KONY 2012

There's a big chunk of that money going to awareness development and awareness programs. The only time I have ever been aware of this organisation is when they made a youtube video.

Where the fuck is that money going ?

man.... kony was so yesterday

get over it

Well that was their 11th video and they've had heaps of events in the past. IDK, I never heard of them before yesterday either. But they've been lobbying/planning and stuff for 10 years now. There was heaps of clips in the doco of the events they had leading up to Obama signing off the on the troops etc..

wonder what they feel about Naturopathic Medicine?

so 37.12% actually ends up in the programs, the rest pays middle management, film hipsters and marketing geeks.

No thanks, rather pledge money to an organisation that actually puts money into programs directly.

EDIT: Anyone who thinks that 37.12% is an acceptable figure for actual programs is a fucking retard (most NFP organisations ensure that 90% of the donation goes toward the program), they are basically paying a shitload of people to do absolutely nothing worthwhile.

They do put money into programs directly. 37%. And then they also focus on the other two prongs of their strategy which are all clearly detailed. Don't let that get in the way of your cool story though.

http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/why-donate?open&lpos=top_drp_AboutUs_Accountability
http://www.unicef.org.nz/store/doc/2010AccountsforWeb.pdf

Although I personally wouldn't support world vision due to my anti-religion stance.

wtf does any of this have to do with hipsters btw?

So other organisations that have different strategies put different amounts into direct programs? They are running a marketing campaign. That's what it's been framed as, sold as. The whole Kony2012 thing is classic branding. The programs that they also do were a small part of the doco, so I was surprised to find out it was even as high as 37% that was being directed there. Other charities are doing a lot more for programs, IC are focussing on the awareness/lobbying side more - there's nothing wrong with that.

I can't believe you're blindly believing their side of the story

whose hacked your account?

I spit on branding unless its done with a hot iron...

Posted again: http://theenoughfoundation.org/the-kony-2012-sham-consider-facts-not-emotions/

UNICEF have actually done wonders to reduce the amount of child soldiers and helping with their rehabilitation. They haven't done effectively jack shit in the x amount of years the program has been running.

If people disagree with their strategy, all good. I'm just getting tired of people lazily throwing around the same cynical illogical crap as if it were some sort of point. Being shocked at how 'little' goes into programs makes no sense. Blaming people for not caring the day before yesterday is retarded. Scoffing at how little actions 'do nothing' is just plain incorrect.

Get some interesting/fresh arguments at least ffs

surprise surprise... Another B- troll spewing out the same crap everyone else has over the last 24 hours.

They are completely misusing their money yak how the fuck can you not see that ?

http://www.unicef.org/protection/57929_58007.html

^^ Donate to UNICEF if you actually care about children.

So show me where? Stop regurgitating bloggy crap that we've already discussed. You scoff at their 37% to programs and then just claim the rest is going to wages of marketing/film types? How can we possibly have an intelligent conversation if you're going to dredge it down like that. They have a very different strategy to other charities, and this explains why their ratio to programs is different. I haven't gone through all their accounting in detail, and I'm waiting to see if anything shady comes out before I consider donating - but I just haven't seen it yet. If you have some actual info that shows shadiness, then feel free to share. My opinion is by no means set in stone here yet

Some people are bitching about the leaders getting 90k for wages, but I actually don't think it's that bad. 90k isn't that much, and fuck it, they've put 10 years of their life into this, I imagine it's a lot of work...

"The accounts suggest nearly 25% of its $8.8m income last year was spent on travel and film-making with only around 30% going toward programes on the ground. The great majority of the money raised has been spent in the US. $1.7 million went on US employee salaries, $357,000 in film costs, $850,000 in film production costs, $244,000 in "professional services" - thought to be Washington lobbyists - and $1.07 million in travel expenses . Nearly $400,000 was spent on office rent in San Diego."

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/mar/08/kony-2012-what-s-the-story?newsfeed=true

When the fuck did everyone become such experts on the relative efficacy of interventions in war torn clusterfucks around the world?

Last saturday.

If you knew much about me you would know I have a huge interest in humanitarian work and organisations. (Dream of mine to someday work for the Red Cross surprisingly enough w/ child soldiers).

