Sponsored charity events always seem a bit false to me. What kind of people are happy to give money to charity, but refuse to so until somebody else has gone through a physical challenge?

And think about how much more would be raised if the cost of transporting people to the Great Wall of China / Kilimanjaro / etc was donated directly to the beneficiaries.

What about the biggest etiquette issue - asking people for sponsorship for something that you enjoy doing? Many runners in the London marathon are running for charities because they love running and couldn't get a place in the ballot. Why is that "worthy" of sponsorship?

I'm not a total grouch, I will sponsor friends doing marathons, but never anyone facing the arduous task of trekking the Great Wall of China, swimming with dolphins etc.

What's worse is when you get the sponsorship email, cough up a twenty, and then they pull out 'injured' - f*ckers! Can I have my money back, without having to ask for it?

ToddGaines - try an incentive-based approach. I've offered a friend a pound for every minute under 4h30 he manages, to a maximum of 30. I've also added spot prize bonuses for other achievements like swearing at Sue Barker.

I always thought you paid up afterwards anyway, but in the era of justgiving.com, people seem to be happy to pay in advance.

I'd love to do more running events, but I hate the begging for sponsorship. I did the Urbathon in Edinburgh in September and hated the imposition of asking friends and colleagues for sponsorship. Now they've moved it to May (so now not even a year later) and once again its a sponsorship event. So as much as I'd like to do it, I won't be entering this year.

Is it possible to get into the London marathon without collecting for a charity?

And I concur with graham5, above, completing the task shouldn't be the deal-breaker on your donation.

After watching the dispatches programme on the London martahon I will be boycotting it from now on.

It's really sad that anyone should feel emotionally blackmailed into sponsoring a friend in the marathon and I would hate to think that anyone who has sponsored me feels that way.
I got a ballot place so didn't have to raise money for a charity but it felt selfish not to. I spent some time researching and chose Whizz-Kidz because I strongly believe in what they do.
I've been training for five months for next Sunday and the little wave of negativity caused by the Dispatches programme is unsettling but I remain proud that I've raised some money for a great charity and inspired by those who responded to my request to sponsor me to "run up and down for a bit".

Lots of things to say on this subject!

Firstly, as @grahamr says "

And think about how much more would be raised if the (money) was donated directly to the (chairities)"

. Of course you are right, Graham, but then so is the argument that the extra dosh that the chairties receive would not have been raised had it not been for people sponsoring the participants.

Sponsorship is a form of tokenism. Why does it take a friend or colleague to do something like the London Marathon for us to even think about making a one-off ? And usually for an amount that as a proportion of our monthly salary is peanuts. There is a balancing act between the chairites spending money on sending people into fundraising events and raising much needed funds. It is a fine line.

Of coutse, if you seek sponsorship for a charity, it is true that you are far more likely to want to make a regular donation to that charity as you will begin to understand how important the work of the charity is. Also, from the charity's point of view they will have you on their mailing list to write grovelling letters to in the future to ask for that coveted regular donation!

Just Giving is expensive. SIx percent of your donation is taken by Just Giving, but fundraising always has a cost to it. The return on investment for the charities is why they are happy to pay Just Giving their fee - in exactly the same way that they will pay for someone to have a place in a marathon / trek up Kilmanjaro / or cycle to Amsterdam if extra funds are going to be generated. These marathons are big money spinners. No question about that.

And in response to @poefaced. Ask any of the 80,000 people who are going to be disappointed in not getting a place in this year's London Marathon if they would be happy to raise some money for a good cause if it meant they would get a place and I bet every single one of them would say "Yes". It is something special and one hell of an achievement. But then I am sure @poefaced knows this anyway.

Happy fundraising!

And finally, we all want chairites to raise as much money for their chosen causes, but the dichotomy we have is that we don't like to be targeted at. How do you resolve this?

@cycleloopy my point is those 80,000 disappointed people should be able to run the marathon without feeling the need to seek sponsorship. And many people, myself included, do not say "yes" if charities appear to be the only way. Luckily there are other ways to run London and, gasp, even other marathons.

