but it is still not a cheap expedition.
jancsika 7y ago
> N=1, of course, but I have had an extremely cynical view of charity events ever since. There appears to be an entire industry built around siphoning away 90%-99% of every dollar adjacent to charity. Kubernetes appears to be built around siphoning away 90%-99% of my CPU when I tried to use it to manage a 100 item todo list on my Chromebook. N=1 of course.
wooby 7y ago
Why the cynical view? People have fun, organizers make money, and a charity makes money. Without the event, nobody has fun, and nobody (including the charity) makes money.

tareqak 7y ago

Reputation-laundering. I would not be surprised if such an adjacent industry also exists for foreign aid.

nradov 7y ago

I've participated in many such charity fun runs and see no problem with this type of arrangement. It takes a lot of work and experience to host successful running events: registration, insurance, web site development, course marking, permits, aid stations, timing, t-shirts, clean up, etc. It's worth paying an event management company to ensure everything runs smoothly. Shop around and you might find a smaller local company willing to do it for a lower price. In the end the charity still gets more money than they had before and the runners get some exercise: win / win. Plus you've raised awareness of the cause and some participants will go on the become regular donors.

elliekelly 7y ago
But people think they are donating money to a charity, not purchasing an experience from an event company. It’s misleading at best.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >It’s misleading at best. Is it though? Not everyone who participates does it to support a charity. Some people just want to do the event. Obviously it's more efficient to simply not hold the event and have all the resources that would be spend on running an event simply go to the charity ... but that's not the point. You're doing the event, because you want the event.
- nradov 7y ago
  There's no need to mislead potential participants. Just post information on the event web site showing where their registration fees go and let them decide.
  - elliekelly 7y ago
    I don’t think it’s the participants who are being mislead the most, though. It’s the donors. The people who “sponsor” the participants.
    - nradov 7y ago
      Arrangements vary by event and production company but typically participant registration fees cover the management company's charges. Any additional donations from sponsors go directly to the charity, minus a small processing fee. Of course you might be able to find exceptions to that rule.
- jonlucc 7y ago
  As someone involved in a very local run this weekend, people aren't that dumb. They know that there will be a company making sure the run actually works, and a small portion of proceeds goes to the charity. Actually, it really depends on the number of runners, so after a hundred or so runners, the amount to charity increases per additional runner. It's a bit like saying that people play the lottery and think it is an effective way to support education in their state. No they don't. They know most of the money doesn't support education, but even if a small amount does, the other benefit (playing the lottery or running a 5k) is still worth something to them.

klenwell 7y ago

There was a great HN comment a few years ago that broke down the "Charitable-Industrial Complex" using The Real Housewives as an example. I found it: One thing I've learned from many so-called "philanthropists" is that hosting charity events can be a great status and money making/saving opportunity for those in the business of it. If you've ever watched a "real housewive of ..." episode, those wacky ladies are constantly hosting charity events and provide a pretty good example of how this works: Full comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6113969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6113969

shermablanca 7y ago

Plenty more examples abound. Even the American Red Cross — raised $500mm in 2015 for Haiti earthquake relief. Used $125mm for internal expenses[0] [0] https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-finds-fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-fin...

conjectures 7y ago

"everyone would think I was a nice person doing nice things for people in need" Notwithstanding effective altruists. That aside, when I spent more time doing running & triathlon there was an unspoken rule that people don't ask the group for charitable funding for these things. A large number of charity marathon runners will be effectively buying a place in a race they did not good-for-age qualify for. There's nothing wrong with that and cool that a proportion of the ticket price goes to charity, but it would be great if more people could just own it. The general rule is don't ask other people to pay for your fun adventure activities.

ticmasta 7y ago

Well, check out the annual reports from your favourite charitable organizations; the most successful ones have a high correlation with those where fund raising costs is the biggest line-item expense. It seems to be this "grow or die" mentality spilling over from the corporate world. United Way is one of the biggest offenders. I wish more charities would constrain themselves to their original narrow mandate without success inevitably growing their "addressable market"...

Ntrails 7y ago
Big Charities are fundraising companies with a branch of operations which do some actual good.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  I feel like this is an obligatory reference: https://www.fastcompany.com/3035734/ikea-is-a-nonprofit-and-yes-thats-every-bit-as-fishy-as-it-sounds https://www.fastcompany.com/3035734/ikea-is-a-nonprofit-and-...
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    Other groups who have been "nonprofit" until recently include Visa (the credit card network) and the NFL.
  - Ntrails 7y ago
    Today I learned - thank you!
ahi 7y ago
A career ago I spent a good chunk of my time going over the financials of non-profits large and small. It's an entire industry passing grants back and forth, skimming a percentage each time. United Ways are typically run by a board of trustees consisting of the local elite; lawyers, accountants, small business owners. The UW sends money to other local non-profits who spend it on services and rent from those same lawyers, accountants, and small business owners while employing their failsons. Thousands of donations go in, and at the end someone gets a bag of dented cans of cream of mushroom soup.

wtvanhest 7y ago

When I worked in Boston I organized a company event for habitat for humanity. First year was great, we worked on a house all day, paid HforH somewhere between 1k and 5k (i cannot remember). A year later we returned to the same site. But... the house we worked on the year before wasnt finished yet... That kind of blue my mind. I always wondered whether the money donated by companies would have been better used to just hire contractors.

