Money raised?
Over the past few years there has been an increasing craze for doing stupid stunts to raise money for charity. Sure, I can see the point of something like Band Aid, or at the other end of the scale a school ‘bring and buy sale’ – by actually selling something these raise funds from people who wouldn’t otherwise give money to charity.
However, I don’t see the point of sponsoring people to do stunts. If you are going to donate money to charity, then there is a fair chance that you are doing so because you think it is the right thing to do, and would have done so anyway (unlike, say, Band Aid, see my reasoning above). Why would such a person be more likely to donate to charity just because somebody promises to bunjee jump off a helicopter, or wear a dress made out of grass for a month? (OK, these are made up but you get the idea)
Apart from the ‘but why? argument, there is also something to be said for the problem that such stunts are actually less useful to charities than ‘straight’ donations. Why? The costs of doing the stunt itself.
For example, the latest media good guy aimed to raise £100,000 by walking across the River Mersey. Of course, there is no information on how much he actually raised, but that is not my problem with the stunt. The problem is that (for obvious safety reasons), he had a hovercraft and a helicopter following him for the duration of it. In other words, the costs of hiring, crewing and fuelling a hovercraft and a helicopter for an hour are deducted from the amount raised for the charity.