As the other poster I believe was trying to point out 'if it increases revenue' is the wrong way to justify spending money to make more money.
Since revenue is not profit, and most charities are non-profits anyway, more revenue does not necessarily equate to more money for betterment of the causes the charity serves.
As a complete hypothetical scenario examining two extremes which hopefully do not exist.
Charity B.A.D. could spend 100% of its revenue on seeking more donations and maintaining existing ones, leaving no resources for actually doing anything related to their cause, or distributing non monetary resources donated even. But they double revenue every year.
Charity P.O.R. Could spend 100% of its revenue, which are fixed at $10 a year, on advancing their cause.
My entire point is instead of saying 'increases revenues' you should say 'increases the money it budgets toward advancing its cause.'
Since revenue is not profit, and most charities are non-profits anyway, more revenue does not necessarily equate to more money for betterment of the causes the charity serves.
As a complete hypothetical scenario examining two extremes which hopefully do not exist.
Charity B.A.D. could spend 100% of its revenue on seeking more donations and maintaining existing ones, leaving no resources for actually doing anything related to their cause, or distributing non monetary resources donated even. But they double revenue every year.
Charity P.O.R. Could spend 100% of its revenue, which are fixed at $10 a year, on advancing their cause.
My entire point is instead of saying 'increases revenues' you should say 'increases the money it budgets toward advancing its cause.'