AIBU re charity skydive?

[Gwenci]

Genuinely wondering whether I'm being unreasonable so prepared to be told I am.

An old acquaintance from school is doing a skydive for a charity and has sent a FB msg asking for sponsorship. So far I've studiously ignored it as I think this is a rubbish way of fundraising for a charity.

Her minimum target of £360 sponsorship will equate to £140 going directly to the charity - the rest covers the cost of the skydive. So more than 50% of people's charitable donations will be paying for the skydive itself.

Surely there are much more cost effective ways of raising money for a worthwhile cause?

AIBU to think this or should I be donating anyway as, you know, it's for charity?

YANBU. I go to university and it seems like almost everyone is either climbing Kilamanjaro/cycling london to paris/climbing Everet/trekking with gorillas but they need hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds worth of donations just to cover the cost of doing it! Ridiculous IMO.

YANBU

YANBU! I did a triathlon a couple of years back, paid for it myself and then asked if anyone would like to sponsor me, all of the money went to a cancer charity very close to my heart. I have to say, I'm not sure I would have dedicated as much time to training if I hadn't had people sponsoring me though! It was flipping tough, but the fact that people had sponsored me hugely spurred me on. I would never have asked for donations towards the cost of doing the event itself (it was in excess of £100 to enter).

OP - I'm with the others, YANBU. Cost of the event should be covered by the participant so that the donations can go to the charity.

AnchorDown - wondering what your thoughts are on CEO pay in the voluntary sector...? I think this is sometimes represented unfairly. Strategic management of a charity requires the same 'level' of skills, experience and knowledge as any organisation of a similar size. If CEO pay isn't competitive then the voluntary sector isn't able to attract suitable leadership, which makes financial mismanagement / ineffective use of funds much more likely, surely?

People who do this and do NOT pay for the skydive cost portion themselves are basically just asking you to find their fun day out. Same with race entries etc.

Augusta has already said what I was coming to say and why I never ever sponsor anyone to do charity parachute jumps.

"Each pound raised for charity cost the NHS 13.75 Pounds in return."

Parachuting for charity: is it worth the money? A 5-year audit of parachute injuries in Tayside and the cost to the NHS.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10476298

(I used to work for one of the authors.)

I don't like the idea either although both parties are getting something out of it.

I was contemplating asking for sponsorship when dp does his skydive in the summer, it's all booked and paid for in full though so 100% of the money raised would go to the charity/charities we pick, do you think people would get on board with sponsoring knowing the charity's get all the money?

YANBU of course. Like most sane people I refuse to sponsor anything like this where any percentage of my donation is funding the activity or where very little effort is involved.

If someone says they are going to run the London marathon and they've never been a runner I will sponsor them because what they are doing is a big deal and takes huge amounts of courage and, more importantly, months and months of training and effort. They're really putting themselves out.

I have had no qualms in the past telling people asking me for sponsorship of the "holiday" or "jolly day out" type of event that they are taking the piss in even asking me to part fund their "trip/event of a lifetime".

I think it depends if the person actually wants to do the skydive or not. Someone I know ended up doing a charity skydive after someone else pulled out at the eleventh hour. I don't think she wanted to do it but felt obligated as a senior-ish person at the charity. In that instance I think it would be a bit much to expect her to pay for the privilege too.

That said all those requests to "fund me to go on a holiday/go on an adventure I've always wanted to do" can fuck right off. If you want my money you have to be doing something a) bloody difficult that you don't really like very much or b) making a real difference.

Titting about in Tanzania "building" a school with your posho mates and roughing it by sleeping in a tent, having all your meals and travel organised for you but only washing your hair twice a week doesn't count.

"Each pound raised for charity cost the NHS 13.75 Pounds..."

I dare op to post this link on the skydiver's FB page!

I had a 'friend' fall out massively with me over a sponsored parachute jump. She ignored two polite "I'm not able to sponsor you, sorry" messages and in the end I had to tell her straight, I'd only sponsor her if she was covering the cost of the jump herself.

Yes, the charities make some money, but the parachute companies make a hell of a lot too.

In the OP's case, if the person raises only £360 the parachute company will come out of this better off than the charity - I believe a skydive only costs the company approximately £70-90 per person (depending on how many people go up in the plane together).

