To think this is just getting someone else to pay for your holiday?

I guess it's a way to get someone to fundraise pretty heavily for the charity, basically they get rewarded for their work. It attracts people who might find quietly donating to a charity unexciting or not showy enough.
But yeah, as you say, it'd be interesting to know the exact percentage from the donated amount that goes to the cause? (Not admin fees or the challenge etc).
I guess it might be mean spirited to raise it, but if I was close to the friend then I probably would. Not to say they were scamming me, just to point out the potential flaw. As you say, you're not donating. I wouldn't be either, unless it was literally bc I thought my mate deserved a free holiday.

Same here. I won't sponsor people to do that sort of thing, holidays, walks, swims etc.. I support charities directly, ones that I know to be good and without a lot of highly paid executives.

I never sponsor anyone for things like this.

YANBU. When I worked in a large office, there was a huge fuss made about a group of colleagues (all well paid young professionals) who were going on 3 week trip overseas with loads of adventure activities etc 'for charity'. They didn't have to fund any of this themselves but had a fundraising target. They were given 3 weeks paid leave (not from their annual leave entitlement, and anyway the usual rule was no more than 2 weeks leave at a time), lauded for their commitment to the good cause when they left work early for 'training' (any attempt to leave on time for eg. child care etc was usually commented on negatively) and the rest of the office had to endure about a year's worth of expected participation in fundraising events, bake sales, sponsorship requests etc.

I can see that the charities feel that they have to do this to encourage donations that they would not otherwise receive (even if they only get 10% of what's raised, that's probably money they wouldn't otherwise get) and the business wanted the PR of being seen to support the charity etc. But I would have rather just given my money directly to the charity without having to pay for someone else's extended jolly, work even more overtime to cover for them and feel pressured in to attending constant events, making cakes etc.

Agree 100%!
They've been doing the rounds a while. Once in a lifetime type things- like trekking the Great Wall of China. The idea is the cost eg is 1.5K. You collect 3, and half goes to the charity, half funds your trip.
#1 Nobody tells their friends that half of every pound is for themselves.
#2 When people fall short, say collect 2.5K - the trip still costs 1.5, so an even larger proportion of each donated £ goes to pay for their holiday.
#3 I knew a girl who did this repeatedly. Once she reached her target, she ‘banked’ the rest toward her next trip. So you might think you’re sponsoring for charity’A’, but in fact it goes to charity’B’ a year later.

One friend of mine did one, to the Great Wall of China, but she said it was a unique opportunity to do such a trip. She was self funding her cost, and all money she collected was 100% for the charity. This is the ONLY way I’d contribute.

I say no thank you I already pay to x charity. And I choose not to support charities doing things that way.

Agree. A colleague has done Kili, Everest MDS etc 'for charity'. The latest one takes the piss though - rowing the Atlantic not for charity but to raise awareness. He crowdfunding it. So yes basically getting other people to pay for him to do what he wants.

I’ve known a few people to do a sponsored sky dive and thought the same. They have to raise a certain amount of money to cover the cost of the activity. Why not just raise the same amount of money and donate the lot, instead of using a large portion of it to pay for a fun activity for yourself