Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I wonder if that's the problem. If your operating expenses are 80% of revenue, and such a large chunk of that goes in marketing, advertising and PR aimed at bringing in the revenue in in the first place ... isn't the model broken?
But the spend is to GET the revenue in this case - not the other way around.
As has been pointed out now, the return they're getting does seem comparatively low to other charities so perhaps they are overdoing the PR spend. To continue the Devil's Advocate though, to get the higher absolute amounts, you may have to accept a lower final flow through.
I'll put it this way - if they hadn't spent $400k on ads/PR/events, would they still have raised $1.95m? I'd say almost certainly no. The question is how much lower - what's the marginal dollar spent on advertising getting you back in revenue.
-
What is an acceptable ratio then? It seems a bit rough to make claim that their's is "wrong" without defining what is realistically possible.
18% looks low, but maybe that spending on PR, marketing, and events gives you enough awareness that the total amount in the end is much higher - it wouldn't be easy to raise $350k without any level of awareness for example?
Certainly agree with the suggestion to make those things visible though, so we can begin to judge what is realistic.
-
The net vs gross comparisons are wilfully misleading are they not? Measuring net (as the target is) - we're about equal to 1990 levels right now. So it IS only a 10% drop, not the "more than a third" lies that have been spun and regurgitated.
Yes, we have to get gross emissions down; Yes, relying on forest sinks won't be enough long term. But in terms of this target, it is only a 10% drop from where we are now. And even that can be handled by purchasing credits internationally.
Note to the media - this is a massive issue. Clue yourself up on the basics please. I'd rather not have to wait for Rod Oram on Sunday to actually point it out.
-
If we come out of the Copenhagen negotiations at 20% then I think we're doing OK. If we come out at 10% then meh.
I also find it odd Lyndon that we make one of our conditions a focus on limiting temp growth to 2degrees, but that requires 25-40% reductions by 2020. All emission targets except the upper limit of the EU range fall below that - so we've all given up on that it seems.
-
Honey of the Drones. What a great name for some kind of whiskey liquor or the like.
Someone call Whats-his-face-42-Below. -
But seriously, if drug use actually is being touted as a reason for the Alt-Ed funding "review" then it's wrong and dishonest.
See in my head, that would incline you to greater funding of AE - it's partly representative of the different schooling some kids need.
Saying "kids who go to AE are taking drugs so we must stop funding AE" is so... just... bad. -
Did they really pay $2b for Canterbury Europe? Because JD's market value prior to that was something like $700m so that's a massive purchase.
Also, they got the brand goodwill etc for $11m. To then pay $2b for the stores and operations seems amazing. -
If drug use is now a reason for cutting school funding, they may have to revisit that cheque they wrote to Kings and Dio...
-
I'm struck by the fact that Mr English receives more by way of a housing allowance than either of the two much-vilified DPB mums receive in benefits to support their families.
I was struck more by the fact that BENNETT does too. Given her underlying subtext around that mess was "$715 a week is HEAPS for a solo mum of three kids with medical conditions to get buy on".
-
Sure Craig, it was two-sided tango etc so shouldn't have lumped you alone. But yeah, interesting discussion, shame to see it potentially derailed so fast.
Would anyone be complaining if English was getting $900 a week to keep the Dipton place as his electorate house though? I would think no, or certainly much less. So perhaps he's just guilty of putting the wrong address on his Pork Form 17(b).
(Or more likely the rules aren't setup that way).