Okay thanks for the figures. Now highlight for me which one(s) you have a problem with, and what you think more appropriate spends would've been for all the work they've done which you're obviously intimately familiar with?

The 1.7 million on Salaries (almost 20% - volunteers should be that volunteers) and 1.07 million on travel expenses (they are a company of 100 people) are ridiculously high. Most charitable organisations work with airlines to get free travel and make their volunteers work for free, a very small portion of administrative staff will actually be paid (these are the people at the top, like the CFO and those that actually have to manage a large portion of the business).

The film costs are reasonable given that physical film is expensive but this could have easily been reduced by filming in digital. The film was made in 2003 and digital film has been around a lot longer. They basically went for the most expensive production values. In most documentary crews you aim to have the minimal amount of people possible for the maximum possible result. I don't think the organisation knows how to make an effective film for a lot less.

Gasland had a budget of about 20k and was a far more effective use of money.

To clarify my position:
- I think it's great and essential that people are challenging Kony2012, and delving into their finances.
- I haven't made up my mind about them yet
- I only ask that people that are looking to slam them do so rationally. Sensible people shouldn't be convinced by arguments like 'zomg 1 million in travel? That's a large number!!' (as has been prevalent in the bloggersphere) when we have nfi what that comprises, how many people were travelling, where they were going etc. Maybe it's a totally reasonable figure, along with the others. These are important questions to ask, but having questions isn't the same as having a point.

See this is what I'm talking about. Their travel costs are "ridiculously high" relative to what? Do you know how much it costs for all their staff/gear to travel about in Central Africa? I don't, but I bet you don't either, and this should be pretty crucial knowledge to have before making a judgement on the ridiculousness of their spend. They've explained on their website that travel in that region is freakin expensive, and they've travelled all around the world to do talks and stuff too - seems feasible to me.

Sorry haven't read entire thread, but did they need 100 staff to make one 30 minute documentary??

I'm not gonna argue with you Yak (you seem to want to love them so much, despite glaringly obvious issues in their books relative to other NGOs), I just know there's no way that they will ever get a cent of my money with that financial statement..

37% spend on doing the actual work doesnt do it for me. I can sympathise that maybe they started from the position "how can we get something done?" But it just seems like too little.

I like that they managed to make this an issue. I like that they may have pulled in a huge audience who need to be told about these things (as opposed to a whole different audience who seek out the information and seek out the organisation to support on the basis of that knowledge)

I'm assuming the money I give to Avaaz is mostly spent well. It *seems* like a lean and mean kind of an organisation.

Fair enough.. I prob won't end up donating either, but I do believe they have good intentions, so that's enough to give them the benefit of the doubt for now until something more concrete comes out of the digging people are doing. I'd rather risk letting a 'scam' operate for another couple of weeks than risk contributing to destroying what could be an awesome/new way of uniting the world for good, before it even gets started..

Here Onehappy - http://www.avaaz.org/en/avaaz_expenses_and_financial_information

They do spend it wisely from the look.

I like the awareness they have created, I don't like the organisation's financial statement or the way that they made out like the situation was still actually happening. That seems very duplicitous to me.

Can people please stop saying this :s Their "actual work" is getting Kony arrested. They state in the doco that is their only and entire aim for this campaign. Making films and spreading awareness is absolutely integral to that aim with their strategy, so implying that it's not "actual work" is deceptive. They also help with programs though by funnelling 37% to those.

Looks like an 86% spend on the work, which is fantastic.
I assume because they target a knowledgeable segment of the market, so not a lot of fancy marketing is needed.

Ok so that's a fair point

I disagree. They may be bringing attention to the matter, but it isn't like you guys are saying "lol stfu scammers!" and leaving it at that; you're actively suggesting more effective alternatives.
While I vaguely agree with Yaks crusade against any nay-saying for the greater purpose, I don't think his extended argument is fair when you're simply suggesting more effective options after attention has been garnered, as that seems perfectly logical to me.

Who knows whether they're more effective though? This is a new approach to an old problem and we're all yet to see just how effective it could be. For people who are concerned about the company and still want to help, there are viable alternatives sure - I support those options too.

