Oxfam

I'll just say this clearly in a new thread (partly because of problems with
the "wrapping" of text when responding to Michael Adams's posting -　perhaps
he would be kind enough to tweak whatever needs to be tweaked so this
doesn't happen again - partly because I buried my main conclusions at the
end of a very long posting). So here they are again:

Overall, Oxfam shops are not raising significantly more money for charity
than they were in the mid-90s (they still run at around 10 million pounds or
so net profit a year), nor is Oxfam as a whole raising significantly more
money than it was (it's still in the region of 85-95 million a year).
(Sources: http://oxfam.org.uk/atwork/anrev97/ar12.htm and "Annual Review"
file, p. 26, downloaded from
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/atwork/annrev02/review.htm).

However, the same sources show that Oxfam's administrative costs have shot
up hugely in the past few years, from a total of 11.1 million pounds in
1996-7 to 74.5 in 2001-2 (discounting promotional costs, which have also
increased from 5.3 to 8.3 million pounds). The bulk of the increase is
accounted for by Oxfam's shops, where overheads in 2001-2 stood at 54.6
million a year (nearly five times the *overall* total six years previously).

Michael says:

I very much doubt if anyone on this Ng is sufficently knowledgeable
or qualified to addres such issues

and suggests I take up the matter in other circles or with Oxfam themselves.
He may or may not be right about what people on this newsgroup are qualified
to do, but I certainly don't have answers to the questions that arise in my
mind when comparing the two sets of Oxfam figures (1996-7 and 2001-2), and
if I want the answers I may indeed have to look elsewhere for them. Perhaps
"New Labour" is hitting charities in a way even Thatcher didn't, perhaps
market forces are behind spiralling costs, perhaps Oxfam's way of presenting
its figures is opaque, or my way of interpreting them is at fault - at this
stage I just don't know.

Whatever the reason, for me at least, the figures are a prima facie cause
for concern (far more of the money I give them, either directly or by buying
things in their shops, is apparently being soaked up in overheads than just
a few years ago), and Tom's anti-Oxfam rant (Hay on Wye thread) takes on a
new slant when seen in the light of those figures. Michael tells me that he
doesn't share my concerns -

Sorry not intersted

- and assures me no one else on rcb does either -

You're on your own here

- so I'm sorry to have bored you all with all of this!

Some of the other points he and I are debating I'll just drop - life's too
short - but there is one area in which he is demanding satisfaction from me,
and that is in my response to his attack on "barbarian" librarians in his
area.

Firstly, to anwer his question, of course I don't condone such practices as
ripping out endpapers and stamping books in a frenzy. On the other hand, he
wishes me to withdraw the accusation that he is attacking

decent, honest civil servants who work in libraries, and
who have doubtless exerted themselves on countless occasions to help
members of the public get hold of material via catalogue searches,
the inter-library loans system, in general?

If he is telling me that the librarians in his area, in addition to their
unfortunate way of defacing discarded books, are not otherwise honest and
decent civil servants, that they do not help members of the public to locate
material via catalogue searches, the inter-library loans system, etc., and
(in short) do not provide an efficient library service that serves the needs
of ratepayers in his area, then I do indeed withdraw my comments as he
requests. I would recommend him, furthermore, to take up the matter with his
local council.

However, if the librarians in his area are providing the same basic library
service as in other areas of the country, then my comments stand. He's
prepared to have a go at librarians, but he wants to claim the moral high
ground by a knee-jerk reaction that charity shops are above reproach. I'm
taking a more pragmatic view, that Oxfam - and some other charities - are
(as Tom says, and as I have also observed over the last few years) putting
indifferent goods behind glass cases at high prices, and trying to look at
what might be the root causes behind that. The people laying down the
pricing policy at Oxfam are drawing a salary just as much as the librarians
in your local library, and their actions are - should be - subject to the
same scrutiny.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

One thing which is being overlooked on the question of Oxfam revenue and
overheads is their major change in policy over the last 5 years to open
specialised secondhand bookshops and Record/Music shops. As has already been
mentioned they now sell on ABE and have opened many secondhand bookshops across
the country.

Clearly Oxfam have employed some high salaried individuals and I know from
experience with my local Oxfam Bookshop that its a struggle to make ends meet
because of the high overheads encountered being primarily having to pay high
street rents. I believe the lease on the local bookshop expires next year and
it will be interesting to see if they continue with this venture or ultimately
abandon the idea.

Other charities are now also opening specialised second hand bookshops with my
local town being a pilot scheme for one charity. They are paying high rents and
are struggling to cover overheads and they are now selling books on Ebay to try
and make ends meet.

