Your OMF gift tripled this week!

[arewenearlythereyet]

You've edited your original post to remove the statement about 'sleazy' fundraising but didn't you say that the 'three for one' approach was sleazy?

I’ve not edited my post (I don’t care for tactics like that)...and I think I’ve clarified what I meant by sleazy

 

[Wonko]

If I was minted (which I'm not), and wanted to give a big donation to a charity, I'd be pressuring them to leverage it to spur more donations and in particular to encourage new donors to start giving by offering to double or triple their donations in exactly this way. It's to everyone's advantage.

No, IMO it's not.

If 'you're' minted and want to donate to a charity, then just do so.

All this I'll double what anyone else donates......it is IMO childish, self serving, twaddle.

If they have, whatever, $75,000, to donate, then just do so, or don't.

It is highly unlikely to result in more total donations, over time, it may actually result in less as people are likely to hold off donating until the next 3fer1 rather than just donating when they have the 'spare' cash to do so. They are collecting from a limited pool, basic maths would suggest that the maximum they can collect would be the size of the pool plus the maximum donation from 'minted' contributors. Having a 3fer1 doesn't increase the size of the pool but it is possible it will reduce the size of the 'minted' donation.

Leading to less money raised.

It's just, IMO, a very publicity seeking, self congratulatory way of donating to a charity.

Just my opinion.

 

[Sasha]

I’ve not edited my post (I don’t care for tactics like that)...and I think I’ve clarified what I meant by sleazy

Sorry, my bad - I thought I was looking at your original post and I must have been looking at a later one. What you actually said was:

Well perhaps I would have a little more confidence in them if they did more science (like reporting their findings) before doing a multi buy promotion or any of the many other sleazy marketing ploys they use to extract money out of people.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

Given how fragile fundraising tends to be, and how desperate we are for more patients and supporters to start giving, I think it's generally better to give a charity a chance to explain itself first before publicly raising doubts about it in a way that might harm donations, but that's just my opinion.

Well posting on a public forum cuts both ways...if you want to post a fundraiser for scientific research on a public non fundraising platform that mainly discusses the actual scientific research, be prepared for a good dose of scrutiny.

NB:Edited to correct the word scientific

 

[Skycloud]

When posting fund raising threads of this sort it’s worth considering this ...you are effectively encouraging people to part with their cash by posting it here, so some responsibility has to be taken by the poster for spreading the campaign (and any other misleading information that goes with it (like we need more people to go faster...which I doubt) and of course all of us for encouraging it.

Except this is a forum where any member can voice concerns they might have as you have done. I would think the OP posted this in good faith and I don't think the original poster is responsible for whether or not people choose to donate. OMF are responsible for the info they give out and can be asked for more information and concerns can also be voiced directly to them too.

 

[Mattie]

I think every ME patient should stand behind the OMF instead of criticizing their fundraising methods.

We need to throw boatloads of money at professional and trustworthy organisations like OMF employing a large group of geniuses who are willing to to take on this monstrous illness.

I have not found an organisation that even comes close to what OMF has done, is doing, and will be doing when funding goes up.

And clearly: their fundraising methods are a succes. Otherwise they would not have come this far.

I decided to donate a lot more than I initially intended because the tripling just gives it that much more impact.

 

[Sasha]

All this I'll double what anyone else donates......it is IMO childish, self serving, twaddle.

Why is it childish and self-serving?

It is highly unlikely to result in more total donations, over time, it may actually result in less as people are likely to hold off donating until the new 3fer1 rather than just donating when they have the 'spare' cash to do so.

That's an interesting point. A similar concept is why deflation is considered disastrous in an economy - because people wait and wait to spend their money because they expect prices to drop. I don't know whether it applies in this situation and I wonder if anyone has done research on this.

They are collecting from a limited pool

What makes you say that?

Having a 3fer1 doesn't increase the size of the pool

How do you know? I would have thought it would, but that's an assumption, of course.

It's just, IMO, a very publicity seeking, self congratulatory way of donating to a charity.

But the donors are anonymous.

 

[Wonko]

I decided to donate a lot more than I initially intended because the tripling just gives it that much more impact.

So what essential things will you now not be able to afford? How are you going to cope without these things?