I had a friend do a Great Wall walk last year but she paid for all the costs of the trip herself so all money raised went to the charity (a local hospice). In that case I didn't mind donating as we weren't subsidising her trip of a lifetime.

I work for a charity. I will say that skydives tend to bring in a lot of money - we make thousands every year. They are a really big earner.

As such I do tend to sponsor people for doing that. Or make an individual single donation to the charity she is fundraising for of £20. They won't object. But I do suspect that the majority of the people who sponsor these things wouldn't have donated that money to the charity otherwise. These things do seem to give people a nudge.

But even the London Marathon works on this principle? You need to make at least £X amount in sponsorship or else you have to make up the shortfall yourself?

Or did someone tell me a porkie?

If Sally pays £250 to do a skydive and raises a further £250 in sponsorship ... It would have been a damn sight more efficient for her to just give the £250 to charity.

I'm afraid that's how I see it. If you want the experience of running a marathon / climbing a mountain then fine, but own that choice as a want and don't pretend it's a selfless act.

I do honestly see it as the friends funding the jolly and the skydiver making a charitable donation, I'm afraid.

Besides, I can make more money than that (profit) doing a coffee morning where everyone actually gets something for their money. That feels more honest. Also I prefer cake to near-death experiences.

If Sally pays £250 to do a skydive and raises a further £250 in sponsorship ... It would have been a damn sight more efficient for her to just give the £250 to charity.

But if Sally doesnt do the skydive, she is unlikely to give £250 to the charity in reality, so the charity wont get anything at all, but if she does the skydive, they will get £250 in this instance

I'm doing a skydive. Have asked for sponsorship but am covering the cost of the dive myself. I'm more concerned about the thought of injury now after reading that link!!

hacker There are umpteen different ways to do the London Marathon. Most people apply via the ballot and get in that way. They then raise money for any charity they wish. If they fail to get into the ballot, a lot of charities have a fixed number of places and you can apply to the charity to take one of those places but you "guarantee" to raise a minimum amount (some as high as £2000). The registration fee in these cases is sometimes paid by the charity, others expect you to pay it or it comes out of your fundraising. These registration fees are around £100.

So, even if a bit of sponsorship goes towards the entrance fee, it is considerably less than the cost of an awful lot of charity one-off events, let alone the big jollies abroad, and those taking part will be putting in months and months of hours and hours of training - ie, putting in a lot of effort to raise their money. Unlike, say, sponsoring me to drive some fire engines (yes, I've seen that) or even a parachute jump.

CountessOfStrathearn that's a really old study and isn't comparable with modern parachuting equipment.

However, fat women tandem skydivers are far more likely to break their legs/ankles than anyone else because they struggle to lift their legs up properly on landing.

And fat women are more likely to only be doing it for charity than for fun.

"Each pound raised for charity cost the NHS 13.75 Pounds..."

I dare op to post this link on the skydiver's FB page!

The irony is, she's doing it for an NHS hospital!!

Phew, I feel vindicated. Will not be sponsoring and will save the money for a different cause closer to my heart.

I'm glad it's not just me who feels like this. The problem is, people who want sponsorship are almost never only doing one thing. They do one thing and then, a couple of weeks later, want sponsorship for something else.

Hmmmm I wonder if I'm fat better watch the ankles lol x

I'm really disheartened by this thread. I don't get all the nastiness about people who are essentially doing something to raise money and awareness for charity. Is it really that wrong to want to do something good?

When you look at something like the moonwalk and the amount of money that has been made over the years and the amount of good which is done with that money, how can people be so scathing about being asked for sponsorship. So what if someone enjoys the experience, if they make £500 for breast cancer charities on the back of it rather than just doing it for their own pleasure, surely that is a good thing?

I don't like these events either. Someone I know is hiking to Macchu Picchu or somewhere to raise funds for a really good cause, but I'm not donating as basically it's a way of her geting a cheap trip to South America. I'd rather give my cash directly to the charity.

User, yes absolutely doing stuff for charity a good thing. Not a single person on this thread is arguing against that. They just want their hard-earned cash to go to the charity itself, not to fund their friends' jollies.