Are colour runs are a faux-charity scam ??

[HCcD]

Colour runs are a faux-charity scam

Allison Leonard on October 7, 2013



From the generation that brought you “YOLO” and “Live, Love, Dance” tattoos, the “colour run” has been highlighted — literally — as the next equally meaningless fad selling happiness, individuality and the promise of living in the moment.

The colour run is a 5-kilometre run where people pay to have colored cornstarch hurled at their faces and bodies. The event is a bastardization of Holi, a Hindu religious celebration.

Dyed powder was once used to colour individuals in celebration of divine love and the changing of seasons. Now, dyed cornstarch is placed in compressed tanks similar to fire extinguishers to be shot at hyped-up 20-somethings paying nearly $50 for the privilege. America!

The colour run market in North America seems to be cornered by three major players: The Color Run, Color Me Rad and Run or Dye. A quick search reveals that a number of other, similar companies are hosting the exact same “unique” experience. The idea that paying to have tinted cornstarch shot at you will help you find happiness has been described as “the best legal scam since the pet rock,” a fad created by an advertising executive who used it to amass a $5-million fortune.

Though the run certainly has some benefits for participants, like memories forever preserved in Facebook photos of colour-drenched friends, and the obvious physical and mental benefits of general exercise, these hardly measure up to what entrants are being sold.

Color Me Rad offers a “guarantee that your outlook will be brighter” after participating in its 5-kilometre cornstarch explosion, and that’s only one of many such outlandish promises.

All major color run companies note that a portion of their profit is given to local or national charities, though the amount varies based on the charitable organization and the size of the event.

Alaskan reporter Laurel Andrews crunched the numbers for the Anchorage Color Run where the charity of choice, The Boys’ and Girls’ Club, was given a maximum of 3.33 per cent of the $300,000 profit — and only after they supplied upwards of 250 volunteers.

Not all partner organizations are even registered charities. The recent Kitchener, Ont. Color Me Rad event was partnered with Triton Sports, a sport event management company. Triton Sports’ only involvement was to recruit volunteers from local Kitchener sports teams. Color Me Rad donated a set amount per volunteer to that volunteer’s sport team.

Triton Sports reported that roughly 7,000 people were registered for the Kitchener run. At $45 per person, the registration fees brought in $315,000. Of course, overhead costs are a factor. Some simple and very liberal math based on numbers provided by the City of Kitchener outline the cost of a colour run:

•After-party space: free
•Policing and security: $5,000
•Road closures: $2,000
•The unknown (travel, set up, staffing, clean up): an estimated $20,000
•Total costs: $27,000
•Net profit: 288,000

If these unofficial figures are anywhere near accurate, Color Me Rad’s profit far outweighs the charitable donation to Kitchener youth sports teams of just $8,000.

This leads to a question of whether colour runs are donating, or if they’re milking a charitable reputation to receive cheap, contracted labour for an incredible profit.

If running through a spectrum of dust is your thing, then yes, it’s probably a fun event. But don’t expect to find inner peace in a colour-induced, haze, and definitely don’t consider signing up an act of charity. Your entrance fee definitely helps make the corporation running the show richer, might help a local organization, and likely won’t help you stay happy beyond whatever joy you reap from ‘likes’ on your rainbow of new profile pictures.




http://www.thealbatross.ca/27335/colour-runs-are-a-faux-charity-scam

[turd ferguson]

Oh Noes! Somebody is making a profit!!!!!

[phorunner]

lol. did this and the electro-dash for fun. found discounts on both, I think they cost me ~$15-20 each. Got a cool shirt, had fun, brought friends who otherwise don't run. Most importantly, they were a lot of fun.

My only gripe is both measured out ~4k, not 5k. But whatever. Cheap and fun. And great photos for Facebook. Why not?

(sidebar, the official race photos were something like $6 for both of them - I wish other photo companies would take note - I'd be willing to bet they more than hit their breakeven because more people bought them)

[gnu]

Oh Noes! Somebody is making a profit!!!!!

This...

Seriously, I don't think they oversell the charity aspect - they mention they support a local charity or community organization, which they do...

The idea that paying to have tinted cornstarch shot at you will help you find happiness has been described as “the best legal scam since the pet rock,” a fad created by an advertising executive who used it to amass a $5-million fortune.