Unfortunately many of the high profile charities now employ senior and area
management from the retail sector paying them very substantial salaries to come
up with crazy ideas but for what ultimate increase in profit who knows?

Stan,
Giltedge Books

I said:

Some of the other points he and I are debating I'll just
drop - life's too short -

Michael replied:

You've lost those points, in other words.

Hey, what's all this about points? Sounds heavy! How many have I won or lost
sofar? I started off interested in the idea of whether or not it's
appropriate to criticise charity shops, and I've moved on to getting quite
engrossed in the details of how Oxfam's finances have changed over the last
few years. Can't we discuss these things without a frigging *scorechart*?!

All I actually intended was to set aside what appeared to be distractors -
such as whether or not the lease had expired on the premises of the
booksellers in your area - in order to keep the discussion manageable and
focus on issues which were emerging as central. How I lost points because of
this beats me, but chalk them up on your slate if it pleases you.

*You* chose to debate with *me*, don't forget.

Interesting perception. What *I* thought happened was, you chose to express
your views and I chose to express mine. Anyway, what about it?

To stick to the issue at hand, I wrote:

nor is Oxfam as a whole raising significantly more
money than it was (it's still in the region of 85-95 million a
year)

and Michael replied:

This is quite simply untrue. According to your own figures

....According to *Oxfam's* figures, you mean. Their figures show that they
raised 80.9 million net in 1996-7, and 84.6 million net in 2001-2. If you
deduct promotional costs their net profit in 1996-7 was 75.6 million in
1996-7, and 76.3 million in 2001-2. Adjusted for inflation, these figures
show no increase at all. OK, yes, my 85-95 million was a bit out; 75-85
million would be more like it. Sorry.

But that is not what you meant. You meant what I said was untrue because the
*total* figures were that

in the years 1996 - 7 they raised in total £98.1 million while
in the years 2001 - 2 they raise in total £169.4 million

You then went on to scorn my lack of understanding of what diminishing
returns means.

My understanding is that *total* income is beside the point, and I don't
know why you cited those figures back at me; it's how the income breaks down
into net profits and overheads that matters. Surely diminishing returns
means that, in order to cop an extra *net* profit beyond a certain limit, an
organisation has to incur an ever-increasing amount of overheads?

So, as I was saying, Oxfam's performance doesn't look so much like a case of
*diminishing* returns as of *zero* returns. That is, in order to achieve
essentially the *same* net profit as in 1996-7, it incurred an increase of
63.4 million pounds (= an increase of nearly 600%) in overheads - or 66.4
million pounds if promotional costs are factored in - in 2001-2.

Now, how exactly does that show

unfamiliarity with
the possible operation of the Law of Diminishing Returns as it
applies to charitable donations

?

you place those who for whatever reason, wantonly
disfigure books - thus reducing the likelihood of their being preserved
for the use of future generations - on a par with those who laughingly,
in your eyes at least, and those of your fellow cognoscenti, revere
"indifferent books" to the extent of placing them in glass cases.

No. You mistake me. I am saying that both librarians disfiguring books and
Oxfam sellers selling overpriced books behind glass cases are equally
susceptible to criticism. I am not saying that the faults of the one are
equal to the faults of the other, merely that neither is inherently beyond
reproach. I thought that much was plain.

But what you seemingly fail to appreciate in all of this, is that what
are to you "indifferent goods", may not seem so to future generations.
I owe my small collection of 17th almanacs to the fact that somebody at
least, at some point, considered these "indifferent goods", these
foolish prognostications printed on the worst paper imaginable, to
be worthy of preservation.

And what you seemingly fail to appreciate is that what people will make of
it all in two or three hundred years' time is irrelevant to observations
predicated on the fact that anyone with a bit of knowledge about the used
book market could pick up these same indifferent goods elsewhere at a
fraction of the price *today*.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

michael adams wrote (re the salaries of Oxfam managers):

I think it's a case of pay peanuts and you get monkeys, basically.

How bizarre; this all began when you criticised

the sickening degree of sneering
condescension shown by Tom in the Hay thread, towards Oxfam
and the volunteers who staff the shops

You asked in another posting

Whatever happened to irony, I wonder?

Don't fret! It appears to be alive and kicking!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

(Giltedge04) wrote in message ...
One thing which is being overlooked on the question of Oxfam revenue and
overheads is their major change in policy over the last 5 years to open
specialised secondhand bookshops and Record/Music shops. As has already been
mentioned they now sell on ABE and have opened many secondhand bookshops across
the country.

