to ask you all to consider making Reindeer Food?

[DrSeuss]

Every year, Rudolf and co work hard to bring us our presents, even if they only bring crappy self stirring mugs. If we all pitch in to make them some reindeer food, a delightful mix of oats to fill their tummies and glitter to help them fly, we can sell it at £1 a bag for the charity of our choice and no reindeer will be hungry this Christmas. If you use edible glitter you don't have to worry about any Little Treasures eating it instead of sprinkling it on the garden on Christmas Eve.

Fund raising aside...it juts doesnt work for us. Reindeer eat carrots,not oats . Maybe bags of reindeer carrots here. ;)

So, not a bad day's work. Two have found a way to make money for their chosen charity, which was my aim in starting the thread, to suggest a cheap and easy to make fundraising item. Jack has had a good whinge AND given £5 to a children's hospice. I have watched the box set of Downton Abbey and made 457 bags full.

Helen - when you move threads to the Christmas topic, can you change the title too, otherwise it just looks daft.

LeftMy- I see it as a waste of time because I don't need to buy into a gimmick to donate money to a worthy cause.

Neither do I Jack, I give plenty of money and time to my chosen charities without the need for any gimmicks.

As I'm sure lots of people do.

But something like this could make people choose one charity over another, and get something fun in return. I could afford to donate £30 and my time in making the bags, but I couldn't afford to donate the hundreds it could potentially raise.

And I have to admit that reindeer get carrots when they come to this house too. And no self respecting three year old is going to believe that one little bag of oats is really going to be enough food for all those reindeer that carry FC and presents. BUT, if some nice smelling (to reindeer) special reindeer food can help the reindeer know that there is a good child in the house, and that they are guided to park in the back garden rather than the front because there is more space there, then we have happy children, happy reindeer, and my charity is a few hundred quid closer to paying for the next piece of equipment that we need. Everyone's a winner!

Oh, and some people do need a gimmick to donate, so why not give them one?

Slave-the reindeer only get a bite or two at each house, you know. If they ate a full nosebag at each stop, they'd never make it round in time and they'd get far too fat to fly :)

Oh, forgot to list in our list of accomplishments for this thread, some people have been alerted to the fact that hospices are not government funded and have decided to help them. Jack, love, are you sure you're not actually my FIL? The two of you could have been separated at birth!

Ah Seuss, introduce us. We could put the world to rights :)

Totally agree! Fat, full up reindeer would Not Be Good.

And so the conspiracy continues....

I love it!!

So Jack, this is not me being bitchy, this is me genuinely wondering. If you don't hold with fundraising in any form, would you also refuse to benefit from any fundraising? For example, if a member of your family needed treatment for a heart problem, would you accept it, knowing that it had come at least in part from the little gold hearts they sell? If they didn't fundraise, they couldn't develop the treatments that are needed. Would you accept help from a Marie Curie nurse knowing that much of their funding comes from selling little daffodils? Do you buy Rememberance Day poppies? If that were your child in Zoe's Place, would you ask that they only receive treatment or use equipment that has been funded by just straight donations, never from fundraising? In an ideal world, all organisations would just receive the money they need without them coming up with schemes such as the daffodils or the blessed reindeer food. Sadly, this world isn't ideal and so they don't. Presumably, you would keep your child from using the new computer lab at my son's school, since that was created by PTA fundraising. Should I refuse to let him join his class in there? As I say, not being bitchy, just want to know how it works. Having played softball with you so far, I would like to hear you justify your stance as you presumably can.

I find most of the fundraising nonsense quite patronising. I have select charities that I donate to. I refuse to accept a badge/sticker/poppy/daffodil as it defies the point of me giving money for it to be spent on gimmicks.

I hate the tickle me pink campaign...I think breast cancer research is crucially important a charity...but please don't dress things up in pink and feathers to make it "fun" for me...I'm a 25 year old woman, I don't need "fun" to understand the seriousness of cancer/poverty/special needs/mental health illnesses.

If I lived in an area where there was a local hospice I'd be encouraging the locals to donate something every month as a responsibility to aid the people in the area using the facility. I would not dress up as a clown and try and flog a bag of seeds/balloon/stickers in order to raise money.

Don't get me started on Children in Need.

It's each to their own, the more gimmicky the more annoying as far as I'm concerned, it isn't an issue of donating, money isn't the issue...it's the trying to make everything "fun" in order to get people to donate.

Then again I'm cynical and miserable and quite happy to not have "fun" fundraising.

But you still haven't answered the question. If you had cancer, God forbid, would you refuse treatment if it had been funded by someone in a clown suit? Would you refuse treatment for your child? Or your parents? Would you be OK letting your child use a computer lab that had been funded that way?

If I stand around at my son's swimming lesson asking people for a pound for the hospice, I suspect I'll come away with far less than if I flog them a "gimmick". If you don't believe me, try it. You may find that stupid but it happens to be true.

I have agree with jack - I happily donate especially to hospices as I know first hand how important they are, but making it 'fun' irritates the hell out of me too.

