Hacker News Reader

Comment by jvanderbot | Hacker News Reader

There are many.

But it's reductive to the extreme to

1) group charities as "charities" when large "nonprofit / ngo" term is more suitable.

2) assume that wasteful _free_ money to a charity makes the charity less good. If a third party takes 90% of the money they raise and gives 10% to the charity, then that's free money for the charity. It's deceptive, and they are cutting a huge profit on the back of the good work the charity does, but that does not mean they are complicit, necessarily. The charity would have to sue that third party company to shut them down, and for what? Do reduce their own project budgets and also lose the money?

View on HN

The third party is working with the charity(or ngo or whatever). The charity is essentially paying them for marketing, using a huge chunk of the money people think they're giving to charity. The charity is complicit in this deception, and the third party presents themselves as volunteers "Hello, I'm with Save the Children, we do bla bla bla look at this picture of a starving child would you be interested in helping us by giving money every month to give this starving child a better life?"

They don't tell you they're paid to be there. They don't tell you the first year of payments goes directly to a private company.

I looked up Save the Children in some charity index thing a while back and it was listed as something like 94% of the money they receive goes to the stated cause which I doubt includes these marketing costs. You could say this is still worth it because they increase the amount of money the charity receives even if a lot of it goes to the company. But it doesn't seem right to me, not when they deceive people this way.

The charities sign a contract with the third parties unfortunately - eg they have permission from the charity.

Here in Europe oxfam for example uses some of these private companies and they get the first year of donations and from the 2nd year it goes to oxfam itself.

Apparently the average person cancels donations after 2,5 years so for a zero marketing budget (for oxfam) they make 1.5 year x your donation.

When I first found out I was disgusted and some majors in countries in Europe have tried to ban such "paid charity workers"... (They tend to operate near train stations etc.

The world is an awful place, but just think of all the paid advertising companies that are _not_ making donations to charities of any kind.

The company isn't donating anything. They're doing the opposite, taking a significant chunk of people's donations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com