3 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoTo 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).