Charity fundraising - will it hit the wall?

As a regular runner, I'm now at that point in the year where I get asked, 'so, you running the London marathon then?'

Relieved to be able to say 'no' (the thought of a heavy training schedule in these dark nights and mornings is offputting, and the utmost respect to those who are doing it and training now), I then have to explain the ballot system and the fallback options for those who don't make it through the ballot - charity places

As an 'unlucky' entrant to the ballot, I was sent a huge glossy magazine after the results were announced, advertising a host of charities who would only be too happy for me to run for them. However, the vast majority of these charities want a deposit in advance and a minimum sponsorship target averaging £2200 to run the Virgin London marathon on their behalf.

I've never taken a charity place in any race - I've only run in races that I was able to gain entry to by paying an entrance fee or by ballot - but I have raised money for charity by running. Last year I ran both the Great North Run and the Royal Parks half marathon for Parkinsons Society, as my dad has been recently diagnosed with this condition and it therefore has a personal significance for me. My family, friends and colleagues were extremely generous yet I managed to raise just over £700 - a long way short of £2200.

A couple of friends did not sponsor me because they had recently sponsored someone else to do another activity for charity, therefore blowing their sponsorship budget for the year. This leads me to ponder whether this monopoly of charity places for the feature race in the UK running calendar is really sustainable in this financial climate?

I know charities are in a difficult position with regard to funding - I work for a charity myself and am well aware of the financial challenges they face. But part of the reason they face this is because the people who do support them are also experiencing additional pressure on their personal finances. Money is tight, VAT is increased and the cost of living is rising while many people's jobs are under threat, so an obvious expenditure to cut is charity donations.

Charity race places must be a lucrative option for charities - why else would so many of them purchase so many slots to offer out?  A charity Platinum+ package for this year's Great North Run, a fabulous event that generates massive crowds and great publicity, costs £19850 plus the charity must purchase 320 places at £46 a pop. So they must expect to significantly more for that outlay, and the GNR's total fundraising total runs to millions.

In 2007, 78% of all runners in the London Marathon raised money for charity. They won't all have taken a charity place - some, like me, will have raised money for a charity of their choice after winning a ballot place.
What concerns me is who is around to sponsor them?

I sponsored four people last year, two for Race for Life, one for a sponsored walk and another for growing a moustache during November! I also sponsored myself ie gave some money to Parkinsons Society to round up the total I raised.

But people are now overstretched financially. Every penny counts. If you work in an office where a couple of colleagues are running London, you may feel under pressure to sponsor them both or aleternatively sponsor neither of them. Team entries are particularly common and these must place huge pressure on colleagues or friends in common. Perhaps they do it every year? Is this still an achievement? Are people still inspired to sponsor you for a race if they know you bang out that distance twice a week? Take the example of Race for Life, where women walk or run 5k to raise money for cancer research. This is a fundraising phenomenon that is already taxing a lot of people's financial goodwill - either because they have been asked so many times to sponsor so many colleagues or friends or for the expense of entering alone. If people are starting to experience donation fatigue, will charities fill all their places? Will they be forced to drop their minimum sponsorship? Or will they just forfeit the places they have purchased and don't use, preventing someone who might raise £500 (still a healthy profit on the entrance fee) from running the London Marathon and promoting the charity in the process.

And I wonder just how many runners are forced to make up a shortfall in the promised £2200 themselves at the end of the fundraising period?

I know some of my colleagues on the lower end of the wage scale were pressed to give me £5 as a donation and I am very grateful for their financial sacrifice. I'm just glad I don't have to go round now with a begging bowl desperately trying to raise £2k again so soon after. I'm running the Berlin marathon later this year and, if asked, will suggest people donate to Parkinsons Society if they want to sponsor me. But the thought of taking on such a financial commitment in addition to the pressure of training is daunting, and potentially unsustainable in the current climate.