The pet rock wasn't a scam - it was a joke that went "viral" before there was such a thing as going viral. Critics are just bitter that they didn't think of it sooner and make $5M.

Though the run certainly has some benefits for participants, like memories forever preserved in Facebook photos of colour-drenched friends, and the obvious physical and mental benefits of general exercise, these hardly measure up to what entrants are being sold.

Color Me Rad offers a “guarantee that your outlook will be brighter” after participating in its 5-kilometre cornstarch explosion, and that’s only one of many such outlandish promises.

This is so obvious I can't believe I am even typing it - "brighter" is a play on all the colour - it's not an outlandish promise of happiness! What the heck? Does anyone who signs up for a colour run feel they are going to be dusted with happiness powder? Do people who have done one feel ripped off on Monday morning??

[Samantha]

Oh Noes! Somebody is making a profit!!!!!

This...

Seriously, I don't think they oversell the charity aspect - they mention they support a local charity or community organization, which they do...

The idea that paying to have tinted cornstarch shot at you will help you find happiness has been described as “the best legal scam since the pet rock,” a fad created by an advertising executive who used it to amass a $5-million fortune.

The pet rock wasn't a scam - it was a joke that went "viral" before there was such a thing as going viral. Critics are just bitter that they didn't think of it sooner and make $5M.

Though the run certainly has some benefits for participants, like memories forever preserved in Facebook photos of colour-drenched friends, and the obvious physical and mental benefits of general exercise, these hardly measure up to what entrants are being sold.

Color Me Rad offers a “guarantee that your outlook will be brighter” after participating in its 5-kilometre cornstarch explosion, and that’s only one of many such outlandish promises.

This is so obvious I can't believe I am even typing it - "brighter" is a play on all the colour - it's not an outlandish promise of happiness! What the heck? Does anyone who signs up for a colour run feel they are going to be dusted with happiness powder? Do people who have done one feel ripped off on Monday morning??

Yeah this article is really stupid. I bet the author is disappointed there is no Pandora.

[jgore]

Oh Noes! Somebody is making a profit!!!!!

I agree that the article is ridiculous.

[Stampie]

Oh Noes! Somebody is making a profit!!!!!

This...

Seriously, I don't think they oversell the charity aspect - they mention they support a local charity or community organization, which they do...

Exactly!

I shared this on FB, actualy I posted it on my DW's wall because we had talked about this event last night. I just can't see myself forking out $50+ for this event, or for that matter $65-70 for the Energizer Night Run in Vancouver.

Though the run certainly has some benefits for participants, like memories forever preserved in Facebook photos of colour-drenched friends, and the obvious physical and mental benefits of general exercise, these hardly measure up to what entrants are being sold.

Color Me Rad offers a “guarantee that your outlook will be brighter” after participating in its 5-kilometre cornstarch explosion, and that’s only one of many such outlandish promises.

This is so obvious I can't believe I am even typing it - "brighter" is a play on all the colour - it's not an outlandish promise of happiness! What the heck? Does anyone who signs up for a colour run feel they are going to be dusted with happiness powder? Do people who have done one feel ripped off on Monday morning??

Amen sista!

[ian]

This does bring up an interesting point, though: we're completely used to seeing running events where a charitable affiliation represents a tiny fraction of the overall event budget. Does this happen very often outside the running community or is an outsider justified in being uncomfortable with the mismatch?

[turd ferguson]

This does bring up an interesting point, though: we're completely used to seeing running events where a charitable affiliation represents a tiny fraction of the overall event budget. Does this happen very often outside the running community or is an outsider justified in being uncomfortable with the mismatch?

In my neighbourhood, as an example, we have commercial operators that put on a car show or an outdoor movie. They charge admission, they donate a fixed amount or some portion to charity, but its a for-profit thing. I also understand that people get uncomfortable with mismatch. As long as they aren't overselling the charity it doesn't bother me but I can understand that some people think differently.

[jgore]

This does bring up an interesting point, though: we're completely used to seeing running events where a charitable affiliation represents a tiny fraction of the overall event budget. Does this happen very often outside the running community or is an outsider justified in being uncomfortable with the mismatch?

Most of the races I know of are organized by volunteers and any money beyond race expenses goes to the affiliated charity. With the events we're talking about here, I would take issue with them only if the event was marketed as a charity fundraiser. Saying they are giving a portion of the funds raised to a charity is very different than using the charity as a major selling point.

