I would say it's in the middle leaning toward fine. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it, but I wouldn't want to go around telling people how I made a killing on a victim site.
People making money from Japan's earthquake
- Thread starter thevoucherguy
- Start date
It's actually over 99%...
Charity Navigator Rating - American Red Cross
Visit charity navigator before you donate to any charity. You'll be shocked how little actually goes to help victims.
This is really disappointing.... Therefore one should always confirm that whether the charity is legal and doing work in an appropriate manner or not...
It's really shocking, people give donations in order to save Japan is not for business. To overcome this, one should always check before you donate money.
Maybe I'm wrong. But the link says Program Expenses as 91.8% and Administrative Expenses only 4%.
"Program Expenses: This measure reflects what percent of its total budget a charity spends on the programs and services it exists to deliver. Dividing a charity's program expenses by its total functional expenses yields this percentage."
Administrative Expenses: This measure reflects what percent of its total budget a charity spends on overhead, administrative staff and associated costs, and organizational meetings. Dividing a charity's administrative expenses by its total functional expenses yields this percentage.
I think it's despicable. It shows no love for your fellow man, if it were our family that died in a tragedy we wouldn't do it (most of us). But most simply discount the value of the lives of others in the human family.
jesus christ dude. go read the red crosses' page on charity again that you linked to. its not 99% on fucking salaries. what the fuck do you think program expenses are.
they have a 3 out of 4 star efficiency rating. also given the size of the organization, the ceo is paid comparably low. the head lawyer makes more than him.
If someone thinks that making money off of a natural disaster is bad or sick, they have no business being on this website.
Supply and demand. Economics 101. Get over it, bitches.
Supply and demand. Economics 101. Get over it, bitches.
He owns this domains for a while now, so this website wasn't registered because of this catastrophe. This reduces guilt for website owner.
This was good step for business perspective, but there is no ethics with this deal. So many people doesn't even care about others and ethic and this is prefect example.
I really are again this kind of "business"
This was good step for business perspective, but there is no ethics with this deal. So many people doesn't even care about others and ethic and this is prefect example.
I really are again this kind of "business"
What the fuck is up with these posts?
Of course making money off of natural disasters isn't a bad thing. It, of course, depends on what you mean by making money. Like Turbo said if you have a fraudulent charity that's a terrible thing to do.
...But if you're talking about shorting nuclear stocks or buying them after they've taken a big hit (like currently) then of course there's nothing wrong with it. That's the market for you; all perception, no reality.
I see nothing wrong quickly glancing at OPs site. I wouldn't do it because financially it'd be a waste of time, imo.
When talking about adapting marketing to this event morally I probably wouldn't run Japanese themed banner ads to an IQ quiz or anything to capitalize on current events (although it'd probably raise CTRs). Banners like "What reactor BLEW? 1, 2 or 3" would get insane CTRs.
Of course making money off of natural disasters isn't a bad thing. It, of course, depends on what you mean by making money. Like Turbo said if you have a fraudulent charity that's a terrible thing to do.
...But if you're talking about shorting nuclear stocks or buying them after they've taken a big hit (like currently) then of course there's nothing wrong with it. That's the market for you; all perception, no reality.
I see nothing wrong quickly glancing at OPs site. I wouldn't do it because financially it'd be a waste of time, imo.
When talking about adapting marketing to this event morally I probably wouldn't run Japanese themed banner ads to an IQ quiz or anything to capitalize on current events (although it'd probably raise CTRs). Banners like "What reactor BLEW? 1, 2 or 3" would get insane CTRs.
As i see, he is selling site for some money. and that is fair, If anyone collects donations and hung up that is MEAN !
Exactly. Ignore all the other numbers on the page and look at the one that says "Fundraising Efficiency". In the case of the Red Cross, it's $0.17.
17 cents of every dollar they collect goes to the causes they support.
And to answer the question, I don't have any problem with people making money off natural disasters, but it all depends on what you're making the money off of. Selling survival guides, earthquake preparedness kits and iodine tablets is one thing. Selling bottled water in the disaster zone at 100 times the normal retail price is something entirely different.
There are many many business's that run on a 1 to 5 % profit margin. Why would a charity be any different? If they dont spend money they wont get money. And if they don't get money, when it comes time to rescue your town you will be on your own.
I think it's funny that lots of people get up in arms over gurus selling their SEO "secrets" (http://www.wickedfire.com/affiliate...et-unlimited-free-money-google-seriously.html) but a lot of people think this is just fine.
I guess the percentages are almost exactly the same at this time, but it's weird where people draw the line...
I guess the percentages are almost exactly the same at this time, but it's weird where people draw the line...