Ice Bucket Challenge

[StevoD]

so right what your saying is ALS or MNDA would be a lot better off if they got no 1 off donation from anyone, so when i pop a quid in the box for breast cancer outside tesco what im doing is pointless as they cant use it ?

Edited August 26, 2014 by StevoD

[Ekona]

That's not what I said at all.

 

The cause would be more helped by everyone pledging £1 a year for ten years, than £10 now and then nothing ever again.

[StevoD]

thats fine but whats better £10 now or nothing ever as thats whats happening isnt it,

 

Or people like Lyndzz who did there skydive and raise money does that mean its all a waste because she might not do it every year?

 

Seems very bleak way to look at things

[Ekona]

Of course every little helps, but if people really cared about the cause (and let's be honest, most people don't give a fig about ALS or MND) they'd support it continually.

 

Go and ask a charity if they'd rather one-offs or subscriptions. I'll be amazed if they say the former.

[StevoD]

Ekona im not disagreeing with you on the subscription things

 

just to me its coming across from you and coldel, as subscribe or dont bother at all

[Ekona]

Well yeah, I guess that's pretty much how I feel about it. Care about the cause and donate regularly, or don't and don't.

[Toon Chris]

A one off donation to charity is all well and good, but it's the repeated donations that help more than anything. As any business will tell you, if you have a guaranteed income you can budget far better than if you get the odd one-off big payment here and there. It's why the only charity I donate to gets a monthly sum, rather than a token bit here or there from me.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Yes it is good to have a reliable income and the practicality is that, for an individual, small regular payments are better, but the odd big boost of cash is useful for a charity too.

For example, many research projects last a number of years and are very expensive. To have a boost of cash means that you can commit to projects over many years knowing that you will be able to pay for them and that the project you choose can be of a level higher and more ambitious (i.e. expensive) than perhaps you would have felt able to commit to before.

 

Charities would love £1M a year reliable income for 10 years for sure, but having a £10M lump sum in the bank instead is as secure as it gets

 

 

On the subject of the cold water challenge, here is one Australian perspective:

https://www.youtube....h?v=nWe4ds6ATJc.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Toon Chris

[Ekona]

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Yes it is good to have a reliable income and the practicality is that, for an individual, small regular payments are better, but the odd big boost of cash is useful for a charity too.

For example, many research projects last a number of years and are very expensive. To have a boost of cash means that you can commit to projects over many years knowing that you will be able to pay for them and that the project you choose can be of a level higher and more ambitious (i.e. expensive) than perhaps you would have felt able to commit to before.

A good point, but they never know when that money is coming in and so may have to pass up opportunities for research because of timing. If you know the money is coming steadily in, then you can plan and budget accordingly.

 

Anyway, Patrick Stewart did the best one that I've seen. Legend.

[Mrs Buster]

Ekona I see the point you are making but the interest on £10M in the bank rather than £1M a year is in itself a money maker

[coldel]

Ekona im not disagreeing with you on the subscription things

 

just to me its coming across from you and coldel, as subscribe or dont bother at all

 

Not at all, I said in both posts that a nice boost is welcome - but generally I cant see why it takes some ego boosting social media nudge for people to donate to a charity - it just all seems a bit false to me (yes I know it might offend that but just trying to be objective and most people know me as not an offensive guy!) that charities are relying on peoples social media ego to get a cash boost. My point is more that people should just sit down one day, have a think, pick a charity, and if you can spare it set something up to give monthly - it would make such a big difference in the long run if millions did that than just dunking water, giving a fiver and never bothering with that charity again.

[StevoD]

But thats marketing tho, its the same with stuff like the brand new iphone most people at there launch nights are people whos ego has to have it first, there the people who have to be the top dog in so many words so the next morning they can ram it in everyone face,

 

same goes for cars look how many dealerships have big banners when a new plans coming along to get the ego of that sort of person to buy a brand new car

same could be said for people who feel they need Mpss so they can claim theyve got the best but thats another thread

 

Its just marketing and free marketing at that

[spursmaddave]

At the end of the day if society and particularly govenment was run properly then there would be no need for wacky stunts to raise money for charity

[StevoD]

At the end of the day if society and particularly govenment was run properly then there would be no need for wacky stunts to raise money for charity

 

im curious to what the mind of SMD thinks society should be run like

[Grundy]

[StevoD]

you calling dave a Nazi grund?

[Grundy]

Nope I just always wanted to use that meme, and there never seems to be a right time to use it.

[Ekona]

I think SMD is referring to people donating because they want to, rather than being nominated in a wacky stunt.

[Grundy]

Been avoiding a few threads today

 

But IMO - It's just the way society is these days, with all the technology we have etc Millions of people are connected at the click of a button, easy to spread a message compared to what it was 10-20 years ago.

 

It is just marketing, but it works.

 

Say for instance - 1 million people do this and donate £3 each - £3million. That's got to be better than this craze not happening and no money being raised?

[spursmaddave]

At the end of the day if society and particularly govenment was run properly then there would be no need for wacky stunts to raise money for charity

 

im curious to what the mind of SMD thinks society should be run like

 

My mind is a scary scary place

[StevoD]

Been avoiding a few threads today

 

But IMO - It's just the way society is these days, with all the technology we have etc Millions of people are connected at the click of a button, easy to spread a message compared to what it was 10-20 years ago.

 

It is just marketing, but it works.

 

Say for instance - 1 million people do this and donate £3 each - £3million. That's got to be better than this craze not happening and no money being raised?

 

 

my point exactly maybe us youngsters see things differently

[Ekona]

Yes, but if people feel so strongly about a cause they're willing to give money to complete strangers, why are they not doing it without a wacky stunt?

 

Most famous people are doing it simply because they don't want negative publicity, and a lot of people on FB are doing it because they want to see their mates look silly.

[mouthwash]

Not sure what people are complaining about, money is money. If people are gathering together for a good cause, donating money and throwing a bucket of cold water over themselves, why are others trying to take the moral high ground over it. Get over yourselves, you don't know peoples personal situations maybe they do donate to another charity? You don't know.

 

How dare you join in a global fad and raise money for charity, let me get on my mighty high horse and belittle your achievement. Poor bitter baddies comes to mind.

[StevoD]

Yes, but if people feel so strongly about a cause they're willing to give money to complete strangers, why are they not doing it without a wacky stunt?

 

Most famous people are doing it simply because they don't want negative publicity, and a lot of people on FB are doing it because they want to see their mates look silly.

 

true but if this brings in what is it now for als on the last count

$80 million, whats the real harm

[spursmaddave]

Been avoiding a few threads today

 

But IMO - It's just the way society is these days, with all the technology we have etc Millions of people are connected at the click of a button, easy to spread a message compared to what it was 10-20 years ago.

 

It is just marketing, but it works.

 

Say for instance - 1 million people do this and donate £3 each - £3million. That's got to be better than this craze not happening and no money being raised?

 

Yeah don't confuse an obtuse old prick like me thinking out loud to what is actually acceptable

 

Like I said on FB I didn't join up there to take part in shite like this but it doesn't mean that makes it a bad thing, just not for me

 

Of course anything that raises £M's for charity is good, my comments were about the idiots just doing it for attention which I guess you will always get, and the fact most of the videos I have seen don't mention the charity, donating or anything of the like just makes me think they are unfortunately the majority...

 

If anyone is interested I will be shaving my balls for testicular cancer soon

[mouthwash]

At the end of the day, who is the winner here? The people who post up a 1 minute clip on to social media doing their challenge? The charity that is receiving all the donations or the people who are actually suffering from the condition?

 

British people being British I guess, we are a nation of moaners.. I'm no different