I ran it last year with a good friend. He had more donors and they were more generous. He said it proved he was more popular than me."

Such a good friend!

I find these charity 'holiday trips' to be a rather odd way of raising funds - why would I sponsor someone I know to be a keen cyclist on a week-long mtb trip to Costa Rica (or whatever)?
Events like the London marathon are rather different - I'll happily sponsor people who are motivated to take up running or vastly increase their fitness jogging in order to complete the marathon - it's a big commitment of time and effort on their part for actually very little reward besides the experience and the satisfaction, so if they can raise some money from their efforts, good on them.

I have discovered an upside to sponsorship versus direct giving.

I try to donate regularly, but prefer to pick a different charity each month and send a substantial amount, rather than set up small direct debits. I have no idea whether this is cost effective for charities or not, but it means I can give easily and to a variety of charities, rather than regularly to a more limited number. (I also like to give to smaller charities, but that's more personal).

The problem I encounter is that when I send a one-off donation I have to give my address for Gift Aid purposes, and I then get inundated with direct mailing materials. One charity (who shall remain nameless) send me 2 thank you letters on the same day and have sent 2 further letters in 2 months. My donation will be entirely wasted on this nonsense soon. I won't be donating to them again for this reason.

When I donate via Virgin Money Giving, Justgiving or others, I am aware that charities are charged a small fee, but I don't receive the reams of paperwork afterwards. Selfish but true.

Dekazer,
I make it really clear to charities who get a direct debit from me that if they ever send me correspondence I'll cancel the direct debit. It works. They aren't stupid, just a bit overenthusiastic sometimes.

I'm totally fed up with sponsored holidays - climbing Manu Pichu, trekking in antarctica, and motor biking across Asia - I've been asked to sponsor them all. Well I'm going to Majorca in a few weeks time, with two screaming kids - anyone fancy sponsoring my pain??

I'd love to do more running events, but I hate the begging for sponsorship.

Then enter more running events. A vast majority of them don't require you to raise money.

I got a ballot place so didn't have to raise money for a charity but it felt selfish not to.

Why??? I can't understand why, in this country in particular, running gets all tied up with fundraising. If you enjoyed painting, would you feel guilty for not raising money to do that?

@Eggbert, I don't give by direct debit because I don't like being tied in to the charities I give to, so I normally donate directly online via paypal or similar. Alas they rarely give the option to send a personal message saying 'please do not ever contact me again, ever'..

I might try sending an email alongside though, hopefully your approach will work :)

@cycleloopy Alex from JustGiving here. Point of order: JustGiving's fee is actually 5% and it's only applied it after we've reclaimed 25% Gift Aid plus 3% Transitional Relief from the government on all eligible donations (about 85%), so charities make more with us. It's worth bearing in mind that traditional marketing costs them, on average, about 10-15p in the £.

This is an interesting article. Shouldn't it be about wanting to give, rather than a popularity contest or keeping up with the Jonses?

@alexnahdpashby You guys at JustGiving do a great job of sweeping your fee under the rug with clever copy.

Based on the information on your site (http://www.justgiving.com/info/fees/) you take your 5% from the "Gross" donation, thats donation amount and Gift Aid....and you charge VAT. Isn't there a certain irony on charging a charity VAT on tax relief.

Using your own illustration on your website for a £10 donation you take a fee of 64p 'once Gift Aid' is reclaimed, thats about 6.4%?

Other sites like Virgin Money Giving and BmyCharity leave the Gift Aid alone, and charge a lower fee.

do charities really "make more with us" as you say?

To complicate matters, there are those who do donate but make it quite clear that they expect "quid pro quo" sponsorship ? sometimes for surprisingly large sums. "One woman sponsored me for £30 and said she expected a similar donation in in return," said a friend. "That's far more than I'd choose to sponsor anyone ? and seems like a grasping approach to donating ? but I had no choice."

I don't understand why this person's upset - surely if you accept sponsorship from others, you'd have to be prepared to do the same in return? Why should it be a one-way street?