If the answer is none, then why weren't you planning to donate more in the first place given you're belief in OMF?

ETA - or is the aim, as it seems, to get people other that 'you' to donate more than they can manage, but 'you' not so much. As, from a certain perspective, it's great if other people can pay more when 'you' can't afford to, even if this means they have to go without something they need.

The whole approach sucks IMO.

 

[Wonko]

Why is it childish and self-serving?



That's an interesting point. A similar concept is why deflation is considered disastrous in an economy - because people wait and wait to spend their money because they expect prices to drop. I don't know whether it applies in this situation and I wonder if anyone has done research on this.



What makes you say that?



How do you know? I would have thought it would, but that's an assumption, of course.



But the donors are anonymous.

I am assuming that everyone who can, who is susceptible to OMF's spiel, is already donating as much as they can afford to. Increasing this may be good for OMF but would be bad for PwME who are donating, because it would leave them with insufficient funds to maintain their QoL, because, as believers, they are already donating as much as they can, without this marketing campaign.

The donors are not totally anonymous, they know who they are, OMF will know who they are, and can therefore give themselves a metaphorical hearty self congratulatory back slap.

The 'publicity seeking' is by OMF, but as I have attempted to make clear, IMO it is self defeating, it is highly unlikely to raise more funds, apart from maybe in the short term, long term, and this is a long term thing, it can't, because the people donating, don;t have stretchable resources. They have what they have, and if they are believers, they will already be donating that.

 

[Mattie]

If the answer is none, then why weren't you planning to donate more in the first place given you're belief in OMF?

No comment. Not wasting any more energy on your negativity.

I feel like crap too. All the time. We all do. But I wonder where all this negativity comes from.
Must be because OMF is in some way more affiliated with "the other forum".

This attitude is not helping anybody.
Money may help though.

 

[Wonko]

No comment. Not wasting any more energy on your negativity.

I feel like crap too. All the time. We all do. But I wonder where all this negativity comes from.
Must be because OMF is in some way more affiliated to "the other forum".

No, it's not, it's not even negativity IMO, just realism.

If someone gives more than they can afford this time, or on a previous occasion, and doesn't see a 'payoff' from doing so, then they will have, from their perspective, have 'suffered' for nothing, they will have deprived themselves of something they needed, for nothing.

This is hardly an incentive to donate next time OMF does such a thing.

Encouraging people who have very limited resources, to give more than they can afford, which seems to be the aim of such 3fer1's, simply to raise more money now, is a bad strategy, both in terms of the people they are taking this money now, and the long term survivability of the organisation doing so. IMO.

and what, in concrete terms, have we seen from OMF so far? Loads of emails, poorly presented, difficult to read, emails with little, if any, useful content, most of which are simply to inform people that someone they have never heard of has been appointed to a role that didn't exist last week.

This may be a useful approach in the US, it is less so in the UK, at least for me.

 

[Sunshine3]

I think every ME patient should stand behind the OMF instead of criticizing their fundraising methods.

We need to throw boatloads of money at professional and trustworthy organisations like OMF employing a large group of geniuses who are willing to to take on this monstrous illness.

I have not found an organisation that even comes close to what OMF has done, is doing, and will be doing when funding goes up.

And clearly: their fundraising methods are a succes. Otherwise they would not have come this far.

I decided to donate a lot more than I initially intended because the tripling just gives it that much more impact.

Totally with you Mattie.

 

[Sasha]

I am assuming that everyone who can, who is susceptible to OMF's spiel, is already donating as much as they can afford to.

I don't think that's a safe assumption at all. I support OMF's work but I don't donate as much as I can afford to. I don't donate as much as I can afford to anything: my decision is based on a lot of factors. But if I can get more bang for my buck by having my donation tripled, that encourages me to donate - and to make a larger donation than my next donation was intended to be. FWIW, I don't wait for 'three for ones' or 'two for ones' with charities because I assume that any such offer will fill up anyway. Joining in just feels like a satisfying thing for me to do with my own donation on that occasion.