gamblor956 7y ago
It actually does go to hire contractors. The dirty not-so-hidden secret is that HFH sets aside houses for volunteers to work on. The majority of HFH houses are actually built by contractors without any volunteers messing shit up.
- wtvanhest 7y ago
  ah, that makes sense, but also feels pretty lame overall. I definitely won't volunteer again or org anything for them.

mikestew 7y ago

I saw what I consider to be the epitome of money-grubbing "charity fun run" about five years ago with the "Ugly Sweater Run". They blatantly advertised that there would be no clock, no results, and it would be "about 5K/3.1 miles". For $85. On a private road that was unlikely to require any permits or even much traffic control (Remlinger Farms, for those familiar with the Seattle/Carnation area). I've run plenty of 5K runs with awards, traffic control, support, timing and placing for $35 (and this old man thinks that's high). But wait, you might ask, what about the charity? Toys for Tots. Bring your own damned toy, because the organizers sure as hell weren't giving the little shits any toys. None of the money was earmarked for the charity, right into the event organizers' pockets it goes. That's the most egregious example. Other examples abound to solidify my belief that charity fun runs are a racket. Write a check directly, and go find a run that isn't trying to bullshit you with a coat of "it's for charity".

SamBam 7y ago
Fun runs are probably generally cost-inefficient, and if what you're saying about the Toys for Tots is true, thats terrible, but I don't quite understand how the pricing relates to the story. > with awards, traffic control, support, timing and placing for $35 Surly those must struggle to break even? Wouldn't a higher fee, and, more importantly, nearly-zero costs be exactly what you want for a charity run?
- dwild 7y ago
  > Surly those must struggle to break even? Wouldn't a higher fee, and, more importantly, nearly-zero costs be exactly what you want for a charity run? The one for 35$ wasn't the charity run, that was the commercial one. The charity one was 85$, thus even if they just paid the commercial one 35$ per runner, they would still comes out with 50$ per runner given, yet if his story is true, they gave 0$ per runner.
- conjectures 7y ago
  To put a lower bound on how much these things can cost. The Kent Fitness League (UK) runs an old school cross country event. It costs two pounds (2015).

alias_neo 7y ago

Are there many people playing bridge these days? I'm in my early 30s and was one of only half a dozen members of my school's bridge club (Grammar school, in England), most of our opponents were older folk, we all thoroughly enjoyed match days but I doubt many British schools have bridge clubs, is it popular elsewhere in the world?

stallmanite 7y ago

Glad to know my intuitive revulsion at how fake this type of corporate “charity” seems is borne out by the facts. Something always seems off. Edit: It seems to me that it’s an amazingly potent form of evil to poison the well of charity so that there’s no air/light/goodwill left for those who would legitimately try to help the unfortunate.

capableweb 7y ago

Off-topic but I'm curious, what does "Never buy anything in a room with a chandelier" mean? Tried searching everywhere to get some explanation, but the closest hit I get is from Google which is a link to your comment here.

muttled 7y ago
If they can afford to take you to a really nice place for a sales meeting, it means the margins are crazy high and you're getting ripped off.
- Enginerrrd 7y ago
  That's how I feel about almost every real-estate office I've ever been in. The agent is always driving some flashy car, like a maserati or tesla, and everything in the office is way too nice.
- braythwayt 7y ago
  Basically, yes. But not exactly, or at least, not as I understand it. Someone can be crazy-successful and be able to afford to take customers to a really nice place. What makes it a “room with a chandelier” is when it is artifice, designed to impress those who mistake flash for function. And here is the kicker: They are trying to close the business while the “mark” is overwhelmed by the spectacle. It’s a judgment call, in my opinion. If Tim Cook flew me to California and took me to his favourite place to talk about working at Apple, I wouldn't think he was trying to con me with opulence. But of he just happened to have an employment agreement in his pocket, and would I care to sign it over the cigars and brandy... That would be buying something in a room with a chandelier. Likewise, if a block-chain startup took its angel money and bought themselves a party at CES with an open bar... I’d look askance at my “VIP Invite.” But if, during the party, all they said was, “Hey, keep us in mind if you or someone you know is looking...” well, that’s buying exposure, and maybe I’m not impressed, but they aren’t trying to sway me at the moment I’m making a decision, so it wouldn’t be buying something in a room with a chandelier. 100% bias in my characterization, as you can tell.

rwmj 7y ago

My niece is currently soliciting sponsorship for some kind of charitable visit to a foreign country. As far as I can tell it's simply a holiday. No actual charitable work will be done (it's meant for the children to "experience the world" or something). She, or rather, the donors, have to pay the full cost and at over £3000 it's quite a lot more than a two week package holiday to the same place. I declined to donate.

Daviey 7y ago
World Challenge? Yeah.. On sign-up, the children seemed to think the organisation was a charity, which felt a bit more acceptable. The company didn't hide the fact they were for-profit. To be fair, they are doing more than a simple package holiday offers, but it is still not a cheap expedition.

jancsika 7y ago

> N=1, of course, but I have had an extremely cynical view of charity events ever since. There appears to be an entire industry built around siphoning away 90%-99% of every dollar adjacent to charity. Kubernetes appears to be built around siphoning away 90%-99% of my CPU when I tried to use it to manage a 100 item todo list on my Chromebook. N=1 of course.

wooby 7y ago

Why the cynical view? People have fun, organizers make money, and a charity makes money. Without the event, nobody has fun, and nobody (including the charity) makes money.