Better choice? Perhaps not. The article is 6 years old. Not only is the arpnow.org link dead but arpnow itself seems to have ceased to exist. And the article comes from Copley New Service, a part of Copley Press...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copley_PressIn the late 1970s, the American media reported that the Copley Press was used as a front by the Central Intelligence Agency. Reporters Joe Trento and Dave Roman claimed that James S. Copley, who served as publisher until 1973, had cooperated with the CIA since its founding in 1947. They also reported that a subsidiary division, Copley News Service, was used in Latin America by the CIA as a front. Trento and Roman also said that reporters at the Copley-owned San Diego Union and Evening News spied on antiwar protesters for the FBI. They alleged that, at the height of these operations, at least two dozen Copley employees were simultaneously working for the CIA. James S. Copley was also accused of involvement in the CIA-funded Inter-American Press Association.Credible source? Not in my opinion. Just as the previous link from another poster is not credible in my opinion Here’s one that is, also previously listed...
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3205This shows that they are an efficient fundraising organization. They give 88%, 88 cents of every dollar raised, to the causes they represent. They are not running a scam. In contrast, this link lists some organizations which might give you pause for thought...
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=28These 10 charities are not living up to their missions. Each spends more than 50% of its budget paying for-profit fundraising professionals to solicit your hard-earned money. They are ranked by the percentage of their total functional expenses spent on professional fundraising fees. As a result, very little of the charity's spending is directed towards its programs and services.Rank Charity Program Expenses Professional Fundraising Fees
1 Disabled Veterans Associations 4.6% 94.3%
2 Children's Charitable Foundation 10.3% 87.3%
3 Firefighters Charitable Foundation 8.3% 86.4%
4 Disabled Police Officers of America 11.4% 85.9%
5 Disabled Police Officers Counseling Center 11.8% 85.7%
6 Operation Lookout 12.6% 80.8%
7 Wishing Well Foundation USA 10.3% 78.3%
8 Children's Charity Fund, Inc. 5.7% 78.1%
9 Coalition Against Breast Cancer 18.3% 78.1%
10 Children With Hairloss 24.5% 72.3%
The Disabled Veterans Associations gives less than 5 cents of every dollar raised to the causes they represent. The Children’s Charitable Foundation gives about 10 cents of every dollar raised to the causes the represent. Etc. All of the organizations in this list have an efficiency this is far less than the 88 cents on the dollar of the AARP.
Back to the OP... Your post implies that $8 million per year is OK for a sponsorship dollar amount but that $14 million is not. So you’re not opposed to the advertising, just the dollar amount? My understanding is that $8 million would have gotten them the “AA” but they decided to spend the extra cash, add the “RP” and get the whole “AARP” on the car instead. Kidding aside, one assumes that they would pay less if they could, but apparently this is what it costs to advertise in NASCAR.
Advertising that’s not just plastered over the car in front of millions of TV viewers on Sunday but perhaps you’ll also be seeing Jeff Gordon’s smiling face on TV and print ads touting the “Drive To End Hunger” campaign. Will they recoup their $14 million per year investment? With their past history of efficiency I would guess they will, time will tell. Could $14 million be better spent in providing for the hungry? Well sure. Some posters, OP included, have made a great point that contributions placed directly into the hands of the hungry would be a marvelous thing. Could the AARP better spend $14 million?
No. They’re professional fund raisers. They do marketing analysis. They do demographic studies. They are a successful business. If, in their professional opinion, there was a better advertising option they would have taken it. If you disagree with their methodology then feel free to use your own multi-million dollar corporation to achieve national exposure for a good cause, while at the same time maintaining a steady flow of cash to keep your business solvent.
This costs you the tax payer nothing. The AARP gets no funding from the government as several posters have erroneously stated or implied.
If you don’t care for the politics of the AARP don’t join. If you don’t care for the lobbying the AARP does for preserving social security benefits don’t join. Good luck separating fact from fiction and opinion from slander in those regards. As is normal with politics the bullsh!t gets pretty deep.
Politics aside, the bottom line is that next year you’ll be seeing that AARP “Drive To End Hunger” car going fast and turning left. The choice on whether to contribute to the AARP, your local food pantry or drive on down to Mickey D’s will be not only yours but also a choice for the
millions of NASCAR fans who will see this sponsorship slogan in action.
