Thread: Justgiving

  1. #1

    Justgiving

    Just been reading how the site made £390,000 from the Manchester/London attacks and London Tower fire. Obviously they need to make some money to cover costs but also reading how the co-founders got a joint £442,000 pay out. Surely there should be some sort of cap on profiteering from disaster.

    Source https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/ju...070100808.html

  2. #2
    So they're keeping 5 percent of the funds raised. I really don't see what the problem is.

  3. #3
    At the very least some accountants should go over their books and find what the actual expenses were, I'm sure they had to pay for things like advertising, stagehands and equipment.

    But I'm also sure it didn't cost them £390,000.
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  4. #4
    Herald of the Titans Serpha's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,521
    That's why I don't give any charities anything.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamov View Post
    So they're keeping 5 percent of the funds raised. I really don't see what the problem is.
    So if i set up a disaster fund and kept 5% to cover costs and it ended up spiralling out of control and raised £10 million. Say my costs were £50,000 I should be able to keep the other £450,000 for myself?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by caractacus View Post
    So if i set up a disaster fund and kept 5% to cover costs and it ended up spiralling out of control and raised £10 million. Say my costs were £50,000 I should be able to keep the other £450,000 for myself?
    Sure. I don't see what's wrong with people making money from charities.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamov View Post
    Sure. I don't see what's wrong with people making money from charities.
    Almost as if they were the people in need.

  8. #8
    You know throwing money at something isn't the only way of helping. If someone wants to help by giving out money they should be aware where they give their money. If someone says they will take 5% of the money and you still want to give out money for that guy then its on you. If you think its not fair then dont give out the money.

  9. #9
    Even if I didn't personally give anything to these charities the idea that there are people out there profiteering from other peoples misery and misfortune doesn't really sit well with me. On the other hand. I suppose these stories generate revenue for news sites and media and probably other sources so it's kind of a grey area.

  10. #10
    Herald of the Titans Detheavn's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    The Nether .... lands
    Posts
    2,670
    This site is just another kickstarter/gofundme. None of these websites run off of charity alone, just read the fine print.

    If people are opposed to the idea, they should weigh out carefully what's more important to them: 95% of the money going to charity, or the 5% going to the website.

  11. #11
    Is that high?

    Quote Originally Posted by Serpha View Post
    That's why I don't give any charities anything.
    It's out of almost 8 billion.

    More than £7.8m has been raised via the website following the attacks in Manchester, London Bridge and Westminster, and the Grenfell Tower fire.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by caractacus View Post
    Just been reading how the site made £390,000 from the Manchester/London attacks and London Tower fire. Obviously they need to make some money to cover costs but also reading how the co-founders got a joint £442,000 pay out. Surely there should be some sort of cap on profiteering from disaster.

    Source https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/ju...070100808.html
    What did you think non-profits are for? Profit.
    Gamdwelf the Mage

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    I'm calling it, Republicans will hold congress in 2018 and Trump will win again in 2020.

  13. #13
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamov View Post
    So they're keeping 5 percent of the funds raised. I really don't see what the problem is.
    5% is indeed not that much, although one could wonder if maybe they should only take enough to cover the costs.

  14. #14
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    17,222
    While can't claim what exactly it was spent on, keep in mind that 5% is pretty damn low. A lot of popular charities run in the range of 15-25%. Some are even worse, at 50-70% (30% goes to actual charity use).

    That said, when it comes to this kind of stuff, you can't say "Why don't they just use what it costs". Because they don't know what it costs. It will cost what it costs at the end of the day, after they stop receiving money and doing work. All they can do is speculate ahead of time and set a number, and pray it doesn't go over that. Regardless of how much ACTUAL money they get, 5% is crazy low.

    Also, understand that getting money is NOT profit (or at least, not necessarily profit).
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  15. #15
    5% basically covers the cost of credit card transactions for an organization (and I'm sure most donations were by credit/debit card). Justgiving is not getting £390,000, trust me.

    Yes, Visa/Discover/Mastercard charges organizations that accept credit card payments.

  16. #16
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    17,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    5% basically covers the cost of credit card transactions for an organization (and I'm sure most donations were by credit/debit card). Justgiving is not getting £390,000, trust me.
    Actually, that 5% is very specifically not part of the CC fee, as broken down in their fee structure. In the UK and GBP payments its 1.25% extra, in the US its 3%, on top of the 5% admin fee

    However yes, they aren't just getting that money, it goes to things to run the operation, which is more than just 'running the website'
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  17. #17
    Herald of the Titans Serpha's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    5% basically covers the cost of credit card transactions for an organization (and I'm sure most donations were by credit/debit card). Justgiving is not getting £390,000, trust me.

    Yes, Visa/Discover/Mastercard charges organizations that accept credit card payments.
    No, I don't trust you!
    In addition, Zarine Kharas and Anne-Marie Huby, co-founders of JustGiving and the only directors of the UK company, were paid a joint £442,724 last year. In total the company spent £9.3m on wages in 2016, which across its 141 staff gives an average wage of £66,000. Pension contributions are made on top.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    Actually, that 5% is very specifically not part of the CC fee, as broken down in their fee structure. In the UK and GBP payments its 1.25% extra, in the US its 3%, on top of the 5% admin fee

    However yes, they aren't just getting that money, it goes to things to run the operation, which is more than just 'running the website'
    Hmm that's weird that they're charging a processing fee and still taking 5%. I agree about operations costs though.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Serpha View Post
    No, I don't trust you!
    You should see the nonprofit salaries at some large organizations in the US. I must point out that most nonprofit directors (across all size institutions) do not make very much. I have seen "volunteer" executive director positions on nonprofit job sites (which is pretty ridiculous, being an executive director is hard work).

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by caractacus View Post
    So if i set up a disaster fund and kept 5% to cover costs and it ended up spiralling out of control and raised £10 million. Say my costs were £50,000 I should be able to keep the other £450,000 for myself?
    "spiraling out of control" in this example means "raising vast sums of money for a cause". I see no reason why someone raising ten times the funds shouldn't make ten times the profit when they're contributing ten times more to a cause. Seems entirely fair to me.

    You can argue the guy running a charity that takes no profit is more noble. But nobility doesn't mean much if your charity is only raising a small fraction of the amount others are contributing.
    The reports of my death were surprisingly well-sourced and accurate.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Dispraise View Post
    "spiraling out of control" in this example means "raising vast sums of money for a cause". I see no reason why someone raising ten times the funds shouldn't make ten times the profit when they're contributing ten times more to a cause. Seems entirely fair to me.

    You can argue the guy running a charity that takes no profit is more noble. But nobility doesn't mean much if your charity is only raising a small fraction of the amount others are contributing.
    Well the other point to that argument is saturation. That was a big problem with the Ice Bucket Challenge, it was well documented that a lot of other charities missed out because everyone was donating to this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •