The complicated business of how to use the internet is drifting
around again, I think New Year looming has something to do with this. During 2017
I tended to concentrate much more on old local pictures than anything else.
Text wise I don’t think that many people read what I write,
but then as I can touch-type fairly fast and the content is much more random
thoughts than carefully researched news items, I guess I am just another person
who doesn’t read my posts very carefully.
I am still sticking with posting on the blog and linking the
post to what look to be suitable local Facebook groups, mainly because the pictures
work better that way.
There are two aspects to the picture publishing thing that
are either difficult or impossible on Facebook, one is the size and the other
is related text being next to the picture.
The other reason for using the blog is that at the moment I can
keep it advertising free, of course there is often a link to the books going
out in the bookshop in Ramsgate and art exhibitions in local galleries, whether
you see this as advertising in the conventional sense is probably related to
how much you understand about the financial profitability of the arts and literature.
On the news front, this is mostly being covered by https://theisleofthanetnews.com/ of
course whether anyone can make enough to live on out of writing local news is
another matter.
But the ever changing world seems more and more focused on
money, online and off.
Charity is an interesting one and there is a sense in which
that is big business too, the following is a list of charity’s CEO’s salaries
that is doing the internet rounds, I haven checked it for accuracy.
I did a bit of painting in Canterbury Cathedral today and tried
to get some reasonable pictures out of the camera on my new mobile phone.
On the salaries of CEOs of charities, I note that you don't make any comment - but others certainly will: whether here or in other places.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion, for what it is worth, is that it doesn't matter what they are paid IF (and I know it is a very big 'if') they are generating revenue for their charity. To take an example simply to demonstrate my point, if a charity pays someone, say, £150 000 but he or she raises £150 000 000 then that seems a very sound use of their money.
In addition, the charities you have mentioned are big organisations. Running a large business, of whatever sort, is difficult. It's hard enough running a small one! The number of people who are actually able to effectively and efficiently run outfits of that size is small, and they command high salaries. If a charity wants someone good enough to do the job, they have to pay the going rate.
But, as I said, there's a fair number of 'ifs' in what I've said...