What I'm rejecting is the automatical and cynical dismissal of their method ('changing your status does nothing', 'they're wasting money on marketing' etc etc) without even really giving it a chance. I think it's an exciting premise - and it's a shame a lot of that positive energy is going to be drowned out by everyone choosing to focus only on the potential negatives here.

bahahaha is it wrong that made me laugh? I still haven't watched the vid but taking out KONY.. he'd just be replaced by another despot. Fixing the system from the ground up is the way to go.

work? volunteers should be volunteers man. I hope you're not gonna get asked to be paid or anything.

yeah, but if you look those figures they tend to spend an almost fixed amount (well it goes up slightly) on admin costs. They only get to spend more on programs because they get more money on particular years.

The simple fact is that you can't run a charity without spending money on admin/management.

The red cross hires countless managers, lawyers, admin, accountants etc. These people can't (nor should they) be expected to work for free. If they didn't have good staff they wouldn't be able to spend any of the money effectively.

I've been considering doing 'work' like this for a little while now.. I'd have to find somewhere that actually pays me though, or at least gives me free accomodation/food, cause otherwise how would I live

A lot of the top multi-national charities are pretty hard to get into.

A friend of mine just applied for a job at the Red Cross. He's got degrees in law and politics from UoA, and masters degrees from the Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris and Georgeown University. He speaks two languages, and has worked for the ministry of justice, and interned at an NGO in the Europe.

So yeah, basically he has an awesome CV, but it's required to get a job at the red cross... they only employ the best.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1203/S00084/kony-2012-or-how-not-to-do-charity.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/16/kony-2012-campaigner-detained

exhaustion, dehydration, malnutrition ....

rofl !

I laughed.

hmm credibility issues ....

I guess his fragile personality structure has crumbled under the pressure (or possibly with his realisation of the true nature of what he has been fronting ...)

Charlie Broker absolutely destroyed any possibility of the credibility of the organisation for me.

the full version of this is actually quite disturbing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWACLKaOC08


so now they want to "end a war" - by starting another war?

oh yeh, history proves that ALWAYS works....

here's a photo of the dickheads posing with weapons in a conflict they do not understand:


http://www.scarlettlion.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GlennaGordon_InvisibleChildrenA.jpg

sick find justhanging, how'd ya dig that up?

well you can't ever underestimate a lawyer's research skills

It's pretty widely published. Is in the large image I posted earlier.

http://www.tmz.com/2012/03/18/jason-russell-video-naked-meltdown-kony/#.T2Wfv5iUw20

watch this, then answer the question:

what is wrong with Jason?


A) Kony's pet Voodoo priest has just done a black magic number on him

B) He's on a chemical high

C) His closeted gay persona has finally broken free from the repression of a fundamentalist Christian upbringing

D) He's choreographing moves for his next viral video

E) He's just tired, thirsty, and hungry

Reportedly on a meth bender.

Sounds more like acid.

KINKY 2012

sarcasm fail

surely you're not suggesting this good Christian Evangelist is taking DRUGS, are you?
that sure would be naughty

where did god diss drugs?

not just oil, minerals too - several trillion dollars worth.

Uncle Sam says "yum, I'll have some of that!"

KONY 2012 = GREAT excuse to get more American troops on African soil

exactly! if he turned water into wine then no doubt he turned some candy into E (probably where they first got the nickname)

I thought it was the son with the childish water wine trick

god created the world in six or seven days, right... now that suggests some serious shit us lot aren't privy to going down or up somewhere there's chicks with wings

god created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th, in saying that we don't really know how long that could have been because the bible also says that a day to god could have been thousands of years. that dude is pretty special.

http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=kony&date=today 3-m&cmpt=q

This this is definitely worth posting.

(nevermind, link working now)

Also, lolz...

Well my cynicism is well placed it would seem.

http://www.care2.com/causes/kony2012-tied-to-secretive-fundamentalist-organization.html

Invisible Children, the non-profit behind the controversial viral KONY 2012 video, shares profound ties with The Family (aka The Fellowship), the secretive fundamentalist organization widely believed to be behind Uganda’s infamous ‘Kill the Gays’ bill.

The group follows the doctrine of Dominionism: conspiring to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action with the goal of either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

Sigh

Well, although I still believe they deserved the initial benefit of the doubt, that doubt is now removed.
I hereby retract my optimism and join the cynical bandwagon with you guys