re: Wounded Warrior Project lavish spending - not on wounded Warriors.

In response to the people in this thread defending WW's activities, the big difference in my eyes is this. The charity should absolutely spend money on fund-raising events that bring in donations. I don't think anyone has knocked them for hosting a gala event for donors.

The issue is when they are treating themselves lavishly for an internal event. I am sorry but having the CEO rappelling down buildings and riding horses into the conference is stupid if nothing else and this scandal is proof of that. Remember that perception is reality and the perception is that they were wasting money. They are a NON-PROFIT CHARITY and not a dot com company. It just looks bad and, for that reason alone, the top dogs should go. If the guy wasn't smart enough to see that then he doesn't need to be in the charity business.

quote:

---

The issue is when they are treating themselves lavishly for an internal event.

---

its a business, they reward their employees, this isnt anything crazy

quote:

---

They are a NON-PROFIT CHARITY

---

quote:

---

t just looks bad and, for that reason alone

---

right because if you work for a charity you must live a life of servitude while not having any fun or decent livelihood.


Like I stated earlier, people that chastise this. How much of your weekly time to you give up to charity, how much of your income do you give? is it anything close to 40hrs a week or 60% of your income?

quote:

---

These volunteers don't get any fancy perks in return for their efforts.

---

well thats their choice (or fault, depending on your perspective).

I agree with Vette that they should be more sensitive to the cost of these events and they are obviously painfully aware of the toll its taking on their PR. But I still think the reaction to this is overblown. Moreover, to quit donating to WW based on this is really stupid. But its your choice, hope you put your donation in a cause you feel better about. I just can't get my mind around why this is so scandalous.

There's a problem when 2/3 of your expenses go to admin/marketing and your spending millions on corporate extravagance while 27%-52% goes direct to vets.
LINK

Because when you spend only 27-52% on those the money is supposed to help depending on how the #s are figured while acting like kings it's an awful image.

LINK

quote:

---

There's a problem when 2/3 of your expenses go to admin/marketing

---

Those are your main expenses for running a charity

quote:

---

while 27%-52% goes direct to vets.

---

27-52? quite a range and the last year it was 60+%

quote:

---

its a business, they reward their employees, this isnt anything crazy

---

Man, it is all how things look to donors (customers).

Go into the Lockheed Martin's program offices (or any successful government contractor).
They are typically not elaborate, almost austere.
Why?

Because you don't want some government CO walking in there and sinking into carpet that's two inches thick or being overcome by the velvet drapes or rich Corinthian leather.

You have to consider your customer and how things look to them.

I think in this case WW did a poor job of that.