Wounded Warrior Project - disappointment

[Seabeejason]

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1352930378' post='845712']

[size=6]Wounded Warrior Project[/size]

[font=times new roman,times,serif][size=5]We've had a lot of questions recently that started when we declined an opportunity to appear on Gun Talk Radio. We want to clarify and help answer some questions. We have seen through this process that the language on our website and our response to the invitation to appear on the show weren’t clear, and we are working on clarifying our approach. There is now much inaccurate information about WWP being anti-gun rights, an issue as an apolitical organization we do not take a stance on. We understand and appreciate that many of our Alumni are gun owners, and we facilitate multiple hunting and outdoor opportunities for our Wounded Warriors throughout the year.[/size][/font]
[b][font=times new roman,times,serif][size=5]
[/size][/font][/b][font=times new roman,times,serif][size=5]In the past, we made our logo available to appear on wide variety of products, including guns. As an organization, we owe it to our donors and constituents to [b][u]maximize the return on investment of our dollars and brand[/u][/b]. We are always looking at [u][b]our business practices[/b][/u] and whether we should continue with them in the future. In the case of [u][b]cobranding[/b][/u], we've decided that we're not going to offer our logo to appear on weapons anymore - whether they're guns, knives, bows, swords, or any other type of weapon. There are still a few of the guns around for sale that had licensed our logo years ago, but there aren't any new ones being made. [u][b]This is purely a business decision[/b][/u] based on a review of a [u][b]return on investment[/b][/u], especially when compared with other types of [u][b]cobranding[/b][/u] ventures.[/size][/font]

[size=4][font=times new roman,times,serif][size=5]Regarding the question of donations and events, we do permit fundraisers that are shooting- and gun-related, such as gun raffles, shooting competitions, etc., and we're incredibly appreciative of those who are willing to give their time to host or participate in an event. Likewise, we gratefully accept donations from companies and individuals connected with the gun industry.

As indicated above, we know that hunting and shooting sporting events can be very therapeutic for many of the Wounded Warriors we serve, and we're happy to work with the community to make these types of events available to our Alumni. Hunting and shooting sport enthusiasts are an incredibly supportive and generous community, and we've been honored by how often folks have opened their land and homes, and volunteered their time to make these types of events possible for our Alumni. We're so sorry if it seemed that we didn't appreciate that support with our confusing communication of a [u][b]business decision[/b][/u]. It certainly wasn't our intention!

I hope this post provides some clarity and helps answer some questions. We welcome the opportunity to have a warrior on Gun Talk Radio to discuss how hunting or events of the like have supported their recovery. We responded too quickly to his request and should have delved a bit deeper.[/size][/font][/size]


[url="http://www.facebook.com/wwpinc.fans"]http://www.facebook.com/wwpinc.fans[/url]
[/quote]

Read the portions I highlighted. This organization is more of a company than a charity. I refuse to donate to people like this.

[Oh Shoot]

There's another "charity bond" thing in front of Congress today, bunch of billions of "Sandy Bonds".

Was just listening to a segment of Larry Doyle on walk home, he went back over a bunch of these, from 9/11 bond programs, Katrina bond programs, about 5 more. Showed that hardly any of the money ever gets to the victims. All absconded by federal and state governments and private investment houses.

Last one was one that raised x millions for the 'Bama tornado victims in 2011. Majority went to paper company down there, "to promote area economic growth". Etc etc.

- OS

[Static_USMC]

Sounds like they consulted with Jim Zumbo at some point.

[Oh Shoot]

Can't vouch that this is true, but found on another forum where someone supposedly screen grabbed WWP's financial disclosure info:

[img]http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt112/gryphon1994/WoundedWarriorSalaries2011.jpg[/img]

EDIT: Seems correct, info available on WWP's financial disclosure page at:

[url="http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/mission/financials.aspx"]http://www.woundedwa...financials.aspx[/url]

In their defense, this is their claimed overall disbursement graphic:

[img]http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/media/351229/2011-statement-of-expenses-revised2.jpg[/img] Edited November 16, 2012 by OhShoot

[peejman]

Interesting. Two guys well over $300k and a handful of others in the $150k-$180k range. They do maintain offices in some high rent areas (NYC, DC, Chicago, ...) that may justify some of the salaries. The executive listing covers about $2M of the $4.7M they claim as admin costs. The pie graph seems to make it pretty clear that while some salaries may be higher than we think they should be, the bulk is going where it should. In a quick scan of their financials, nothing really jumps out at me as being way out of line. It's hard to find people with the skills to run a business that size who will work for peanuts.

[RobertNashville]

What truly matters most with dealing with a charity organization is not really how much their staff or executives get paid; it really has a lot more to do with what kind of revenue those executives bring in, simply by their being part of the group and, most importantly I think, how much of their revenue is actually spend on/gets to the people the organization exists to help.

A good rule of thumb, at least for me, is that I don't give to any organization that spends more than 10% of its revenue on administration (salaries, etc.)

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='peejman' timestamp='1353071999' post='846459']
Interesting. Two guys well over $300k and a handful of others in the $150k-$180k range. They do maintain offices in some high rent areas (NYC, DC, Chicago, ...) that may justify some of the salaries. The executive listing covers about $2M of the $4.7M they claim as admin costs. The pie graph seems to make it pretty clear that while some salaries may be higher than we think they should be, the bulk is going where it should. In a quick scan of their financials, nothing really jumps out at me as being way out of line. It's hard to find people with the skills to run a business that size who will work for peanuts.
[/quote]

That's my general take, too.

I'd have to look up other charities to see where their overall 17.2% of overhead ranks.

But some such comparisons aren't valid. You may find lots of orgs that spend less % on advertising, but that doesn't necessarily mean much -- point being that advertizing may bring in quite large % increase of donations per dollar spent, that wouldn't have been donated at all without it.

I guess the % actually spent on the target is main bottom line.

- OS Edited November 16, 2012 by OhShoot