British Heart Foundation Affiliate Program - Ethical ?

[max99]

Tweet

Just seen the British Heart Foundation program on Affiliate Future.

Now it pays 5% commisiom of the donation.

Personally I think this isnt ethical at all. I think its good to promote it and get awareness and more donations and funding for the foundation But I would hate to take that 5% that was of the donation.

Also the person donating would be abit well conned into thinking 100% goes to the Foundation, and not 5% to someone else



Edit: Thinking about it, I suppose an increase in funding is always a positive, and if they don't offer something no one has an incentive to promote it, but still I personally couldnt be an affiliate for it to make money from others donations

Is it just me who thinks this ?

[DioBach]

Thing is, many charities take all sorts of money out of the donations. My wife's worked for them in the past - some in the charities are on nice salaries, and there's all sorts of expenses that come exclusively from the donations. I think people expect that, and don't forget, on top of the 5% there's the affiliate programme's cut as well.

[sgpratley]

It takes a lot of work and some pretty big marketing spend to get money out of people for charities these days. I'd say 5% probably makes this one of their most profitable fund-raising channels if it comes off.

It's just a fact of life that charities have to compete with everyone else for the pound in our pockets.

[Wardy]

I personally don't see the problem with it although I can see where some peopl ecan.
Charities spend millions on advertising on TV and in newspapers etc, that is not free.

If I promote a charity and they then get donations because of my efforts then they have more money to use than they would if I did not promote them.

Cheers
Wardy

[drivetowin]

Like Wardy I don't have a problem with it.

Charities unfortunately maybe these days have to pay to raise funds - they pay for advertising and also bear in mind that those young men / ladies who are to be found in almost every high street wearing tabards with a charity logo on don't do it for free (or directly for the charity in most cases), they work for a third party company set up specifically for the purpose, which, surprise surprise, charges a commission on each donation (and from what I've heard from some charities, that company charges substantially more than 5%)

Bear in mind as well that just taking BHF as an example they have 21 people working for them earning more than £60,000 per year (including 2 earning over £150,000 per year) - now I know the old saying "pay peanuts - get monkeys" - but salaries like those do perhaps put things into context.

[hirschnathan]

Drivetowin

Interesting such high salaries, I hope you can verify that.

If its true it makes me sick, think, what actually goes to the charity itself. I do not believe any charity can justify such high paying salaries. £60k is fine, £150,000? ??

[lowndsy]

150k for the top jobs at a large chariity like BHF... the top job at a similar sized commercial operation would be many times that, with similar levels of stress, responsibility and expectations.
In both cases the wage would be justified by saying that they bring more to the business than they are paid. To be honest I wouldn't take responsibility for providing funding for thousands of people with dicky tickers for less than 150k, and as has been mentioned above, the charities are competing for money in the modern marketplace, so they need a proper leadership and skill set - a table full of old ladies in straw hats won't cut it any more.
At least a charity is more likely to be accountable and make changes if those in the top jobs don't perform.

[hirschnathan]

An alan sugar reject will take it for £20k

[kier]

Charities unfortunately maybe these days have to pay to raise funds - they pay for advertising and also bear in mind that those young men / ladies who are to be found in almost every high street wearing tabards with a charity logo on don't do it for free (or directly for the charity in most cases), they work for a third party company set up specifically for the purpose, which, surprise surprise, charges a commission on each donation (and from what I've heard from some charities, that company charges substantially more than 5%)

I heard 90%...but that can't be right can it??

Those guys are relentless!

[drivetowin]

I got the salary figures from their annual report which is on their website.

[Brett]

The good thing for this type of advertising, from the charities point of view, is that they are only paying for sales whereas television/press advertising has to be paid for regardless of the return.

[user1635]

I think their affiliate program is a good thing. It raises more money for them and everywhere their ads appear raises awareness.

From an ethical point of view for affiliates, wouldn't you feel good helping people cure heart disease as well as paying the rent? Oh, and you won't have to worry about refunds

[essdeekay]

If you have an issue with it why not just put the advert on your site and then donate any money you receive to charity.

Si

[Steved]

It's an unfortunate fact of life that we have to spend money to make money. Charities, like any business, have marketing costs and although they try to rely on direct donations and voluntary workers as far as possible this will not bring in enough money to cover all the beneficiaries. If you consider the amount of money that one donor may give if they continue with their direct debit over several years then an initial affiliate payment is not really much of an expense for such a large gain

[Donk]

I assume the affiliate gets 5% of the initial donation.

The charities prefer donations by direct debit.

So if someone signs up with a £10 donation by DD. The affiliate gets 50p.
Over 12 months the charity gets £120 over 5 years £600

£600 for 50p not a bad ROI