To think that minimum targets for charity events are sometimes just too high?

[surreygirl1987]

Maybe I am being totally unreasonable - I'm not sure.

I just enquired about a charity event that looks really interesting. It's a lake swim. Entry fee is £40 - fair enough. But the minimum fundraising amount is £400! I know I wouldn't be able to raise that from my family and friends, especially at thr moment when money is tight. So what happens then - I presume I'd end up having to pay the difference myself?

I'd love to do it, and could pay upto around £100 myself- and would be happy to do so - but my family, friends and I would never be able to afford £400. AIBU to think that this is just too much? I get that the purpose of the event is to raise money but it seems unaffordable for most, surely?

You’re not supposed to limit your sponsorship just to family and friends though. You can have other fundraising events as well as getting sponsors. £400 seems quite reasonable.

For some events (marathons) you are asked to raise £2000. I have known people have cake sales, car boot sales and organise quizzes to help reach their target.

I completely agree with you. Especially with the cost of living crisis at the moment, a lot of people just don't have the money spare to give.

If you have to pay to enter, I don't get why any money raised isn't just seen as a bonus?

Charity events aren't the only kind out there. Enter a lake swim that is just a normal race. And separately donate an affordable amount to any charity you want to support.

What lake swim?

That sort of ransom is applied only (in running events) to high profile half marathons, which are oversubscribed and go to ballot for places (marathon ransoms are about £3k)

So if you mean something like Swim Serpentine, YABU

If you mean a local event, which is less eye-catching in terms of fundraising, and which doesn't sell out and go to ballot, then YANBU about expectation. But of course YABU not to just buy a regular place

I agree. Of course, I understand when a charity is putting on a fundraising event that attracts costs, then they need to be able to recoup them along with a decent ‘profit’, for it to be worthwhile, and certainly not detrimental.

Perhaps they feel they can get sufficIent people who can raise the £400 by whatever means. But I suspect that they may well be basing that on unrealistic expectations in the current environment and might struggle to do so. In which case, people such as yourself who won’t reach that target could still make a valuable contribution, which by excluding you they won’t now not get at all.

I think a recommended or guideline amount should be the way to go, and perhaps more consideration to the types, and costs, of the fundraising events they are thinking about running.

£400 seems a huge amount to have to raise. I really don’t like these sorts of events, but I suppose charities consider it a big winner for them -they know they’ll get a guaranteed income in advance, which is half the difficulty for them.

I agree with you.

I hate being asked to donate so that people can cycle this mountain or swim that lake. I always think 'fund your own bloody hobbies!'.

If a cause is a good one, then I'll donate. Convince me of the need and of the value of the organisation- I am happy to pay. But fuck off with centring yourself amongst some gimmicky fundraising nonsense and expecting me to drop £50 on a coworker who bangs on about cycling too much anyway.

Sorry I digressed! But YANBU.

It's a fundraiser to raise money for the charity. There is no need for equal opportunities because some can't afford it. The purpose is not to encourage late swimming but to raise money.

But of course YABU not to just buy a regular place

Not sure what you mean... there isn't another option? It's entry fee + £400 minimum fundraising.

It's a fundraiser to raise money for the charity. There is no need for equal opportunities because some can't afford it. The purpose is not to encourage late swimming but to raise money.

Yes, I suppose you're right. The people they are specifically trying to target are the rich. Makes sense I guess.

If you mean a local event, which is less eye-catching in terms of fundraising, and which doesn't sell out and go to ballot, then YANBU about expectation.

Yes exactly this. Not a high profile event at all and certainly no ballots or anything like that!

Charity events aren't the only kind out there. Enter a lake swim that is just a normal race.

Yes, I've done plenty of lake swims before, but wanted to do this one in particular as my kids and I go walking and SUP-ing there all the time. There aren't any non-charity events there, as far as I can tell.

My concern is the kind of trips which are just an excuse for a holiday abroad and for children of wealthier families to look good. Instead of just having a simple fundraising event locally.

The entire purpose of the event is to raise money. It's not there to make lake swimming accessible to all, or to encourage uptake of the sport. So they will price it at the highest level they can, while still filling the places.

I do find it odd when I see posts saying "I can't afford X, AIBU to think they charge too much?" Unless you're talking about something like a school day trip (where there is kind of an obligation to send your child), all of these things are optional.

Whether we like it or not, we live in a capitalist economy. Companies will price their product at the level required to make a decent profit (or raise money if a charity). They will have the data on how much sales are affected by price rises, and make their decisions accordingly. The fact that a specific individual can't afford it is immaterial in that context.

Too much? For whom? The aim of the event is to raise money for the charity not for you to have a jolly.
They are absolutely right to reserve the places for those who can raise the £

That’s why I asked what sort of event it was!

I'd enquire what happens if you don't hit the minimum target OP. Different places have different meanings - some places it means "if you don't hit this, you pay the difference", for others "your target (i.e. the number on your fundraising profile) must be this number or higher but if you don't hit it then it doesn't matter". This might all be stress over nothing.

Well what % of fundraising income would you expect a charity to spend on Admin costs? ie marketing, salaries, event costs etc
They have a duty to be efficient.
You think £40 to raise £100 is enough.
I don't. I think that's a terrible %

Oh agree. Extremely wealthy colleague fundraising for his teenage son go on his school's class trip to build a school for orphans.

I'd happily pay for locals (who might need the money) and / or people with building experience (who have a better chance of building something that won't fall down) than to fly in a bunch of posh kids who want to arse about in the tropics, taking photos for their instagram and feeling good about it when the cost of their airfares alone would have actually helped the community, not just filled it with spoilt twats for a fortnight.

The people they are specifically trying to target are the rich. Makes sense I guess.

In the real world, I agree with you; but they would likely frame it as wanting to target those with the greatest 'passion' and 'drive' to fundraise for their charity. Fundraising can be a bit of a weird concept, as you're praised for specifically 'raising' the money yourself as though it comes from an unlimited external source with a tap that anybody can easily turn on if they want to enough.

We all know that this frequently means being expected to put your hand in your own pocket - and/or pressuring/guilting your family and friends, who are also fairly likely to be at a similar socio-economic level to you in their ability (or not) to hand over the cash. Of course, it's not even just pressuring people (who may not be able to afford it) to come up with the money, but also for it to be given to the random charity that YOU have chosen (or the one that happens to be organising the event you want to participate in) rather than one that they themselves would prioritise for their personal giving.

As PP, I hate the ones that are really expensive luxury holidays that people want the charity and their family/friends to pay for - kind of turns the idea of 'supporting a charity' right on its head, when instead of you going to Machu Picchu in support of cancer research, instead, cancer research charities are putting their funds on the line in support of some random person from Luton who wants to go to Machu Picchu.

A surprising number of people either can't see or refuse to acknowledge that their lovely holiday will come at a significant cost to the charity, hence the requirement for a 'minimum fundraising target' - and if you do only 'raise' the minimum amount, far from being able to trumpet your amazing achievement in aid of charity, the charity will just about have broken even, whilst also doing all the free travel agency work for you. I can't see organising for people to swim in a lake as costing them all that much, though.

Well what % of fundraising income would you expect a charity to spend on Admin costs? ie marketing, salaries, event costs etc
They have a duty to be efficient.
You think £40 to raise £100 is enough.
I don't. I think that's a terrible %

I agree with you in this principle; but didn't OP say here that the participants have to pay £40 entry fee rather than that it costs the charity £40 for them to take part?

Agree. The macmillan hike the Thames has a minimum of £250 to be raised which is too high imo.
I used to have a colleague who was always doing something or other and being sponsored and it was annoying being asked to sponsor her, especially as she went on and on about whatever event she was doing.

Charity fundraising events need to bring in more money than they costs

It costs to stage these events and it's only the profit that goes towards the cause.

If they don't make a large enough profit they can't justify running the event.

The purpose is to generate as much net income as possible.