- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/10/16 at 10:23 pm to tigerinthebueche
People like to get bent out of shape about non-profits and in particular the spending/salaries of executives. "OMG the CEO of a company with $150 million in assets, 400 employees, and 750,000 customers (donors) makes $550,000/yr!!!!!"
Posted on 3/10/16 at 10:27 pm to Golfer
I know and I think it's counterproductive. Do they think good help/top talent comes free? I mean how much do athletes get paid? And they're getting paid, essentially, to raise money. And they get very good treatment. Why should the manager of a charity or the employees of that charity not get the same benefits?
Posted on 3/10/16 at 10:30 pm to tigerinthebueche
I was reading an article a while back in the WSJ or Forbes about the top universities in fundraising (Stanford, Michigan, Notre Dame, etc.) are basically going after key account and national sales execs from major companies because they are seeing the return far outweighs the additional expense of paying these types.
Posted on 3/10/16 at 10:31 pm to Grim
quote:
This is why I don't donate to charity. This and my heroin addiction
Posted on 3/10/16 at 10:31 pm to kywildcatfanone
Posted on 3/10/16 at 10:39 pm to Golfer
Makes sense. You want to be successful, you try to hire the best talent and dominate your field. But that doesn't come cheap or free on any level. yiu can bet those universities will be spending some bucks on fun shite. It's what you have to do.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 9:00 am to N2cars
quote:
The love of money is what changes people.
Well, no, not really. People don't change when they don't have loads of money at their disposal. We all love money, all the time. Once we have the money is when we change.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 9:08 am to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
It's been a scam all along....
Posted on 3/11/16 at 9:14 am to tigerinthebueche
quote:
I find some of the responses here odd inasmuch as the critics would probably be fine with a for profit or any other business treating the employees to an expensive outing. Why should WW operate differently from any other business? When businesses do well its acceptable if not expected that they give perks. If the officers of a large corporation have a golf weekend at Doral, no one cares. Why should a successful charity take a vow of poverty if it chooses not to?
Well look at this comment in the thread
quote:
If you don't want to work as a servant
If you work for a charity, people expect you to live a life of servitude and be poor.
WW spent 148.6 million on programs for vets. This is not money that was just there. This is money they were able to solicit because of their business model and spending. Yes there are some charities that are an abomination to the word, but large charities take large sums to raise funds.
People that bitch and complain about this, I ask, How much of your time and money a year do you dedicate to charities or service? Do you even approach 40 hours a week?
Posted on 3/11/16 at 9:16 am to Golfer
quote:
basically going after key account and national sales execs from major companies because they are seeing the return far outweighs the additional expense of paying these types.
WW went from 70 million in 2011 to 312 million in 2014
ETA. FWIW, I am not affiliated with WW and dont donate to them. I do donate to several other charities(different genre) and donate my hours. I am actually going to a large fundraiser tonight, that cost quite a bit of money to put together. But it will also make about 15x's the amount spent, so we can give back
This post was edited on 3/11/16 at 9:18 am
Posted on 3/11/16 at 9:34 am to NYCAuburn
NYC, you make valid points.
All organizations have costs, both direct and indirect.
Fundraising companies have expenses as they can't rely solely on volunteers to do the work.
Realistically, I know that when I donate a $1 to a group I don't expect every penny to get into the hands of the beneficiary.
There is a generally accepted amount of overhead for charitable organizations, somewhere around 20-30%.
I think in WW's case, their % was much higher.
All organizations have costs, both direct and indirect.
Fundraising companies have expenses as they can't rely solely on volunteers to do the work.
Realistically, I know that when I donate a $1 to a group I don't expect every penny to get into the hands of the beneficiary.
There is a generally accepted amount of overhead for charitable organizations, somewhere around 20-30%.
I think in WW's case, their % was much higher.
This post was edited on 3/11/16 at 9:35 am
Posted on 3/11/16 at 9:39 am to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
quote:
We all love money, all the time
Speak for yourself.
It is foolish to "love" money.
