Jump to content

Are Charities Businesses?


Guest
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3121 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Phoebe Avro wrote:

... greedy... money grabers...


Yes. How dare they "force" merchants who are looking for exposure to give 50% of sales made at THEIR event to charity instead of letting them pocket it all. Not to mention donate "100% of registration fees, sponsorship fees, kiosk donations, hunt, raffle, auction, and vendor donation items."

 

Greedy, greedy, greedy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously? I'm going to preface this with...your post hit a serious nerve, so, it's likely my reply will too.

WTH is wrong with you? People that participate in these events do so, because they want to, not becuase they are forced. They are events that are created AROUND the charity which they sponsor. Do you know what Relay for Life even does, how long it's been around(not just in sl) and how many millions they have helped save in one way or another over the years? Do you care?

I care. Beause I wouldn't be alive today if it were for charities like Relay for Life, which upports The American Cancer Society. Organizations like that make it possible for more research, support, and other resources are made available both to those being forced to live with cancer, as well as their families. I am one such person. Without ACS, numerous resources that were made available to me and my family, would not have even existed. In fact, they had to jump through some serious hoops just to help us, because resources where we lived were so limited as it was. I had cancer as a child, and it was through the help and support of others, that I am still here today to be offended by your assumption that Relay for Life is money grubbing. How on this green earth can you possibly even think, let alone suggest such a thing. Was it greedy of my parents to want to be near their child while I was suffering through something that by all acounts, should have killed me? Was it greedy of me to want medicine that could better help me deal and cope with the effects treatments were causing? Was it greedy of my siblings to want to learn as much as they could, and connect with others, through the support and research made available to families coping with cancer? Was it greedy of me to want to try and promote research so that better experimentation can take place that may one day, if not cure cancer, at least give us a better idea of probability and prevention? Was it greedy of me to want to live? Was it greedy of me to not only want to live, but someday become an avodcate for the very same charities and organizations that helped make my brush with the finger of death itself, ever so slightly less scary...even if microscopic(because it's downright terrifying)? It pisses me off to no end to see people call such charities and organizations greedy. Maybe if you got out and did a little research into it, you'd see that they aren't money grubbing at all, and you'd see the good they do. You don't have to support them, but you owe it to yourself to at least get educated.

In the end,  no one is going to MAKE you(or anyone) participate, and whining because you can't, because you have some ill-conceived notion that RFL or ACS is just money grubbing and greedy, when in reality, you're merely showing just how ignorant that opinion truly is..is an exercise in futility. 

 

ETA something, because I had to stop typing before I got really rude ;)

If you particpated in any previous year's Christmas Expo, you KNOW that it was a RFL event. You also know why the donation is a requirement for merchants to participate, because it was largely discussed. Last year was the Christmas Expo's 4th year. The event IS a RFL event, and always has been. Why should merchants be able to participate in a CHARITY event, and not actually take part in the charity? The merchants get something out of the event, a lot actually, including traffic, sales and promotion,  shouldn't the charity that sponsors it receive something in return from the merchant? 

I'm going to shut up now,  because its this kind of ignorance that keeps people from helping charities that actually do good work, for good people, including innocent children that don't want to be called greedy just because they need help now and then. The people  that are willing to give them that help, shouldn't be called greedy, either. I like to believe they make a difference, and I know I'm not wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sassy Romano wrote:

But in answer to the question, is that a Yes or a No?

It probably shouldn't have, but that made me chuckle.

The answer is....when were they not? Every business has a purpose, and makes money to serve that purpose. Charities have a purpose too, and need money to serve that purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the question then is:

what do you think is the amount your business should pay to use the RFL logo to associate your business in the minds of your customers with an act of charity?

 

+

 

as for your posit question: Are Charities Businesses?

no they not

but they are a brand

a brand in this case which is well-recognised and respected and stimulates a lot of goodwill toward businesses that are assoiciated in the minds of customers with the brand

is how it works. For the charity, the businesses. And the customers who typically end up buying stuff that they would not necessarily have ever bought otherwise

like last Christmas. I buy this teddy bear at a charity do. He is ugly. Ugly to me. Other people think he was adorable. I would never of bought it tho if it hadnt of been a charity do

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes Charities are business...

 

they sell a product ====> help to others, and not to forget: a good feeling to the ones who give

people pay generously for both products,

the Charitie makes costs for the product and takes that out of the income ...offices... employees...

this is a normal business model...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Derek Torvalar wrote:


irihapeti wrote:

one work of fiction deserves another

"Fatboy and the Dancing Ladies" by Michael Holman

Fiction?

Maybe you should read it first.

 

and maybe you should understand what it is you are reading

+

Samantha King believes that a cure-oriented approach to health is foolish. She further believes that Ribbon-style fund-raising is geared toward the cure-oriented approach. That monies fund-raised to expend on cures is wasteful, her meaning is that it accomplishes little if anything

she further believes that monies raised thru Ribbon-style should be spent on environmental health and social inequalities educative preventions and activisms

+

from this then:

what exactly then is the taxpayers money, already given, spent on if not education, preventions, and subsequent treatments when necessary

why would extra money raised (over and above this and voluntarily given) be also directed at prevention education ?

if there is insufficient public taxpayers money (or if is currently being misspent) then would that not be where to begin. For a actual activist into preventative education, rather than belittle and undermine others for chasing cures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3121 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...