Clearly Oxfam have employed some high salaried individuals and I know from
experience with my local Oxfam Bookshop that its a struggle to make ends meet
because of the high overheads encountered being primarily having to pay high
street rents. I believe the lease on the local bookshop expires next year and
it will be interesting to see if they continue with this venture or ultimately
abandon the idea.

Other charities are now also opening specialised second hand bookshops with my
local town being a pilot scheme for one charity. They are paying high rents and
are struggling to cover overheads and they are now selling books on Ebay to try
and make ends meet.

Unfortunately many of the high profile charities now employ senior and area
management from the retail sector paying them very substantial salaries to come
up with crazy ideas but for what ultimate increase in profit who knows?

Stan,
Giltedge Books


I find it pretty interesting that many charitable organizations are
looking to selling 2nd hand books to raise money. Guess they saw all
of those wealthy bookdealers and decided they wanted a piece of THAT
action!

As far as the profits from oxfam and other charities go I haven't the
time to check the websites or reports fully, but certainly the
additional expenses could be due to more than advertising costs... I
will point out that many of the U.S. based charities (united way, red
cross) have had major financial scandals and even those without
scandals pay their senior executives and ceo's salaries that put them
WAY ahead of the average guy on the street....

Well, it seems that I will be dragged into this argument. Yet again by the
ravings of Mr Adams....

Firstly I will put my post into context. I was not in any way insulting the
staff of the Oxfam shop - I myself have voluntarily worked for Oxfam,
sorting books. However when asked on prices, which I admit was not often, I
quoted figures relative to condition, edition etc.

I also take exception to Mr Adams saying that charity shops do not take
bussiness away from bookshops - in short, he is wrong.

As he admits, he has never sold a book in his life - and is therefore less
qualified to comment on the demise of the bookshop than others, me included.
It is sad, but in the bookshop in which I work, more often than not, we fail
to get into triple figures. Thus not covering the overheads etc. Many
people, when qouted £2-3 for a modern paperback grumble and say 'but I can
pick it up for 30p at a charity shop', and therefore do not make a purchase.

Oxfam pay nothing for their stock, 4/5ths less council rates and compete
with those who are only just above water anyway.

Cheers,

Tom L-M
"John Yamamoto-Wilson" wrote in message
...
I'll just say this clearly in a new thread (partly because of problems
with
the "wrapping" of text when responding to Michael Adams's
posting -?perhaps
he would be kind enough to tweak whatever needs to be tweaked so this
doesn't happen again - partly because I buried my main conclusions at the
end of a very long posting). So here they are again:

Overall, Oxfam shops are not raising significantly more money for charity
than they were in the mid-90s (they still run at around 10 million pounds
or
so net profit a year), nor is Oxfam as a whole raising significantly more
money than it was (it's still in the region of 85-95 million a year).
(Sources: http://oxfam.org.uk/atwork/anrev97/ar12.htm and "Annual Review"
file, p. 26, downloaded from
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/atwork/annrev02/review.htm).

However, the same sources show that Oxfam's administrative costs have shot
up hugely in the past few years, from a total of 11.1 million pounds in
1996-7 to 74.5 in 2001-2 (discounting promotional costs, which have also
increased from 5.3 to 8.3 million pounds). The bulk of the increase is
accounted for by Oxfam's shops, where overheads in 2001-2 stood at 54.6
million a year (nearly five times the *overall* total six years
previously).

Michael says:

I very much doubt if anyone on this Ng is sufficently knowledgeable
or qualified to addres such issues

and suggests I take up the matter in other circles or with Oxfam
themselves.
He may or may not be right about what people on this newsgroup are
qualified
to do, but I certainly don't have answers to the questions that arise in
my
mind when comparing the two sets of Oxfam figures (1996-7 and 2001-2), and
if I want the answers I may indeed have to look elsewhere for them.
Perhaps
"New Labour" is hitting charities in a way even Thatcher didn't, perhaps
market forces are behind spiralling costs, perhaps Oxfam's way of
presenting
its figures is opaque, or my way of interpreting them is at fault - at
this
stage I just don't know.

Whatever the reason, for me at least, the figures are a prima facie cause
for concern (far more of the money I give them, either directly or by
buying
things in their shops, is apparently being soaked up in overheads than
just
a few years ago), and Tom's anti-Oxfam rant (Hay on Wye thread) takes on a
new slant when seen in the light of those figures. Michael tells me that
he
doesn't share my concerns -

Sorry not intersted

- and assures me no one else on rcb does either -

You're on your own here

- so I'm sorry to have bored you all with all of this!

