Last July I enjoyed Kidney Research UK’s London Bridges walk; a seven-mile
hike up and down the Central London section of the Thames raising important
funds for kidney disease. It was a fun, family friendly event I was looking
forward to doing again, so I was pleased to get a reminder email given the
communications last year were decidedly hit and miss. But, having read this
year’s terms and conditions I’ve reluctantly decided not to bother.
Last year it was £10 to register and from memory there was a
suggested sponsorship target of £60. £10 seemed a bargain considering it
included a t-shirt so I made an additional contribution, and I covered the
suggested sponsorship with donations from family and friends as well as out of
my own pocket. But the important thing was that I didn’t feel under pressure to
hit a target, I simply donated money as I received it.
This year things have changed. When I followed up the email I
found registration has increased to £15, which I thought was reasonable.
However, there was now a £100 minimum sponsorship target with some rather
wretched boilerplate text to the effect that people who cannot commit to it
aren’t welcome. Since the original email I’ve checked back and the wording has
been tweaked a few times, for example ‘minimum sponsorship’ was rebranded
‘suggested sponsorship’ and the FAQ have been modified but the boilerplate
still essentially tells people who cannot commit £100 sponsorship to jog on.
I know it’s in a good cause, that’s why I’ve previously supported
it, and I could also cover the minimum sponsorship from my own pocket without
hardship, which is possibly why I am so torn over this (if I couldn’t there
wouldn’t be any debate), but I’m an analyst by disposition as well as occupation
and the reasoning for this rather wretched policy just doesn’t stack up and
that leaves a bad smell I just cannot ignore. I can afford to entertain this,
but there are probably people out there who will be excluded even though they
could make a positive contribution if they weren’t.
The original boilerplate (since amended) appeared to be copied
over from other fund-raising events without sufficient copy editing to make it specific;
for example it discusses the need to cover the costs of major events organised
by other organisations such as the London Marathon, where places are highly
coveted and very expensive (a charity place for the London Marathon costs
hundreds of pounds). But this event is organised by Kidney Research UK and
whilst costs need to be covered by participants they’re not on the scale of a
marathon which requires road closures, policing, and significant support
infrastructure from public sector bodies.
More recent boilerplate covers the more realistic costs incurred by
this event such as stewards, tents, snacks etc. This is perfectly reasonable,
but after some cursory research into equivalent events I conclude that costs
are probably covered by the £15 registration fee, with sponsorship being the contribution
to the charity’s actual mission. For comparison Diabetes UK are running an almost
identical event in September with a £5 registration fee and no minimum
sponsorship, it suggests a sponsorship target of £120 which I have no problem
with, but crucially it stresses its walk as a family event and doesn’t get
heavy about minimums.
The relationship between the actual cost of the event and the
registration fee also explains the incongruous decision to allow late entrants to
sign-up on the day for £25. Unless such entrants are only allowed to join with
a pre-registered participant it’s unlikely they’ll have set up a sponsorship
programme beforehand. If I’m right, the marginal revenue of £25 from a late sign-up
more than covers the marginal cost of accommodating them, especially as by that
point the costs are mostly sunk.
I don’t have all the numbers, but my conclusion is that by being
heavy handed about minimum sponsorship Kidney Research UK is estimating that
participation numbers are relatively inelastic when it comes to sweating fund
raisers for contributions. After all is said and done most of them will have
experience of kidney disease, whether personally or through friends and family,
and will shrug off the unpleasantness implicit in such calculations. For me though
it’s too much of a spoiler. I’m still going to make a donation to Kidney Research
UK, as I think the work is too important not to, but it won’t be as much as had
it not been so grubby.
No comments:
Post a Comment