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?

With the London Marathon the charities with bonded places are paying around £500 per place each year, so really if they have s sponsorship target of £1500, £500 of that is covering the cost of the place.

I'm a trustee for a small charity and every year we get emails from people claiming to have been helped by us and wanting a place in the marathon. I always reply with how much bonded placed cost, and that they could do any of the other marathons for us. No one ever replies.

But the moonwalk is again something that you have to pay to do yourself, so all the money goes to charity.

Wow! Who wants to join me on the Mumsnet piss-up holiday charity wine tour I've just started to organise?

Another - most people pay for their own sky dive (certainly all bar one of the people that I know - and she was just very naive), or do other events to pay for the cost of the experience (for example a friend arranged social events etc to part fund her travel to India to do a bike ride around remote areas to a) raise money for women's charities based in India, b) deliver vital goods to women in remote areas and c) do education / awareness raising around issues such as abuse etc.). She raised thousands, and no one would have even known about that if it weren't for her efforts

Just seems that it is very trendy now to dismiss other people's attempts to do something good by tarring all people with the same brush - and I'm not really sure why people feel the need to do that. Just seems very bitchy and unnecessary to me, particularly when someone is trying to do something good.

USER the whole point of this thread is about those who DON'T pay for their own experiences!!!

But the implication in lots of posts is that people are doing things to get their own kicks and not to be kind.

I often find on here (not just this thread) that if people do stuff which is kind they are belittled by people who can't just take it as that, they seem to perceive that people are being disingenuous.

I hate the fact that charities which do such important work have to rely on charitable donations, which are mainly from organised events in the case of small charities, to function from week to week. I hate the fact that if these charities close down, people will suffer. I hate the fact that when you try to do something to support them you feel like shit because people think you are only doing it to satisfy your own desires.

Yanbu they should pay for there own sky dive all the money raised should go to charity.

My DH recently did a Paris to Lyon bike ride for SANDS charity, Every penny raised went to the charity.

I used to work for a big charity and the fundraising did make me a bit it's all on the net £ . A charity ball can cost a few thousand pounds to put on, but as long as you make more than it costs...
Bonded Marathon places are the most common example, but the Experiences are a way for a charity to access a different type of fundraiser, it's just the way many charities have diversified.

You seem to be reading a different thread to me User.

So say friend A does a parachute jump, raises £160 in sponsorship, of which £150 goes to the skydive company and £10 to the charity. Is the takeaway message from that really that they are being kind? I'd rather sponsor someone who is giving MY sponsorship money to the charity rather than the skydive company. That doesn't strike me as particularly controversial.

You're saying most people pay for their own skydive. That may or may not be true, I have no idea, but this thread is only about the other people, who spend people's sponsorship money on the cost of their once-in-a-lifetime experience.

I'll do a wine tour for charity!

Who will sponsor me?

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

Agreed. But if she wouldn't have given the money otherwise, she shouldn't pretend that it's all about the charity: it's about the skydive. Which is fine if she says so!

I never give to these either. Fine to do a huge challenge for charity but it should be self-funded. Charities clearly get something out of it otherwise they wouldn't offer these experiences, but I'd rather 100% of my donation (or near enough depending on the giving method) went to the charity.

DH is doing a charity 100km walk. It's self-funded as he wants to do it.

I think what we've all learned here, is that a mumsnet wine tour, needs to be arranged. Because we all care about charity so much. No other reasons. Nope.

OP - the only thing I ever did for charity was run a marathon and I paid the damn entrance fees, and all my kit fees, myself. 100% agree that whoever is doing the thing should pay the direct costs, otherwise that's kinda fraudulent cheeky.. no?

YANBU. I'm doing a Channel swim in the Summer, by the time I've paid for a pilot boat, the cost of driving to and from Dover to train every weekend, paid my support teams costs it will be £1k+ which I am funding. Any sponsorship I raise will be going to charity in full, it's something I want to do and if I can help a good cause at the same time it's a bonus.

it's something I want to do and if I can help a good cause at the same time it's a bonus.

That's exactly what I mean. Own it!

YANBU.
If it's a charity you would support otherwise, you could make a direct donation to them in her name/on her behalf (or however it is done)

YANBU

Wow edwinbear good luck!

I have run for charity - a larger distance than I had ever run and it was hard and I trained for months. Of course I paid the entrance fee and all the transport costs etc. I raised almost £1000 and every bean plus the gift aid of course went to the charity. I won't ask for sponsorship again though for a good while as people really do get fed up with it I am sure.

I will sponsor people if the challenge is hard and the charity benefits directly. I wouldn't sponsor someone if a percentage of the sponsorship went to a sky dive company - the person doing the challenge absolutely should pay for that aspect of it.

www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-sponsored-to-do-thing-he-would-have-done-anyway-20160222106475

I never sponsor people for parachute jumps. There have been some reviews of them - on average, for every £1 raised the NHS picks up a £7 bill for injuries etc. They are a stupid way to raise money.

You're saying most people pay for their own skydive. That may or may not be true, I have no idea

I have quite a bit do experience with the charity skydive set up. Hardly anyone pays for the skydive cost themselves. The marketing is all "raise £300 and jump for free" and people get really pissy when you ask about who is covering the jump cost.

There have been some reviews of them - on average, for every £1 raised the NHS picks up a £7 bill for injuries etc.

There has been one widely quoted paper, and it is very old and isn't representative of modern tandem jumps where the occirancr of injury is pretty low.

Just get those legs up on landing like you get told!