The donors are not totally anonymous, they know who they are, OMF will know who they are, and can therefore give themselves a metaphorical hearty self congratulatory back slap. The 'publicity seeking' is by OMF

I don't see anything wrong with being pleased with yourself for having made a large donation to medical research, or with a charity seeking publicity.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

Except this is a forum where any member can voice concerns they might have as you have done. I would think the OP posted this in good faith and I don't think the original poster is responsible for whether or not people choose to donate. OMF are responsible for the info they give out and can be asked for more information and concerns can also be voiced directly to them too.

I’m thinking the conversation may be all or nothing without a dose of realism ...which is why I spoke out.

 

[Sunshine3]

No, it's not, it's not even negativity IMO, just realism.

If someone gives more than they can afford this time, or on a previous occasion, and doesn't see a 'payoff' from doing so, then they will have, from their perspective, have 'suffered' for nothing, they will have deprived themselves of something they needed, for nothing.

This is hardly an incentive to donate next time OMF does such a thing.

Encouraging people who have very limited resources, to give more than they afford, which seems to be the aim of such 3fer1's, simply to raise more money now, is a bad strategy, both in terms of the people they are taking this money now, and the long term survivability of the organisation doing so. IMO.

and what, in concrete terms, have we seen from OMF so far? Loads of emails, poorly presented, difficult to read, emails with little, if any, useful content, most of which are simply to inform people that someone they have never heard of has been appointed to a role that didn't exist last week.

This may be a useful approach in the US, it is less so in the UK, at least for me.

There is no guarantee of success, Ron himself has said multiple times science can and does disappoint. They can only promise hard work which I am so grateful for as a severe patient.

 

[Sasha]

Encouraging people who have very limited resources, to give more than they can afford, which seems to be the aim of such 3fer1's

People with limited resources are adults who can make rational decisions about their giving. If they feel they can't afford something, they won't give.

The aim of the 3-for-1 is simply to encourage donations, and that includes larger donations from people who can afford to give and bringing in new donors who haven't given before. It's clear that we have huge numbers of missing donors in our community of patients, friends and supporters, compared to other disease communities such as cancer or MS. We need to start people getting into the habit of giving, and it seems to me that this kind of 3-for-1 is a great way to get publicity (a good thing) for a charity and to expand the donor base.

 

[Wonko]

There is no guarantee of success, Ron himself has said multiple times science can and does disappoint. They can only promise hard work which I am so grateful for as a severe patient.

I agree, I have no objection, obviously, to anyone giving them money. I just don't like the approach used in this case, which seems designed, purposely designed, to extract more money from people who may not be able to afford it, people who, as a group, tend to have cognitive and judgement problems, who may easily, because it's being tripled, be tempted to give more than they can actually afford.

For dealing with our population, IMO this a bad approach, for people attempting to raise money for a bird sanctuary, or to clean up beaches, fine, for PwME it seems manipulative and exploitative.

That's all.

 

[Sasha]

I've been constantly amazed when I've encountered people by chance in the real world who, on finding that I have ME, say that they have a family member or friend with it. When I mention the biomed research charities, though, they haven't heard of them - and are excited to hear about them and want to go back and tell their sick relative/friend so they can check it all out and maybe get involved in fundraising.

Please let's not underesimate how far we are behind the curve in biomedical fundraising. We need initiatives like this one and we need to do everything we can to grow our donor base. Our donor base has huge potential to expand.

 

[Mattie]

The aim of the 3-for-1 is simply to encourage donations, and that includes larger donations from people who can afford to give and bringing in new donors who haven't given before. It's clear that we have huge numbers of missing donors in our community of patients, friends and supporters, compared to other disease communities such as cancer or MS. We need to start people getting into the habit of giving, and it seems to me that this kind of 3-for-1 is a great way to get publicity (a good thing) for a charity and to expand the donor base.

Well said Sasha!

 

[Adrian]

The question about what OMF are spending it on and whether they really need it is a separate one and can probably be best addressed by contacting them and asking them, if you're not already satisfied with the information that they've already provided.

I think one of the things that @arewenearlythereyet is saying is that when raising money it would be good for the fundraising adverts to be clearer about how the money will be used. I think that is good advice even if it is just a pointer to other places where it is explained. OMF are quite open about what they are doing (I think) but when asking for money it would be good to link to that material rather than expecting people to know or find it.