Tell HN: Pluralsight and the dark-pattern of auto-renewals

Re:Tell HN: Pluralsight and the dark-pattern of auto-renewals by bencollier49 on Thursday July 18, 2019 @04:32AM (#20467903)

I'm a member of a club in the UK which raises money for charity - we've stopped giving money to corporate charities because their overheads are such a high percentage of their takings - at this point they're largely just self-perpetuating bureaucracy machines.

We give cash to small volunteer-run charities where we know that 100% of the money raised goes to the cause in question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tell HN: Pluralsight and the dark-pattern of auto-renewals by reallydontask on Thursday July 18, 2019 @05:46AM (#20468208)

What do you consider a high percentage?

Looking at Oxfam, it's 10% admin and 7% fundraising [1], which doesn't seem too bad given their global reach.

Admittedly their reputation has taken a bit of a tumble due to the scandals.

[1] https://www.oxfam.org.uk/donate/how-we-spend-your-money

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tell HN: Pluralsight and the dark-pattern of auto-renewals by bencollier49 on Thursday July 18, 2019 @06:18AM (#20468372)

I think there's a fairly open question about how those percentages are calculated. Oxfam is an outlier, with a very low stated percentage being used for overheads, but it'd be interesting to see a breakdown of how the remaining cash was used. For example - are staff costs in a target country (say, Haiti) considered admin, or is the UK base only counted?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tell HN: Pluralsight and the dark-pattern of auto-renewals by tomjen3 on Thursday July 18, 2019 @04:22PM (#20473586)

Personally I would like a general rule of no more than 10% split between admin and fundraising, with 5% being considered the normal. 10% makes a nice Schilling fence.

Ideally I won't allow any budget for advertising, because that will just move money from one charity to another.

Alternatively I would only donate to the top of Give Well.

[ Parent | on HN ]