3 ms·
What is your problem with [1]? I think almost every charity, or business, ever created spends some proportion of it's income on advertising / outreach, to incr
by CJefferson 4y ago
What is your problem with [1]?
I think almost every charity, or business, ever created spends some proportion of it's income on advertising / outreach, to increase future income. If they cut that 12%, and it decreased their income to half, or a third, of it's current value, would that make you happy?
Also, please point me to "The implication is that donations are urgently needed to keep the website running.". I've not seen anything like that in any banner I've seen this year. I'd be interested to know if you get different banners to me? Or, are you just assuming the banner says that?
- AlbertCory 4y agoWhat's the problem with [1]? Well, it says they're swimming in money, and don't need your $2 donation to keep giving your free information. Most of the arguments, including yours, are 100% qualitative. "They're a good site, so give them money." Or "other charities also spend money on advertising." We should instead be quantitative : "Yes, you are a worthy cause, but you have plenty now. Other charities are more deserving."
- brookst 4y agoMy probables is that 43% is incredibly low. It would score a D on Charitywatch: https://www.charitywatch.org/our-charity-rating-process https://www.charitywatch.org/our-charity-rating-process We can argue about that extra 30%, but it’s not what people are expecting to pay for.
- throwoutway 4y agoIt’s preposterous. It’s discussed here many times that they don’t need MORE. They keep begging well past the point they need, and they accumulate excessively. And despite this they seem to ignore it when I click “I’ve already donated” and keep pushing the begging. It makes me upset that I’ve donated