Fleck wrote:
I don't know if that is all that much out of line with other non-profits. The misconception that many make is thinking 100% of their donation goes to a particular cause. I know more than a few people in the cause marketing and charity event game. This is correct. In fact, I've been told that ironically, one of the worst ways to try and raise funds for a charity is through these big charity or other endurance sports events - the overhead is always way higher than you think.
In fact, I was just called into consult with a high profile charity, in Canada, who had historically NOT been involved in endurance sports event oriented fund raising, and they wanted to know what it was all about and would it be worth their while. They wanted to start up an event. I suggested to them this may not be in their best interest, if raising more $$ was a goal - it might be good for their marketing, but in absolute terms of raising more $$, the gains if any would be marginal.
I agree that endurance event oriented fundraising is a poor way to raise money. That's a far cry from how the IMF raises money via the Community Slots, though. The Community Slot model is fantastic; bundle a mandatory charitable donation on top of an entry fee for an in-demand product. Here you are able to get donations from people who have no desire or intent to donate to your cause. This is a phenomenal way to raise money for your charity, but requires you have the in-demand product to bundle the donation with.
I don't think the 50% number is out of line with average charity efficiencies. But, average charities have to put out real money to market and attract those with charitable intent to get their donations. Expensive activities like putting on events. IMF doesn't have to do that. They just have to have slots to sold out WTC races to bundle with. And Kona slots to auction. Their expenses ratio should be much more favorable than the average charity and the fact that it isn't is what raises some eyebrows.
My guess is the 50% number is wrong and they are actually a lot more efficient than this blog has revealed. They can't have big expenses. Their salary load is already determined to be negligible. They don't have infrastructure. They don't "do anything" charitable; they just pass money through, so they have no big expenses like equipment. I'm willing to bet when the truth comes out their actual efficiency number is very good.
The loan is dodgy and does harken to when a WTC employee (Lake Placid) forced a tri club to donate $2000 to IMF for cleanup of graffiti on the road. I remember at the time wondering "How can WTC force a charitable donation to IMF as punitive action?"