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?

Weren't a lot of these events set up to be a celebration of sport with the focus on the sport e.g. running and community engagment? The London marathon was never envisaged as being a mass opportunity for charities. OK if you feel you wish to run for charity, brilliant, but you certainly shouldn't be forced into it. The elite athletes certainly aren't running for sponsorship.

I also think that the charity focus can swamp the core reason for the event with the media before and during events like the GNR trying to get personal narratives from the public for running. It makes you feel.guilty if your reason for doing the GNR is simply to run and enjoy it (as well.as the fantastic atmosphere)

Because the point of the event, the reason for running it, is to raise funds for the charity. In the op's example the £40 will cover admin and insurance costs so the charity doesn't lose money by holding the event. Then they feel they can attract and support x number of people who can raise £400 plus. It is not the job of the charity to provide a cool swimming experience for anyone that fancies it.