We all get so much annoying spam in the Inbox. Now, I'm currently more than happy with my downstairs department, I've never bought an Australian lottery ticket so could never possibly have won their lotto and I'm certainly not succumbing to the temptation of injecting $36,000,000,000 into my beer fund on behalf of Dr Gaius Obaseki - a Nigerian air to the thrown who is eager to exit his country for fear of death (he has someone knocking at the door as he's typing the email to me). Anyway within my spam I recently received one that caught my eye, one that offered me a charity trek through Nepal.
What amount of this actually goes to the charity I think is any ones guess. These Treks for Charity are obviously a way to entice would be trekkers who are unable to undertake such "Once in a Lifetime" opportunities without financial assistance from sponsors. This therefore means that a substantial amount of the sponsorship fund is not going to the intended charity but is in fact going to the trekking companies themselves.
Personally I don't know how people get away with this as you're not sponsoring them to Trek Kilimanjaro, you're in fact paying for them to Trek Kilimanjaro and donating a mere fraction of your sponsorship to the designated charity. I feel this is a way for companies to get business by telling the trekkers they can trek this or trek that for a paltry few pounds under the guise that it's for charity when really it's for the trekking company with a fractional and notional contribution going to the charity itself.
Superb marketing ploy from the trekking company as it broadens their target market from all the people who want to Trek Kilimanjaro and pay for it TO ALSO INCLUDE all the people that want to Trek Kilimanjaro without paying for it. I may be being possibly a touch cynical here but it may be a preference for the trekking companies to take the sponsorship guests as their price does not have to be competitive because the trekker isn't in fact paying for the pleasure so could in fact could be at an inflated rate (no proof on that, just a mere possibility). In fact the charities/companies running these operations advise the participants that should they be asked how much of the minimum sponsorship goes to the charity to try to be vague and avoid answering the question.
I actually got a bit of a bee in my bonnet about this (can't you tell) and trawled further through t'internet. I came across Skydives for charity. This has to be the biggest scam going. For example with skyline parachuting you pay nothing, that's right, nothing! You raise £360 (at least, I can't see it being much more than that as once the punter has hit that figure they get their free skydive), and there you go you get your free skydive. But what exorbitant fee to the skydive company charge to the charity for the pleasure, I doubt this will be competitive as it doesn't need to be, why? Because the person paying for it isn't paying for it. To boot for every £1 that is raised by Skydiving operations for charity, it costs the NHS £13.75 in hospital fees - I'm digressing a touch.
In conclusion, if I am asked by someone to sponsor them on the basis that they need to reach a minimum sponsorship fee to enable them to partake in the trek, I would politely decline and suggest that if they do complete the goal then I will donate a specific fee directly to the charity itself. Should I undertake a challenge myself for charity, all the cash I earned (apart from the 7% slice or therabouts that Justgiving take) would go to the charity and not towards my holiday fund.
Apologies for the rant, I just think it's being a touch opportunistic from a commercial point of view, it's not very fair for the person sponsoring and paying the money to think that upon the success of the challenge £10 will go to cancer research when in fact it will go to a Kilimanjaro Trekking company of some description with a fraction of that reaching those it was intended for.