The ratio is, of course, least likely to embarrass a large, established organization raising funds for a widely supported cause. Hence, I suppose, its appeal to those for whom the established order works pretty well. The brief is jointly submitted by two such large and established organizations who are both members of IS - American Heart and American Cancer. At best, this information tells us whether the organization is typical of similarly classified organizations, which may be quite inefficient. None of the simple cross- tabs of typical fundraising costs can approximate this standard very well for all the controversial cases, but there is probably some merit in doing the best one can here.
Several cautions apply here.
First, cross-classification by mode neglects the fact that most organizations have a choice of mode. Second, mode choice is distorted by public policies so that a privately efficient choice to use direct mail may be socially inefficient if this mode would not be efficient absent subsidized postal rates. Conversely, an organization using, what would show up on its books, a more expensive and thereby less efficient fundraising technique like telemarketing might actually have lower social costs per dollar raised. First, note the subtlety of the standard. The ideal standard is, of course, hard to operationalize.