Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Quality childcare in a
welcoming & supportive environment

Does Movember take a cut from ‘donations’ for profit?

By I-filed - 30 October 2008 40

A friend of mine participated in Movember last year – but was disgusted afterwards, he told me, when he discovered the organisers take quite a cut from the proceeds. He nominated 40 per cent, but I don’t know if that’s true …

Does anyone know how Movember’s finances work?

100 per cent of funds raised should be going to the cause …


What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
40 Responses to
Does Movember take a cut from ‘donations’ for profit?
Aurelius 9:52 am 31 Oct 08

I was told a few months back that the rubber glove examinations are no longer required.

But as for those whinging about charities that cover costs – stop and think for a moment. If they ran at a loss every time, they’d stop after a year or two. So a charity uses 17% to cover the costs of their work? So what. Do you go to work for free every day? Grow up!

Danman 9:52 am 31 Oct 08

Just to break a common stereotype, prostate exam is done via blood test these days.

Most men are to chickensh1t of being digitally raped to get checked – so go get a blood test – make sure you’re all good…

neanderthalsis 9:46 am 31 Oct 08

I don’t know about not contributing to the real economy Frontrow, encouraging men to have their prostate checked keeps the latex glove and lube manufacturers in business. 😛

realityskin 9:43 am 31 Oct 08

So movember have 7 people on the board, they are all unpaid for their directorships.

In 2007, the administration costs were $691,000.

That covers 8 full time staff, office rental, web hosting, prnting and postage, the present packs, legal and auditing costs ( including software ) etc.

No one is getting rich.

** From the Annual Report you can request via email

frontrow 9:40 am 31 Oct 08

People performing activities that make no contribution to the real economy, all their funds arising from contributions made by real workers. They justify themselves by claiming their activity is beneficial to the community, a public service if you like. They have the temerity to demand payment for this rather than donating their time. Shameful. Surely such a thing could never happen in this fair city.

Jim Jones 9:38 am 31 Oct 08

Thanks for posting the actual figures realityskin. Interesting stuff to check out – I’ve got a fair idea of how complex such things can be (through prior experience with organisations such as RSPCA and Red Cross), but events based charity is a slightly different beast.

realityskin 9:26 am 31 Oct 08

I-filed said :

How much can the actual costs be for a one-month promo?

One month promo, but 12 month organisation that processes over 15 million dollars.


I-filed 9:17 am 31 Oct 08

I’d only support Movember if the only costs ‘skimmed’ were non-salary. How much can the actual costs be for a one-month promo? Can’t people donate their time? I’d like to know more detail about how much the founders are paying themselves for their bright idea. Whether they give some money to a cause isn’t the issue – they clearly do. The issue is whether they are profiting unreasonably.

neanderthalsis 9:16 am 31 Oct 08

yeah, and I don’t even drink the swill.

poptop 9:13 am 31 Oct 08

Brisbane Man of MOvember and they gave you VB?

Shame, shame, shame.

neanderthalsis 9:10 am 31 Oct 08

Today tonight or ACA (one of the banal infotainment shows for the commonfolk) did an article on MOvember when it first began saying they skimmed a fair whack off the top, the organisers were driving flash cars and giving themselves huge salaries (from memory an SS ute was classed as a luxury sports car).

MOvember came back on the other show with audited statements to show they only covered costs and the salaries of the staff were in line with market remuneration for a smallish charity.

MOvember do some great work in promoting mens physical and mental health, get on board and grow a mo…

Disclaimer: I was awarded Best Mo in Character (for my Odd Job impersonation) and Brisbane Man of MOvember in 2007; I won a years supply of VB for my troubles.

harvyk1 8:50 am 31 Oct 08

“100 per cent of funds raised should be going to the cause”

In an ideal world yes, but as realityskin pointed out there are a lot of things which cost real money, and the people who provide these services full time still need to live themselves.

Jonathon Reynolds said :

Was it the Red Cross that had outrageous overheads some years ago (has it changed)?

I don’t think it was the red cross, but yes there was a few “charities” a few years ago which where operating with higher 80% costs, there was even a couple of cases (in the sponsor a child type area) which the “charity” kept the money, and sent across photos and letters from children which had already died.

realityskin 6:39 am 31 Oct 08

industry average is 17%, i think movember fell in at 10% , quite reasonable

Jonathon Reynolds 12:32 am 31 Oct 08

Was it the Red Cross that had outrageous overheads some years ago (has it changed)?

realityskin 11:57 pm 30 Oct 08

er no

apart from

Administration Costs

* Audit and accounting costs
* Legal costs
* Salaries for the admin support staff which at its peak was 8 people
* Insurance
* Telecommunications and computer equipment
* Office rent and general office running costs
* Printing
* Postage

Fundraising Costs

* Salaries for staff processing and receipting donations which at its peak was 6 people
* Development of the systems and technology to process over half a million individual donations securely
* Bank fees
* Travel


Surplus Retained

At the end of the 2007 campaign, after all costs were paid and donations made to the PCFA and beyondblue a surplus of 1% existed. This surplus will be invested in the 2008 campaign.

it all goes to beyond blue and pcfa, they each got 6.5 MILLION last year.

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site