Some of the other points he and I are debating I'll just drop - life's too
short - but there is one area in which he is demanding satisfaction from
me,
and that is in my response to his attack on "barbarian" librarians in his
area.

Firstly, to anwer his question, of course I don't condone such practices
as
ripping out endpapers and stamping books in a frenzy. On the other hand,
he
wishes me to withdraw the accusation that he is attacking

decent, honest civil servants who work in libraries, and
who have doubtless exerted themselves on countless occasions to help
members of the public get hold of material via catalogue searches,
the inter-library loans system, in general?

If he is telling me that the librarians in his area, in addition to their
unfortunate way of defacing discarded books, are not otherwise honest and
decent civil servants, that they do not help members of the public to
locate
material via catalogue searches, the inter-library loans system, etc., and
(in short) do not provide an efficient library service that serves the
needs
of ratepayers in his area, then I do indeed withdraw my comments as he
requests. I would recommend him, furthermore, to take up the matter with
his
local council.

However, if the librarians in his area are providing the same basic
library
service as in other areas of the country, then my comments stand. He's
prepared to have a go at librarians, but he wants to claim the moral high
ground by a knee-jerk reaction that charity shops are above reproach. I'm
taking a more pragmatic view, that Oxfam - and some other charities - are
(as Tom says, and as I have also observed over the last few years) putting
indifferent goods behind glass cases at high prices, and trying to look at
what might be the root causes behind that. The people laying down the
pricing policy at Oxfam are drawing a salary just as much as the
librarians
in your local library, and their actions are - should be - subject to the
same scrutiny.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

Michael Adams wrote:

I think you may have missed the point here, somewhat.

No, but a bit of banter never comes amiss.

THis is going around in circles. I've already pointed out that the
operation is inherently "messy" and they raise £10.5 million which
they wouldn't otherwise have done.
[snip]
and when challenged on it you simply, snip. snip, snip

Um, I'm not dodging any issue here. I've told you that they were raising the
same kind of money in 1996-7 for a tiny fraction of the overheads.

This 600% increase in overheads is totaly misleading.

OK, let's hear it...

In 2001- 2 75% of the overerheads went on the shops

overheads of 54.6 to generate an income of 65.1 thats 84%

Right.

working backwards to 1996-97 75% of the total
expenses of 11 is 7.92

That's assuming the same proportion of total overheads went on
administrating the shops, of course, which is our speculation. Anyway...

1996-7 shops overheads of 7.92 to generate a 17.1 = 46.31%

So that indeed the overheads to sales percentage of the shops
has increased from 46.32% in 1996-7 to 84% in 2001
that's an increase of 81%

Yes, overheads in relation to total sales increased by over 80%. That still
doesn't change the fact that the 54.6 million that went on shop
administration in 2001-2 is, in *absolute* terms (as opposed to in relation
to sales), in the region of 600% higher than the 7.92 million we are
assuming went on overheads in 1996-7 (I worked with the total figures, as
opposed to just the figures for the shops, since Oxfam doesn't actually tell
us how much the shop overheads were in 1996-7, but the results are much the
same).

Now while this is noteworthy, and may be explained in tems of rent
etc its very far from 600%

Ah, statistics! You can always pull the wool over people's eyes with
statistics! Overheads have increased by 600% in absolute terms, but if you
fog the issue and say, "No, *as a percentage of income* they have only
increased by 81%!" you make things sound so much better, and convince a lot
of people that the second statistic is true and the first false.

In fact, of course, *both* statistices are true; they merely show different
things. (Note that if overheads in relation to total sales went over 100%
that would mean Oxfam was spending more on its shops than it actually
received from them. The entire board would probably be sacked if things ever
reached that stage, and the idea of overheads in relation to total sales
ever approaching 600% is a practical impossibility.)

I am saying that both librarians disfiguring
books and Oxfam sellers selling overpriced books behind glass cases
are equally susceptible to criticism. [snip]

No they are most certainly not! I'm forced to pay Librarians
and Library Assistants wages as a result of my liability to pay
Council Tax. Which is compulsory. Nobody is obliged to donate to
Oxfam if they choose not to do so. Just as nobody is obliged
to use their shops if they object to their pricing policy.

Michael, the issue I am addressing is not whether we are compelled to
finance them or not. The issue is whether we have a right to criticise them.
Once again, you are confusing two quite different animals. Do you do it in
an attempt to score rhetorical "points", or are you simply not aware of the
fact that you are doing it?

