[zieski]

While I don't have access to the financials of Invisible Children, I take issue with the seemingly implied idea that all charitable organizations should be run by paupers whose only reward is a warm fuzzy feeling. If we limit charitable actors to people who don't desire a certain level of compensation, we very severely limit the number of qualified charitable actors.

If giving to a charity was viewed as purchasing a product, in this case effort toward stopping a vicious warlord, then is ~30% 'materials' cost, 70% staffing/travel/advertising/office space an absurd ratio?

[andrewfelix]

I give 1% of my income to Save the Children. Their financials are much better than Invisible Children's: http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.622950...

EDIT: Invisible Children's financials: http://www.invisiblechildren.com/images/breakdownofexpenses....

[aphyr]

Given cash-strapped, effective, charitable organizations with a better than 90% operational efficiency are not hard to find, yes.

[JonnieCache]

Burning 70% of your money when you are a charity thats trying to do stuff is simply unacceptable, both by comparison to what the rest of the "market" is doing, and arguably by moral standards.

If your charity is doing advocacy or some similarly abstract activity, then it's very different.