£12.1 million spent on Earthshot, £5 million of it prize money

[antelopevalley]

Maybe I am out of touch? Does it really cost £7.1 million to judge entrants to international competition and then put on a prize-giving ceremony?

www.thesun.co.uk/news/19477174/william-kate-charity-thrives-harry-meghan/

GOSH is mainly individual fundraising that is more expensive - individuals donating £10 a month.
Earthshot was large donors which is cheaper to raise money from, but you need the contacts. The Royals have those.

I’m guessing PW didn’t review all the entries personally, or build the website or design logos or film the documentaries, so had to hire people to do that. Sometimes these are done in house sometimes outsourced depending on the skill set.

it looks like they’ve turned it into an international prize so there will be additional charges to reflect that.

Reading the documentation they will also provide support. I would guess this would include project management, funding, admin and legal support to help the projects become reality, my friend has a similar role in a university where ideas are turned into JV’s between university and graduates and funding is found to turn their ideas into reality and if they’re successful IPO’d

We can all take turns guessing where the money has been spent but the accounts provide no detail.

At the end of the day they've established a charity whose expenses have exceeded the amount spent on the cause by a hefty margin.

Very few charities and no doubt even even fewer of their donors would count that a successful first year.

Without detailed financial information it is impossible to judge the success or otherwise of this charity.
How much did they spend on the documentary? How much on the book? How much were sales?
It is all incredibly vague.

At the end of the day they've established a charity whose expenses have exceeded the amount spent on the cause by a hefty margin.

Very few charities and no doubt even even fewer of their donors would count that a successful first year.

If you’re talking about the Cambridge’s Foundation, you are completely off base here. In the last two years they spent less than 10% of their income on expenses. For charities, that’s an excellent performance (it’s not its first year either…and Earthshot is not its only project)

From the accounts, there is this graph showing that over the last two years 91% and 92% of the money they have raised have gone to charitable purposes.

If you’re talking about the Cambridge’s Foundation

Just Earthshot.

That said though, I'd quite like a detailed explanation of the thinking behind the funds transfer to Travalyst which on the surface would appear to have quite tenuous links (if any at all) to the original objectives of the charity.

Not holding my breath

Earthshot isn't just an awards ceremony though it's an ideas incubator which could potentially have far-reaching positive consequences for the environment on both a small project and cross-world scale.

We have several family members working in environmental policy areas across the world (on local, national and international areas) who all think it's a fantastic scheme for both awareness raising and actual practical applications.

The experts they've gathered to help work with both the prize winners and the support they give the other finalists is amazing.

It's very high profile - they are going to have to be transparent about all the finances involved. Also re it being a royal thing for a year it's now become an independent organisation - so even people who hate the royals can get behind it!

It is high profile?
I bet most of the public can not name one winner.
And I did not think the Earthshot charity spent any money supporting the winners?

In environmental circles / government level / NGO environmental groups level, yes it's high profile, it's internationally high profile.

With projects like this it's hoped the general public will learn and pay attention to the different categories - that's why they do the TV documentaries and the flashy award ceremony. But the key audiences also include angel investors, governments, NGO investors, science communities etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I did not think the Earthshot charity spent any money supporting the winners?"

The winners of each category each year get a million pounds towards their project. But they also get ongoing support from the organisation's expert paneles and supporters to help with their vision - financial advice, organisation advice, investment opportunities - one of the key elements of Earthshot is it's a huge international networking project for the environment. (and by ongoing the idea is they will have a network of support that goes way beyond the year they are involved)

It's only at the beginning of the ten-year vision but the first year winners and finalists are already benefiting from the publicity, exposure and community created around their environmental visions. The great thing is even some of the projects who didn't win their category are getting investment interest and mentoring support.

It's really an amazing project - of course we can't say yet, it's too early to know the long term impact, but it's a really valuable and potentially impactful movement.

I know you are fairly anti-royal / anti current Windsor family shenanigans but don't write of Earthshot - it's got the potential to be huge force for good.

I am fairly pro-monarchy, BUT that's competely separate from my knowlege and opinion about the Earthshot project. It's not an amazing project because of William (although fair play to him if it really was his idea) but because it's exactly the type of creative scientific thinking we need to encourage solutions for the climate crisis we are facing.

*write off

Sorry for all other typos - just very passionate about this subject!

It really is not high profile.
And if Earthshot was doing its job properly all the media publicity would be on the winners instead of Prince William.

@wordler I know they get money and support. I did not think the support was funded by Earthshot? But was provided by others supporting Earthshot.

"But they also get ongoing support from the organisation's expert paneles and supporters to help with their vision - financial advice, organisation advice, investment opportunities - one of the key elements of Earthshot is it's a huge international networking project for the environment. (and by ongoing the idea is they will have a network of support that goes way beyond the year they are involved)."

Exactly it is other organisations and supporters providing the expert advice and support. I am not knocking this. But we are talking about finances and this is not funded by Earthshot. Earthshot make the connections, but do not provide the advice and support.

it really is not high profile.
And if Earthshot was doing its job properly all the media publicity would be on the winners instead of Prince William.
this
most everyday folk only know it as a PW vanity project.

@Samcro

most projects take time to build, they’re not coming to earth shot as launched fully scaled projects. I’d rather they take their time and launch something of substance rather than use Sunshine Sachs to publicise a big fat lot of hot air before it’s ready.

If something was ready and fully scaled, they wouldnt need earthshot

tbings like patents, licenses, standard applications all have to be done. Then planning, funding and hiring have to be done. It’s not sexy, not newsworthy but part of doing a real scientific project

I have read about the projects. There is enough there to make a media splash. I am not talking about an article in Nature where things do need to be more developed. But the public are not interested in that level of detail anyway.
Usual media stories about small entrepreneurs with new projects always talk about their background and where they got the idea from, not about patents.

And it is precisely because Earthshot is focused in Prince William that it does not have a high profile in the conservation and environmental community.

@antelopevalley

I’m afraid your opinion doesn’t hold much weight in these matters.

You have no idea who I am or what I know about these circles.
It is a project designed to make William look important.
The problem is that is its main purpose, and it shows.
Whereas Charles and Philip were actually committed to making the Duke of Edinburgh Scheme and The Prince's Trust work. Yes the organisations carry their names, but both have done real good for the young people they support and make a real difference. These things have to be founded on passion and with the right motivations.
William should have chosen something he cared about. Harry did that with Invictus.

Oh rubbish. Major donor fundraising is incredibly competitive area with many many large charities investing heavily in experienced staff to bring in multi million pound gifts. Paying someone 50-70k a year who can raise a few million is a good investment.

contacts alone do nothing! Do you expect William and Kate to write the proposals, grant reports, impact reports, thank you letters, receipts etc, develop the cultivation plan and strategy?? They are the figureheads like a ton of other charities have ambassadors. Or do you think David Beckham does the fundraising for Unicef.

@antelopevalley

You started a thread about Catherine not wearing a ring when she was so I’ll look for my critical insight elsewhere.

@wordler that’s very informative and useful information

I've noticed you have started a couple of anti royal/anti Cambridge/antagonistic/pro Harry threads in the past few days, is there something that you want to say to us?

It's coming off as a bit weird.

most everyday folk only know it as a PW vanity project

Quite.

Major donor fundraising is incredibly competitive area with many many large charities investing heavily in experienced staff to bring in multi million pound gifts

Which makes it all the more astounding that Charles only has to wave the wand and donors bring millions in plastic bags.