On second thought, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 9:44 am to N2cars
quote:
There is a generally accepted amount of overhead for charitable organizations, somewhere around 20-30%.
They are at 40% total expense(6% admin, 34%fundraising cost), which is on the higher side, but not way out there. They are also in the middle of a huge expansion over the last few years. The main talking point to these articles show how much their spending has increased as a dollar amount, without showing how much their earnings have increased over the same period.
Their model of revenue generation is quite expensive. They sponsor large events and large marketing campaigns. And with those expenditures they have grown 443% in 4 years. So I'd say their expenses have paid off quite well.
Smaller charities with low overheads are great, but they are highly focused as to the help they can provide and very limited as to the money they can spend because they simply dont make enough.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 9:49 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
They are at 40% total expense(6% admin, 34%fundraising cost), which is on the higher side, but not way out there
I haven't researched it in awhile, but I seem to recall a rating of 40% being very high/unacceptable.
I think they got some bad press and some of the expenses seemed lavish, in terms of things for the executives.
I understand your point, though.
It does take money to make money.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 9:54 am to NYCAuburn
would also add that there are many, many charities that are damn near out and out scams:
Firefighters Burn Fund, for example.
Something like only 10 cents on the dollar actually ends up being used for the stated purpose.
Certainly, Wounded Warriors is nothing like this and as you correctly pointed out, many millions actually did get to the veterans.
Firefighters Burn Fund, for example.
Something like only 10 cents on the dollar actually ends up being used for the stated purpose.
Certainly, Wounded Warriors is nothing like this and as you correctly pointed out, many millions actually did get to the veterans.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 10:03 am to N2cars
quote:
but I seem to recall a rating of 40% being very high/unacceptable.
St Judes is 31.5(10.8% admin and 20.7% fund raising expense)
They spend more on admin than WW. They have a different model as far as revenue generation, so that percentage is lower. They do raise quite a bit, but their expense are 677 million
Posted on 3/11/16 at 10:06 am to NYCAuburn
Agree, and I think they only get a "fair" rating for expense.
That's why I think anything near 40% is gonna raise eyebrows.
That's why I think anything near 40% is gonna raise eyebrows.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 10:46 am to N2cars
you both make excellent points regarding expenditures, but I also take issue with the following from the article:
While I understand that Millette may not agree with these activities, I dont see an issue with them. For that matter, I don't realy see why its any of Millette's business anyway. If the execs spent the money on the staff (which apparently they did), why should anyone care? The STAFF went. Not just the CEO or COO. I think its the prerogative of the execs to spend the money as they see fit on employee events.
The resulting PR scandal and termination of the execs is petty bullshite IMO.
quote:
Millette said he witnessed lavish spending on staff, with big “catered” parties.
"Going to a nice fancy restaurant is not team building. Staying at a lavish hotel at the beach here in Jacksonville, and requiring staff that lives in the area to stay at the hotel is not team building," he told CBS News.
While I understand that Millette may not agree with these activities, I dont see an issue with them. For that matter, I don't realy see why its any of Millette's business anyway. If the execs spent the money on the staff (which apparently they did), why should anyone care? The STAFF went. Not just the CEO or COO. I think its the prerogative of the execs to spend the money as they see fit on employee events.
The resulting PR scandal and termination of the execs is petty bullshite IMO.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 10:52 am to tigerinthebueche
quote:
While I understand that Millette may not agree with these activities, I dont see an issue with them. For that matter, I don't realy see why its any of Millette's business anyway. If the execs spent the money on the staff (which apparently they did), why should anyone care? The STAFF went. Not just the CEO or COO. I think its the prerogative of the execs to spend the money as they see fit on employee events.
Agreed. Requiring the staff to stay with the team is indeed SOP for a lot of "team-building" exercises. And most large events are "catered".
I feel like WW could've had their expenses (as a %) more inline with what other large charities do and then they would have had a more defensible position.
Asking for people's money for a charity is a sensitive thing and I don't think WW's execs understood this.
You are going to get some scrutiny as non-profit that a commercial business isn't going to get.
Best be ready to answer questions...
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News