[ian]

This does bring up an interesting point, though: we're completely used to seeing running events where a charitable affiliation represents a tiny fraction of the overall event budget. Does this happen very often outside the running community or is an outsider justified in being uncomfortable with the mismatch?

In my neighbourhood, as an example, we have commercial operators that put on a car show or an outdoor movie. They charge admission, they donate a fixed amount or some portion to charity, but its a for-profit thing. I also understand that people get uncomfortable with mismatch. As long as they aren't overselling the charity it doesn't bother me but I can understand that some people think differently.

I agree that for-profit fundraisers exist elsewhere, but I'm curious about the relative amounts of profit and fundraising. For example, when DQ donates a buck per treat to the childrens' hospitals, they're likely still turning a profit, but it's clear that the donated amount is a substantial portion of the sale. This sort of ratio normalizes many people's expectations of how other fundraisers should work, so that if a big city marathon with a six figure budget manages to donate a couple thousand bucks to a cause which was featured prominently in the promotions, some people are going to see this as a shady dealing.

[turd ferguson]

This does bring up an interesting point, though: we're completely used to seeing running events where a charitable affiliation represents a tiny fraction of the overall event budget. Does this happen very often outside the running community or is an outsider justified in being uncomfortable with the mismatch?

In my neighbourhood, as an example, we have commercial operators that put on a car show or an outdoor movie. They charge admission, they donate a fixed amount or some portion to charity, but its a for-profit thing. I also understand that people get uncomfortable with mismatch. As long as they aren't overselling the charity it doesn't bother me but I can understand that some people think differently.

I agree that for-profit fundraisers exist elsewhere, but I'm curious about the relative amounts of profit and fundraising. For example, when DQ donates a buck per treat to the childrens' hospitals, they're likely still turning a profit, but it's clear that the donated amount is a substantial portion of the sale. This sort of ratio normalizes many people's expectations of how other fundraisers should work, so that if a big city marathon with a six figure budget manages to donate a couple thousand bucks to a cause which was featured prominently in the promotions, some people are going to see this as a shady dealing.

Agree. And what I'm saying is that some people would even call the DQ thing a faux-charity scam.

[jgore]

... if a big city marathon with a six figure budget manages to donate a couple thousand bucks to a cause which was featured prominently in the promotions, some people are going to see this as a shady dealing.

Exactly. It all depends on how they market the affiliation with the charity.

[turd ferguson]

... if a big city marathon with a six figure budget manages to donate a couple thousand bucks to a cause which was featured prominently in the promotions, some people are going to see this as a shady dealing.

Exactly. It all depends on how they market the affiliation with the charity.

Also, "six figure budget" is meaningless. If its a big marathon run by a local foundation that reinvests the proceeds locally, they get more slack than something run by (say) Rock and Roll.

[phorunner]

Not to sound like a variety of 4-7 letter expletives, but I do these things for myself. Yeah, it's nice when there's a charity that benefits, but mostly, it's something I do for me. It may sounds selfish, but I don't think I'm the only one.

Not to mention, I don't even think Color Me Rad even said they were giving a % of the proceeds a charity - so they're not really lying. They're putting on an event.

BTW, there WAS an optional promo code for a $10 donation to Big Brother/Big Sisters.

[gnu]

Not to sound like a variety of 4-7 letter expletives, but I do these things for myself. Yeah, it's nice when there's a charity that benefits, but mostly, it's something I do for me. It may sounds selfish, but I don't think I'm the only one.

Not to mention, I don't even think Color Me Rad even said they were giving a % of the proceeds a charity - so they're not really lying. They're putting on an event.

BTW, there WAS an optional promo code for a $10 donation to Big Brother/Big Sisters.

Buried in the FAQs on the Color Me Rad site:

Does this benefit charity?

You think we’re just going to keep all your money? A portion of the proceeds will go to benefit a local charity in the community. Check out each race location to see whom. That’s right—we just used “whom.”

I don't think that sounds selfish, and no, you're not the only one. I run for me and race for fun, and I support the charities I support - those two activities sometimes overlap, but not necessarily, and I don't feel bad about that.

[dgrant]

Thank goodness there are bloggers out there to get indignant on behalf of the specified charities who say they are thrilled and looking forward to participating next year.

