gorocks99;1304189 wrote:The biggest complaint is that a small-ish proportion of the money they raise goes directly to their cause (that is, finding a cure for breast cancer). A large proportion - larger than many charities - goes toward administrative and marketing costs. The 3-days, 10k's, walks and other things don't just organize themselves - Komen has to pay for them. And, as a trade off, contributes less to the actual science-y stuff that could find better treatments for the disease.
I actually don't have a problem with this, as long as the events do bring in more net for the cause than they could bring in for the cause by not doing it.
I know of two, extremely similar, organizations that focus on world hunger. One touts that it dedicates 97% of all pledges and donations directly to the cause. The other (which I know from experience) only donates about 40%. However, because the latter spends 60% on promotion, it's able to bring in almost 10 times the net toward the cause. The former ends up putting about $300,000 toward their relief effort each year, as that is 97% of what they can raise given their low-overhead method.
The latter is able to put about $3,000,000 toward their relief effort each year, as that is about 40% of what they can raise given their higher-overhead method.
Now, if you're a recipient of the relief effort, which is more important to you: the percentage of the organization's efforts to help you or the amount of money they're able to give to the effort to help you?
The only thing the percentage helps is to give the warm fuzzies to the donors. When it comes down to being able to feed one million people and ten million people, the extra people that can be fed aren't likely to prefer to go hungry just so a donor can feel good about himself.
