Tweet/Facebook Updates - Bachelorette 8 - Discussion

Avg-Joe wrote:

northernviewer wrote:I personally don't like company's who use "a portion will go to charity" as an advertising gimmick. Donate to a charity outright, if that's what you want to do.... but if you're doing it to line your own pocket, to me it's not "charitable" anymore. Just a bunch of self righteous mumbo jumbo..... especially for those who "claim" to be Christian as Jesus taught his followers to "not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing"

Fundraisers are different though, as all proceeds (meaning after costs of products are deducted) go directly to the charity and no profit is made, so advertise away!

I can speak to this from experience. Unless, absolutely everything is donated to a non-profit, then there is no way the entire dollar donated to an organization goes directly to the charity of interest - even after the cost of the product is covered. A nonprofit has to pay for lights, water, operating costs, insurances, paper, pencils, postage, salaries - the very same thing that any for profit business has to pay for. People who run nonprofits and charities have to eat, provide a home, pay taxes and the like too. The difference in the nonprofit and forprofit is more in the fact that one will help others and make a positive difference and other makes money for the sake of making money.

Even donating to a charity directly has overhead costs associated to it. And its importnat to know that some charities have greater overheads than another doing the exact same thing! A charity operating in California, for instance, has more overhead expenses then one operating in a small town in Iowa just because it is more costly to run business in one state than another. One charity may boast that 90% of your donation will go to the cause you are supporting (let's say shoes to orphans in Africa) while the other charity says only 75% goes to the cause you are supporting. You would THINK that the first charity is better because more of your money is being used for the cause. And you could be very wrong. Why? Because the 2nd charity makes the effort to send a paid staff member to Africa with the shoes and makes sure that the shoes are fitted to the feet of the children before going home, while the other just puts the shoes on a plane and hopes that it doesn't become contraband stolen on the tarmack by rebels (which happens often). So...your generous donation may well help no one in the end...but the numbers sure can make you feel good.

The fact that there is a business out there, who sells a product that our country values and shares ANY portion of their proceeds with others is what needs to be acknowledged. And if using the platform of this show that makes a habit out of snacking on its contestants brings about some kind of good in this or any other country, then that's something noteworthy and not shameful.

I worked for a nonprofit that is fairly high profile in our country. I know that a bottom dollar is not a bottom dollar. I watched great charities getting slammed in the media for having high fund-raising costs often, and no where in their criticism is the explanation, that that particular charities' fund-raising expense is so high because they were brand new and just getting their message out (why would Salvation Army need to invest much into fund-raising campaigns when their name is so widely known?) And would it not stand to reason that one organization would have a high fund-raising expenses when a hurricane wipes out their office, or a bridge, or their medical clinic and they have to start all over? Amazing how the media is always so selective about how much truth they want to share!

I encourage everyone to find causes that they are passionate about and study nonprofits who have outreaches into those interests. Find the one that makes you feel comfortable and support it. Together, in great and small ways, we can impact our world in a positive way. As for People Water the nonprofit, I know nothing of them. But, I will say, there is village somewhere in this world who is enjoying clean running water because someone behind that organization thought it was important to give a portion of whatever they received to drill a well.

And as a side note, I will add that not all Christians or nonprofits are hypocrits, cheats, or selfish. Yup...some are. And it unfortunate that we are a society who tends to look at the negative. But good is winning. And I'm more than sure there are good people in People Water with the intent of doing something good with their proceeds that they don't ever have to share with the needy. It is very easy for them to change their mission and bylaws and keep all the money in their pockets.

Amberish wrote:If it is only $4,000 to fund a well, why is PW allocating $8,000 per well?

jlccaz wrote:People Water is a for profit company. People Water supports two specific charities: Blue Planet Network and Generosity Water. Wonder what their "CEOs" make.

Instead of selling t-shirts and cases of water for UPS planes and trucks to burn carbon fuel delivering to doorsteps of (comparatively) wealthy Americans with clean tap water and lots of clothing, why not divert web traffic that lands on their site via a DONATE DIRECT redirect button so 100% goes to Blue Planet or Generosity Water. Or add that to the checkout box. The website barely references the charities.

Here's Blue Planet Network. http://blueplanetnetwork.org/

Regarding Generosity, http://www.generositywater.com/about-us/how-we-work/ , this is interesting.

It takes $4000 to fund a well. Times three wells. $12000 from PW to Generosity Water. Who's impressed! http://www.generositywater.com/donate/ What a need fundraiser for a school project.

Amberish wrote:If it is only $4,000 to fund a well, why is PW allocating $8,000 per well?

jlccaz wrote:

Amberish wrote:If it is only $4,000 to fund a well, why is PW allocating $8,000 per well?

I have no idea what they allocate or prepay. They keep that to themselves.

Here's the Jef Holm Launch Plan, broken down on the world wide web:

http://micromediamarketing.com/live-tweets-case-study-for-people-water-and-jef-holm-part/

jlccaz wrote:

Amberish wrote:If it is only $4,000 to fund a well, why is PW allocating $8,000 per well?

I have no idea what they allocate or prepay. They keep that to themselves.

Here's the Jef Holm Launch Plan, broken down on the world wide web:

http://micromediamarketing.com/live-tweets-case-study-for-people-water-and-jef-holm-part/

Chacharo wrote:

jlccaz wrote:People Water is a for profit company. People Water supports two specific charities: Blue Planet Network and Generosity Water. Wonder what their "CEOs" make.

Instead of selling t-shirts and cases of water for UPS planes and trucks to burn carbon fuel delivering to doorsteps of (comparatively) wealthy Americans with clean tap water and lots of clothing, why not divert web traffic that lands on their site via a DONATE DIRECT redirect button so 100% goes to Blue Planet or Generosity Water. Or add that to the checkout box. The website barely references the charities.

Here's Blue Planet Network. http://blueplanetnetwork.org/

Regarding Generosity, http://www.generositywater.com/about-us/how-we-work/ , this is interesting.

It takes $4000 to fund a well. Times three wells. $12000 from PW to Generosity Water. Who's impressed! http://www.generositywater.com/donate/ What a need fundraiser for a school project.

Thank you for sharing these websites. I will peruse them when I have more time. I find this to be a fascinating subject. Interesting thing I noticed - nonprofits use the .org suffix while for-profit companies use .com. Isn't that correct?