[ian]

I have no issues with anyone who willingly participates in an event for whatever personal reasons drive them, provided they know what they're getting into. However, I do think that the original article raised a valid question:

This leads to a question of whether colour runs are donating, or if they’re milking a charitable reputation to receive cheap, contracted labour for an incredible profit.

Do you suppose that any of the people who participate in events like this are under the belief that there is a major charitable component to the entry fee? Perhaps even to the extent that they might be donating less to other causes that they'd otherwise support? If so, it is fair game to put these companies under the microscope.

[turd ferguson]

I have no issues with anyone who willingly participates in an event for whatever personal reasons drive them, provided they know what they're getting into. However, I do think that the original article raised a valid question:

This leads to a question of whether colour runs are donating, or if they’re milking a charitable reputation to receive cheap, contracted labour for an incredible profit.

Do you suppose that any of the people who participate in events like this are under the belief that there is a major charitable component to the entry fee? Perhaps even to the extent that they might be donating less to other causes that they'd otherwise support? If so, it is fair game to put these companies under the microscope.

Its a good question. We've talked before about for-profit businesses (again, use Rock and Roll as an example) that use volunteer labour and why people do it, the answer seems to be that people are comfortable "giving back" to the running community at large even when its a for profit race. I wonder if the volunteers are influenced by the charitable component as well, though.

[La]

I have no issues with anyone who willingly participates in an event for whatever personal reasons drive them, provided they know what they're getting into. However, I do think that the original article raised a valid question:

This leads to a question of whether colour runs are donating, or if they’re milking a charitable reputation to receive cheap, contracted labour for an incredible profit.

Do you suppose that any of the people who participate in events like this are under the belief that there is a major charitable component to the entry fee? Perhaps even to the extent that they might be donating less to other causes that they'd otherwise support? If so, it is fair game to put these companies under the microscope.

Its a good question. We've talked before about for-profit businesses (again, use Rock and Roll as an example) that use volunteer labour and why people do it, the answer seems to be that people are comfortable "giving back" to the running community at large even when its a for profit race. I wonder if the volunteers are influenced by the charitable component as well, though.

That's an interesting point. Could you imagine the costs if RDs had to PAY people to be marshals or hand out cups of water or take chips off people's shoes? They wouldn't make a cent, or we'd have astronomically high entry fees. It certainly does make me stop and think about which races I'd want to volunteer my time for.

There's also an assumption in the non-running public that ALL runs are for charity (why on earth would people run otherwise?).

[ian]

I wonder if the volunteers are influenced by the charitable component as well, though.

Flipping sides in the argument (and tying in with Dave's point), I have been one of those volunteers before: Multisports Canada (not to be confused with a similarly named organization in Ontario) is a for-profit company that puts on a number of triathlons and running races out west. They often recruit volunteers through local sport clubs and pay the clubs a small donation (something like $10 per day per volunteer). From their standpoint, it's a cheap source of somewhat motivated labor, and for the volunteers, they see a tangible amount of fundraising for their club.

[Habs4ever]

There's also an assumption in the non-running public that ALL runs are for charity (why on earth would people run otherwise?).

Very true. Most of my friends** are non runners and they used to always ask what charity I was running for. They now know that I'm running/racing for me.

**non-Maniac friends

[FishPants]

All that article said to me was "If you can come up with a cool running idea, you can make lots of money"

So now I just need a cool running idea...

[turd ferguson]

I wonder if the volunteers are influenced by the charitable component as well, though.

Flipping sides in the argument (and tying in with Dave's point), I have been one of those volunteers before: Multisports Canada (not to be confused with a similarly named organization in Ontario) is a for-profit company that puts on a number of triathlons and running races out west. They often recruit volunteers through local sport clubs and pay the clubs a small donation (something like $10 per day per volunteer). From their standpoint, it's a cheap source of somewhat motivated labor, and for the volunteers, they see a tangible amount of fundraising for their club.

This years medals (I did 3 of their races) were bottle openers.

[turd ferguson]

There's also an assumption in the non-running public that ALL runs are for charity (why on earth would people run otherwise?).

Very true. Most of my friends** are non runners and they used to always ask what charity I was running for. They now know that I'm running/racing for me.

**non-Maniac friends

My parents used to ask the same thing. I think it was in part because charity races were always on the news so they thought all races were charity races. Plus they KNEW that I wasn't very fast so the idea of me doing a competitive sport struck them as surprising.