zlacker

The criticism that too much goes to fundraisers is meaningless without an explanation of how much would be optimal. If spending an additional $1m on fundraising meant an additional $1.1m in donations, then that's $100k more for Wikipedia that wouldn't have been there before.

If huge profit-making companies like Disney, Coca-Cola and McDonald's spend so much on marketing and sales, then it must be profitable. Similarly, there's no reason that fundraising spend wouldn't be financially advantageous to a non-profit.

If you support Wikipedia enough to donate, then it makes sense to want them to raise as much as they can. In which case you should enthusiastically support them running like a business-savvy organization.

>>samlov+(OP)
Spending on adversiting is wasteful and socially destructive. It's deception to donors to not tell them that only 10% of their donation goes toward the mission, and 90% is wasted that could be directed elsewhere.

>>lupire+i
No, it's not wasted; that's my point. Why don't you think Disney's investors demand a $7bn annual saving by cutting the "waste" on advertising?

The spend on fundraising does go towards the mission, because it increases the amount of money for the mission. You're making the incorrect assumption that donations are constant.

Imagine that a charity hiring a fundraiser for $50k garnered $150k of additional donations. Let's say without that fundraiser, they got $100k in donations. So with the fundraiser, they got $100k + $150k - $50k = $200k net to spend on the charitable purpose.

20% of all donations go to the fundraiser's salary while she's employed. But if the fundraiser is sacked, then 100% of donations go to the mission, yet the mission takes a loss of 50%.

>>samlov+82
> The spend on fundraising does go towards the mission

But which mission?