Competing Charities

Years ago, fun runs and marathons were few and far between. So it would seem reasonable to suspect that the average money raised per participant would be quite high. I really am not sure that is the case these days.

Just looking at the notice board at work and there are posters for a tri-athalon and bike ride wihin a few weeks each other. If only one person from work entered each event they would be competing for sponsorship and therefore losing out on potential raised funds.

Just recently there have been lots of runs in the Yorkshire area, in particular aimed at Cancer Research (and now given more impetus after the passing of Jane Tomlinson), including the race for life series and the Rotary club run for it series. However worthy the cause, does the increase in events actually deter active sponsorship? Would fewer events raise more money? I do not subscribe to the theory of "Compassion Fatique" but I do believe that folk may be less willing to sponsor a steady supply of events.

Potentially smaller, equally worthy charities lose out, due to the profileration of large scale events. So is it better to go down the Children in Need or Comic relief route of a single day of fundraising events to maximise potential?

Having taken part in fund raising events over the years, I know the sense of achievement and sense of mission is high and the end result worthwile. I'll continue to get involved and do what I can.