User blog comment:Jenburton/2016 Tournament of Giving/@comment-1142365-20161011071145/@comment-1187559-20161011073011

I mean adding on this. Aside from the WWF, which has enough money to advertise itself, all of these charities are fairly "small". So while a large donation to one will help massively, a small one will be a great benefit and to more people. I think I mentioned it below that whoever "wins" more people lose. With possible exception to WWF due to their size, each of these charities simply could do with the monetary benefit as they're unlikely to get as much from any other source.

While I'm certain it does make more sense to simply pool all the money in to one big donation, that does also mean 63 charities that have been listed will have lost out massively, and some were already at a disadvantage because of their localised area of operating. So some the charities have lost out already when they had no chance of winning in the first place.