Spending £7000 to raise £3000: is it moral?
Third Sector is the trade magazine for charities, and I read it every week. Not from cover to cover of course, much of it is irrelevant to the WLT. But there is always something of value.
This week I read of an animal welfare charity Spana (I think it used to be the Society for Protection of Animals in North Africa -- but changed to simply Spana). Their highly emotive campaign in newspapers recently apparently cost £7150, and raised around £3000. The charity justified this by claiming it recruited 105 new donors, and they expected that they "will recoup the full cost in lifetime value".
This seems to be a common philosophy in charities -- and one with which I certainly disagree. And I wonder how many of our supporters would want to think that for every £25 they gave us, it had cost us £50 to raise it, but that we were quite happy with that, because some of them would carry on donating and over the next 20 years make up for such a loss?
I don't think many would be very happy at all. But your comments would be welcome -- do you agree or disagree?
Whatever anyone writes, it is not a route we will be going down. Our aim is always to raise as much as possible for as small an expenditure as possible. To help keep fundraising costs down we rely on our supporters spreading the word. Please keep up the good work!