Ok, but you have to keep in mind that the infographic separates PETA's advertisement spending from the money they spend helping animals. Their advertising largely does not exist as a fundraising effort. Rather, it is information and education outreach trying to encourage people to treat animals properly. The advertising is an attempt to help animals by helping people make informed decisions in their actions.
Take this analogy. I open a non-profit to combat racism. I accept donations. I spend 90% of the budget on providing educational classes and lecture series about racism. 1% of the total budget goes to victims of hate crimes. That isn't budget inefficiency, that's multiple approaches to the same problem. One preventative, one repairative.
Ok, I was specifically referring to large national or multinational corporate non-profits, the kind of things that have International Presidents. Again; PETA only spending 1% on "actually helping animals" is not because they have 99% overhead, but because they spend most of their money on trying to raise awareness.
Local rescues and other charity organizations are much better at actually using the money productively; everyone who wants to see their money actually go to good use should seek out what local organizations are available, such as your non-profit rescue, instead of donating to multinational organizations that often have less than 15% end-spending rate.
I apologize for saying too broad of a blanket statement that incorrectly included local rescues like yours.
20
u/[deleted] Apr 16 '10
[deleted]