I take your potin about the patronizing and the pink campaign. Its getting on my nerves and My Dsis had breast cancer very young.

One of the positives of the gimmick fundraising you describe is that it helps people feel involved in their chosen charity. It encourages a feeling of ownership and therefore can promote long term involvement.

Lots and lots of parents who have lost their children to various diseases and in various ways go on to think up gimmicks and sell trinkets to raise money for related charities.

This gives them a sense of purpose andhelps them feel they are doing something to prevent another family suffering a loss.

There are people who give money without needing a gimmick and there are people who enjoy supporting charities in other ways. The two groups are not mutally exclusive. Lots of people who want or need a product will go for the one giving money to charity. They would buy the product anyway so why not chose the one that donates some proceeds.

Christmas fetes, poppies, bungee jumps, fun runs etc if these didnt exist many charities would go under, big and small.

These campaigns also serve to raise awareness.

Interesting points MrsD

Seuss, I'm not in that position.

I donate blood and therefore wouldn't accept a transfusion for myself, but my child is a different story.

The hospice where my grandfather died has continuous financial support from my family, and it would be the same if my child needed a hospice. I'd fund as best I could without gimmicky things.

Plenty of people go to fundraising days and don't give a penny...then there's people like me who will give anonymously to people on an internet forum for the sake of it.

Awareness is important, but not at the cost of the charity-especially for the big charities whose CEOs are on 6 figure salaries.

But I also donate to said charities anonymously on a regular basis. Wearing a poppy/daffodil/bit of pink/red ribbon would defy this.

I think you're doing a good thing DrS. I'm not a fan of gimmicks either, but I recognise that some people are - therefore its worth doing.

My parents regularly raise money for charities that they run the marathon for. Rather than ask for straight sponsorship, they host big Sunday lunches in their home, and ask for a donation. They make a lot of money doing this, way more than if they circulated an email with a Justgiving link.

Gimmicky? Maybe. Effective? Absolutely.

Not all charities are run by CEOs on massive salaries.

There are thousands of small organisations that rely on the money that their little campaigns bring in.

More so than ever before. The statutory services are being cut and the charities are expected to pick up the slack despite their funding being cut too.

It may not be right but it is the way it is.

I used to sell Teenage Cancer Trust 'dog tags' (army not animal). they were a quid each. They went crazy with kids knocking at my door to buy them. They cost a few pence to make. I didnt charge to sell them. I sold hundreds and hundreds - to the very people that the charity was trying to reach - teenagers.

Teenagers who do not tell their parents that they are feeling ill and that they have an odd lump or weird bruises. Teenagers that are one of the hardest to diagnose groups and the ones in whom cancer causes the most havoc.

I would take an awful lot of convincing to believe that those plastic bits of tat didnt do any good at all.

Hear hear Mrs DV.

My dd goes to a hospice. They are currently waiting on funding for a new high sided bed for her (and others).Personally, I will be grateful for any source of income that they receive for it - we could be a long time waiting if they rely solely on people making DDs, and there being no extra fundraising activities.

That may be. But for me they don't work.

And I hate the attitude that those who snub the gimmicks are doing no good. Plenty of people give plenty of money without the gimmicks.

It's personal choice. I'd rather give a tenner than have 10 bags of seeds.

Sorry, you still haven't answered the question. Since you don't like scenarios involving yourself, try this one.

Mrs X dislikes any silly business of fundraising and would therefore never buy one of the hospice teddies. She makes this fact known to those around her and is somewhat intolerant of their actions, for example, refusing to buy a hospice teddy bear badge while telling the seller that they are being ridiculous and should just ask people for money then rely on donations. However, she gives a regular donation to Diabetes UK by direct debit, something only she and her bank manager know about.
Sadly, Mrs X gives birth to a premature baby who has cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus and epilepsy and is not expected to live beyond his third birthday. Mrs X is fortunate enough to receive an offer of care from the hospice. The money to fund the care came at least in part from those dratted badges and bears. What should Mrs X do? Are her principles to be sacrificed or her child's wellbeing?

As I said, I'm done playing softball. Please present a cogent argument. I shared an idea that I thought others might find helpful. I am not forcing you to participate. Your smart mouth has already cost you a fiver. No woolly arguments, please, just a rational response to the question asked.

Christ alive.

I don't know what Mrs X would/should do.

The NHS would help for a considerable amount of time, that runs as a bloody charity.

I am not a hypocrite. I won't depend on help from something I don't agree with...I don't approve of some aspects of the benefit system for example, and refuse point blank to receive said benefits.

I wouldn't accept care or help from an organisation that has immoral or what I consider, unnecessary funding. It's very straight forward.

"Already cost you a fiver..."

Isn't that the point? people actually paying money to charities rather than buying stupid pointless tat? Shouldn't the said charities be saying "thank you" rather than "I wish you'd fuck off and buy some seeds in a sandwich bag rather than give money".

ANd for the record, childrens' hospices aren't something I support.