Well Lookie there, a Hypothetical Poll From Yours Truly.

[t0yrobo]

It'd depend on how big of an order I'm making. If I was spending say $100 I'd take the 25% off, but if it were more like $20 I'd probably go with charity.

[CRTGAMER]

Discount for me, rather control my own hard earned money.

Just like any large organization, CEOs rake it in. The difference is, its supposed to be a non-profit charity!
A real shame profiting with all real needs and suffering under their watch.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... laries.htm
http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysur ... 85,00.html

[dsheinem]

Discount for me, rather control my own hard earned money.

Just like any large organization, CEOs rake it in. The difference is, its supposed to be a non-profit charity!
A real shame profiting with all real needs and suffering under their watch.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... laries.htm
http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysur ... 85,00.html

Isn't the reason for these high salaries simply the cost of doing business? In other words, don't these NFPs need to pay top dollar to execs who do a good job so that they can keep/attract good execs? It's better to spend more up top if it means you'll rake in even more for the charity itself because of their leadership...

[CRTGAMER]

Discount for me, rather control my own hard earned money.

Just like any large organization, CEOs rake it in. The difference is, its supposed to be a non-profit charity!
A real shame profiting with all real needs and suffering under their watch.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... laries.htm
http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysur ... 85,00.html

Isn't the reason for these high salaries simply the cost of doing business? In other words, don't these NFPs need to pay top dollar to execs who do a good job so that they can keep/attract good execs? It's better to spend more up top if it means you'll rake in even more for the charity itself because of their leadership...

You would not believe how many times that is used to justify high salaries. Look at the Banks and the Automotive industry, taht were bailed out. Hell look at your own company. There is a line of people who could do a lot better job at a lower salary. Its when a company gets too big and fat and gets a free non-profit lunch from the taxpayer.

[jp1]

Discount for me, rather control my own hard earned money.

Just like any large organization, CEOs rake it in. The difference is, its supposed to be a non-profit charity!
A real shame profiting with all real needs and suffering under their watch.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... laries.htm
http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysur ... 85,00.html

Isn't the reason for these high salaries simply the cost of doing business? In other words, don't these NFPs need to pay top dollar to execs who do a good job so that they can keep/attract good execs? It's better to spend more up top if it means you'll rake in even more for the charity itself because of their leadership...

I have a hard time with this too. While I think these execs should make a fair wage based on their education and comparable career choices it is just so hard to justify a $600,000 a year salary for someone who is meant to represent a charitable organization. Especially knowing that the $600,000 is donated by people who expect it to go into the hands of people who need it.

[Jrecee]

20% off and 5% goes to charity.

[Octopod]

I have a hard time with this too. While I think these execs should make a fair wage based on their education and comparable career choices it is just so hard to justify a $600,000 a year salary for someone who is meant to represent a charitable organization. Especially knowing that the $600,000 is donated by people who expect it to go into the hands of people who need it.

Agreed 100%

[Betamax001]

I voted 25% off because I am a cheapskate. Plain and simple. I usually wait until a game gets cheap. If that means waiting 2 or 3 years so be it. Thats partially a reason why I like old games. They are (usually) a bit cheaper than the new games.

[Anapan]

Hey Luke, being an altruist, I'd say the percentage is a bit high. I already give to charities regularly, give my loose change and cigarettes to to bums, and tip well. There isn't much reason for me to choose to pay more to your selected charity. The only way I can see that working is if you give the option to sponsor a few or user selectable charities at the cart checkout for a promotional code to be used the next time a purchase is made. Most charities give tax rebate information too, and that is something that would be a nightmare to make available to your potential clients. You might be able to do something with the combined shipping savings being forwarded to charities or something but I don't see the extra 25% charge being a good business decision. There is too much competition for that kind of thing to be a selling point. IMO you have to lower the percentage to at 15% or less to move any goods.

[Octopod]

I prefer giving directly to groups like Food Not Bombs and some small environmental groups because I know that every single penny goes to help and no one pockets any of it. Donating directly to a local food bank or womens shelter probably helps a lot more than giving to those huge charities. Those things exist for rich people to use to network and pat each other on the back.