Yeah–the stupid way they set it up is that he paid a $30.00 fee to be their representative to telemarket and annoy his friends. If he successfully annoys $400.00 out of them, they’ll give him a prize: the right to be in the race.
That’s not an “entrance fee”, that’s closer to a multi-level marketing scam.
Very good point Fenris. Do they give you your money for the “entrance fee” back if you don’t raise 400?
They do not refund your money if you don’t make them 400 bucks. The 35 bucks doesn’t even apply to the 400.
I get that they want cost certainty. There are just easier ways to get it than this.
Tough Mudder is dangerous- you could get hurt pretty badly, they give you a free t-shirt and a free beer and sponsor swag, WWP gets publicity, and it only costs 80 bucks. Gladiator gives part of the entry fee to TACA, and you get a free t-shirt and a free beer, and it costs 65 bucks or so.
I’d have paid 65 or 85 to run this event, no questions asked. I should have read the fine print more closely is all. But I seriously didn’t expect a silly little clamber to operate along the lines of Bike to the Beach or Bo Across Alabama. Because the two are world’s apart.
Be glad the hidden term was not “You agree to raise $2,500 failing which title to your house shall be transferred to the charity.”
One hopes that they will not go after you for the $400, claiming reliance on your undertaking to raise that much for them (in my jurisdiction, a charity can claim reliance on a promised gift, depending on the circumstances.)
Moonlitherial asked “But if he’s not fundraising what benefit is he providing to the cause?” He would have been providing his participation. The more participants, the bigger the event. The bigger the event, the better the odds of it drawing in others who do fundraise, the better the odds of it becoming a major event that will draw more dollars per capita, and the better the odds of it surviving as an annual event. Note that with most events of this type, there is a surge of participation for the first few years, but then participation dies down, sometimes leading to the collapse of the event, and often leading to a decline in profitability of the event. As long as there is a strong base of participants, fundraising will continue. When participants wander off to greener fields, fundraising declines. Want to have a successful fundraising event for year after year after year? Don’t piss off your volunteers and don’t piss off your participants. Burying a $400 demand in the fine print of a liability waiver is a good way to piss off your participants. I expect that a charity would do better over the long term to be up-front rather than misleading toward its participants.
You are right. I am wrong.
[bold added]
This is an important point, worthy of repeating. Scammy looking practice causes someone to complain on a website Google indexes, causing potentially millions of people to see it. Not a good PR move. Bad for that particular charity, even worse for the cause. There are 1 or 2 other diseases out there that need research funds, and someone seeing this thread from a Google search may well think “hmm. Maybe I’ll just contribute to cancer research, instead…”
[note: It didn’t change my mind. I contribute to one of those other diseases, anyway, already. But it could well have changed other minds.]
This is only true if people would see this as the fault of the charity. I don’t (and I’ve participated in fundraising events like this) and my guess is that most people in the general public wouldn’t feel strongly one way or the other. If they hid the fact that this event worked this way it would be one thing, but there are lots of events like this and they’re becoming more popular as fundraisers. IMO, the outrage isn’t out there.
Happy Scrappy Hero Pup: You know what’s really sad? In the time you’ve spent on this thread, you could have easily raised the $400.
[QUOTE= panache45]
Happy Scrappy Hero Pup: You know what’s really sad? In the time you’ve spent on this thread, you could have easily raised the $400.
[/QUOTE]
The issue was never whether I could raise the 400. The issue was being required to raise the 400.
As I said above, there are other causes to which I donate and for which I solicit donations, and I’m not going to risk those wells drying up for what I (admittedly mistakenly, albeit in keeping with prior experience) thought was a fun run with the donation built in.
Maybe, but if Pup had to beg $400 from friends and family for some charity they don’t give a shit about, then Pup would be pissing off those same friends and family.
I say coming to the Dope and bitching about it was the right move.
I can’t even imagine calling 20 people I know and asking them to donate 20 dollars (to even a good cause) so I **can be allowed **to run in a race.
It’s a fundraiser! That’s what this race was set up to do. I can understand not wanting to participate, but then to demand that they not run the fundraising event in the way that they want to (and has been successful) seems perverse to me.
Whose “demanding” anything? Well, besides the organizers apparently 
You’re right, “demand” was the wrong word. But I don’t see why this isn’t a valid form of fundraising since it apparently works quite well. Groups like Team in Training and races like the AIDS Ride have raised millions of dollars for good causes. I’ve read that this is one of the fastest growing types of fundraising so it’s not pissing off too many people.
http://www.casefoundation.org/blog/charity-athletic-events-they-hurt-so-good
http://philanthropy.com/blogs/prospecting/thon-fundraising-events-speed-up-in-2011/32464
The event is a fundraiser first, a race second. Not all events are like that but I’m not getting the anger from the OP that this race is being organized this way.
None of your cites seem to actually support your claim. The first one links to a race where setting yourself up as a fundraiser certainly seems to be an option, but not required to participate (a higher registration fee is mentioned for people that register the day of the event–if you can sign up an hour or two before the race, it seems unlikely that you are required to fundraise before you’re allowed to run). So this looks like the exact thing the OP was expecting, but did not get.
The second is just an infographic, and appears to be completely useless.
The third links to a white paper that spends a fair amount of time splitting people into fundraisers, doners, and zero-dollar participants. Which again sounds like what the OP was expecting–if you pay the registration fee, you are allowed to run even if you do not fundraise in addition to the fee.
I remember when you used to be funny… oh wait, you never stopped.
Cite?
I had a discussion with my family members and none of them seemed particularly inclined to raising money for this cause. In fact, it’s actually the position of the Westboro Baptist Church that AIDS is a punishment inflicted by our almighty father. Could I have my money back? I’ll be sure to tithe it, that’s a good cause, right?
So sorry your “fun run” turned out to be a disappointment. Having AIDS is a disappointment too. And I’m sorry if my reaction is somewhat over the top, but it sure looks like this whole thing is all about you and your self-serving priorities. Even if I were in your position and didn’t know about the $400, I never would have brought this to the Pit.
Now I reminded about that bum at the corner the other day. I gave him a fiver and he responded “what, you don’t have a twenty?”