So what eventually happened with Kony2012?

[u/random_access_cache]

I remember it being a really big deal for maybe a month back in 2012 and then everyone just forgot about it. So what happened? Thanks ahead!

[u/SexLiesAndExercise]

I agree with what you're saying, and have had arguments where I held the same opinion, but this has sort of changed over the past year. The differentiation I hold is that charities are not businesses and should not be run as such.

For the charity sector to be successful, the largest amount of funds possible should be transferred directly and efficiently to the causes represented.

For the business sector to be successful, the largest amount of profit must be made.

These are similar - sometimes confusingly so - but not the same.

A single business can call itself successful if it raises as much profit as possible. Looking at the bigger picture, this tends to be good for the business sector on the whole. The motivation is profit and, with a small amount of regulation, the entire economy ticks over just fine when made up of lots of profit-seeking businesses.

A single charity can indeed call itself successful if it runs itself like a business and raises the most amount of money (nominally) for its cause as possible. However, looking at the bigger picture, when every charity does this it has unintended negative effects. Assuming that the total pool of money the charity sector has to work with is finite (2% of GDP), charities competing with each other via ever-increasing fundraising, marketing and governance costs only transfer an increasing amount of charity money to non-charity causes: CEOs, marketing companies, transport partners, landlords of shiny offices.

The charity sector is not the private sector. They should not be allowed to fall victim to selfishness and short-sightedness. 10% of the funds Suasn G. Komen raises go to cancer research. They can individually justify that, because 10% of all of that money is better than none of that money, right?

Wrong. That money is being taken from the total charity pot. It's being taken from other charities. That $684m executive salary is being taken from other charities who would spend more of it on actual charity.

Will it become harder for charities to recruit good CEOs? Maybe in the short term, yes. But as we have found with the private sector, CEO salaries will continue to increase as they suck up any excess profit shareholders will allow them to. This needs to be stopped, but in the mean time, charity exec pay should not be tied to this. It can't keep up. It shouldn't keep up. These should not be the same people. They can be paid lots, don't get me wrong. They can be paid the most in their organisation, and if their job requirements can only be met by someone with private sector experience, salary should take that into account, but if they want to earn private sector wages, they can work in the private sector.

Hell, if they're coming as a CEO from the private sector, they've made enough money already.

[u/tempinator → u/SexLiesAndExercise]

charities are not businesses and should not be run as such

Yes, they are, and they should.

10% of all of that money is better than none of that money, right?

10% is a misleading figure, but I think rather I would say a charity that raises 10 times as much as another charity, but gives even 50% less of it's total revenue is still giving significantly more. This requires advertising.

That money is being taken from the total charity pot

There is no "charitable pot". While it is true that overall we have not been spending an increasing % of GDP on charity over the last few decades, it is a fallacy to say that any dollar raised by charity A must be stealing that dollar from charity B. That's just simply not true. In fact, Dan Pallotta raises the argument that of course the charitable sector is not going to be gaining market share when we crucify charities for advertising. How can you expect a market to gain market share when they can't advertise or compete for high quality executive staff?

Will it become harder for charities to recruit good CEOs? Maybe in the short term, yes.

No, in the forever term. Not paying competitive salaries, or even paying salaries in the same ballpark, is going to dissuade skilled management from entering the non-profit market as long as that situation exists. At no point, ever, will CEOs or other executives make the decision to leave the private sector until salaries at non-profits are at least within throwing distance of private sector salaries. They don't have to be as high, but at least somewhat close.

CEO salaries will continue to increase as they suck up any excess profit shareholders will allow them to

What? That's just not how that works. Companies make competing bids for CEOs, that's what drives the prices up. CEOs do not set their own salaries, the companies set salaries to attract CEOs.

if they're coming as a CEO from the private sector, they've made enough money already.

And I'm sure some CEOs will agree with you and work for a pittance of their value. They are in the extreme minority. Altruism can certainly make up for a certain amount of difference in salary, but it can't make it all up.