I can't help thinking that there may be rather more pressing
matters in the world worthy of investigation, than the possibility
that Oxfam bookshops may occasionaly charge prices which you
personally find objectionable

Well, don't let me detain you; you carry on with all those pressing and
worthy matters, and I'll just potter on in my own futile - but surely
harmless? - fashion!

anyone with a bit
of knowledge about the used book market could pick up
these same indifferent goods elsewhere at a
fraction of the price *today*.

So what's stopping them?

The knowledge that they *are* indifferent and there are more worthwhile
things to go for?

Or are you seeking to set yourself up as the champion of all those
who enter bookshops lacking this little "bit of knowledge".

No, no. If they've got the money, by all means, let them spend it in Oxfam!

And whose fault is that pray? Theirs or Oxfams ?

Absolutely! They've no one to blame but themselves!

You'll almost have me in tears in a moment!

Hey, lighten up! Things are much worse than you think!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

Michael Adams wrote:

In the meantime thank you for making my point for me.

Your point being that lowly-paid charity workers are monkeys? Goodness!
What, then - in your estimation - are the volunteers! ;-)

You simply
cannot expect unpaid volunteers in Oxfam shops or lowly paid
professionals within the organisation to show the same degree
of competence as highly paid professionals. In whatever field.

But you *can* expect competence from highly-paid professionals and if you
don't get it you *can* express your dissatisfaction without being accused of
a

sickening degree of sneering condescension [snip]
towards Oxfam and the volunteers who staff the shops

Right?

But how can that be *your* point? I thought that was *my* point, and you
were the one saying it was sickening. Have I been hijacked here?

Woosh!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

What a truly difficult life you truly must have led, you pompous
little buffoon , if all you can find to get upset about are
misdescribed first editions in bookshops!

Ur, no - We are, correct me if I am wrong, in rec.collecting.BOOKS - not the
pages of the Economist.

And you were the one, only recently, getting your knickers in a twist over
librarians taking endpapers from books - can you not find something in YOUR
life to occupy YOUR time more than librarians and/or endpapers?

I do and will always detest the using of newsgroups for scoring 'points' as
you previopusly described them. Serious debate yes, idle whims and
curiosities yes, but petty squables - no.

Tom L-M

Who knows the discussion will not end there, but would like to share this
poem from 'Thank You, Fog'

'Progress'?

Sessile, unseeing
the Plant is wholly content
with the adjacent.

Mobilised, sighted
the Beast can tell Here from There
and Now from Not-Yet.

Talkative, anxious
Man can picture the Absent
and Non-Existant

Michael Adams wrote:

I don't know about you, but I'm certainly enjoying this
exchange immensly.

I'm glad you've enjoyed it, Michael, as have I, but - I'm sorry to say -
I have to bow out here.

A point like like

e) You'll only attract applicants with the degree of skill appropriate
to that level of salary. Pay peanuts and you get monkeys

needs to be answered in sociopolitical terms (along the lines of "there are
plenty of highly-paid monkeys out there, and plenty of competent people
working for very little," etc.).

A point like

What you're talking about here, isn't "zero returns" at all,
but "zero growth"

needs to be answered in economic terms (along the lines of "when an
organisation invests a large additional expenditure in its shops and does
not thereby increase its profits from said shops this means it has generated
zero returns on its investment," etc.).

A point like

so are you now claiming that Tom is -

exactly the sort of person who is likely to write First
eddition', or 'First Addition'inside of a book?

needs to be answered in terms of grammar and semantics (along the lines of,
"the utterance designates Tom as a member of the goup 'some of the
volunteers in Oxfam shops [who] do the work as means of gaining work
experience,' but not of the subgroup who 'are quite probably exactly the
sort of people who are likely to write "First eddition", or "First Addition"
inside of a book,'" etc.).

And so on. While the discussion was focused on Oxfam it was at least
connected - albeit marginally - with book-collecting. However, once we get
into issues like the above, which could drag on indefinitely and lead to
still other issues with no end - or even any possibility of an ending - in
sight, I have to call a halt.

Of course, you will appreciate that the above is a mere excuse, and that

Given the evident difficulties we encountered when considering
the fairly straightforward question [i.e., the question of Oxfam's
finances and pricing]

- difficulties caused by what you tactfully and euphemistically call my

interpretive problems

- it goes without saying that

attempting to broaden the scope of the discussion

would be

a tad ambitious

and consequently, rather than chance a leg where I have already lost an arm,
I am getting out while the going is good.

You know all that as well as I do, but you will of course allow me the
privilege of retiring with dignity.

And now, let's get back to books!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com