Today I share with you something that I discovered and that has left me impacted. Médecins Sans Frontières, Aid in Action, Médecins du Monde, Save the Children, Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Action Against Hunger, Plan, Unicef, Anesvad … the list is endless. All these NGOs (and a few others) are spending their money on marketing. And even worse: in general expenses. Wages, go. Instead of dedicating your donation in full to the causes, they spend it in bullshit …
Do you think it’s a scandal? Allow me another question, and we go into the details: Do you think that NGOs are important to change the world? If you answer yes, accompany me to question many stupid beliefs that prevent solidarity from growing.
Charity or business?
Do you prefer that of the donated money, 95% go to the causes and only 5% to general expenses … or is it better that 40% remain in expenses? I put it with an example: Is it better that the cake that represents an NGO is $ 71 if from there 95% goes to the causes, or that NGO devotes 40% to general expenses (including marketing and advertising to capture More partners) and get $ 71 million? I do not ask you the question, but Dan Pallotta.
And who is Dan Pallotta? A brilliant guy who has spent his whole life dedicated to improving the world, with impressive results. He has achieved several records going against current. For example? For 9 years at the forefront of the AIDSRaidsUSA campaign, they did careers in solidarity and thought big. Instead of “give me as little as you can,” they asked: “Give us everything you can, we want to do everything in our power to change things.” They got 180,000 participants to donate $ 581 million. 581 million!
Dan says he’s sick of hearing that you should not spend money on advertising. They invested in buying ads in the top US newspapers and in the best prime time spaces on American TV. That was a key part of his success. And he asks himself: Do you know how many people would have participated if we had put ads on leaflets distributed in laundries? So look at the chart and think again: Is having a 5% overhead in an NGO better than having them 40%? Will not it be more important – with nuances – to look at how big the cake is …?