Thankyou. is currently running a bit of a hit-piece on Thankyou, the company that aims to donate profits to charity in an effort to help raise people out of poverty.

The article implies there is something wrong with Thankyou because they pay their staff well, have office space in Collingwood, and have paid a bunch for travel for their staff.

Even after revealing that salaries paid are inline with charitable guidelines they imply there is something wrong with the employees being paid well while being a charitable organisation.

It does indeed seem a bit dodgy that their packaging clearly says “We had an idea to make remarkable products and commit 100% of our profits to help end global poverty.” (I read that off the box of Thankyou Soap Bar I have in my cupboard, waiting for my old Thankyou Soap Bar to be used up.

According to the article they only donate 70% of their annual profits to charity, with 30% being held for “good financial stewardship”, which really it probably is. If on July 1 they handed over 100% of what was left in their coffers they’d be pretty hard pressed to have any contingency, especially to deal with underperforming products. So the 100% is if they ever wrap up the company. Plus I guess 100% sounds better than 100% less contingency money.

And it’s not like that other 30% disappears… it remains in the company and will still be in the accounts when the next financial year rolls around. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Thankyou do make good products… the 6.2 million dollars they have donated to-date is $6.2 million more in charity than would exist without them. I’ll continue to buy their products, I’ll continue to support their vision, because if I can get a good product and know that at least some of the money is going to good, then I’m in.

One thing I do think is wrong is also in the article:

“A charity can apply to have certain information withheld from the charity register,” he said. “There are limited circumstances in which the ACNC may agree to withhold a charity’s information from publication, (including) where the information is commercially sensitive and publication could cause harm to the charity or a person.”

It let’s the charities and the churches remain outside of public scrutiny which probably shouldn’t happen.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.