6 ms·
In defense of marketing and admin budgets. What would you prefer, a nonprofit where $100 of your donation goes to "providing help" (I don't really know what tha
by joindpp 4y ago
In defense of marketing and admin budgets. What would you prefer, a nonprofit where $100 of your donation goes to "providing help" (I don't really know what that means, since money alone can't do anything) or a nonprofit where $30 of your $100 is invested in "marketing and admin" which results in:
- the charity has $500
- there are admin humans around to "provide help" (and you're paying them a decent or even above-average salary because you want them to do an amazing job, right?)
What if they took $60 out of your $100 and turned it into $5,000 (not unheard of if they invest in digital ads to a warm list, for example)
It's counterproductive to insist that nonprofits operate without operations budgets.
- wizofaus 4y agoI wouldn't consider 30% unreasonable or an example of money being swallowed - but there are known instances of non-profits where over 60% of donations go towards covering such costs (the Law Enforcement Legal Defense fund supposedly is one of the worst offenders).
- xyzzy123 4y agoYes, I think this is reasonable. I would also like to take a moment to reiterate why so many people are bitter about the marketing / admin angle: I pay them money. Charity pays consultants to turn that into more money (plus admins to manage the consultants). Consultants determine that a fraction of that money should be used to solicit more donations. Research indicates best source of new donations is in fact existing donors. At this point charity is spending money I gave them to extract further donations from me. The ice-cream cone is now licking itself :/