I think a lot of charity's function this way. You could argue that paying towards the VP salary is helpful because of his potential ability to increase revenue through fund raisers which eventually provides even more support to the WWF. Some charity's also mention that a certain % is guaranteed to directly support the cause. Not sure what % that is for the WWF though.
I used to donate to WWF. I stopped after I watched the ARD greenwashing documentary which alleged that WWF accepted money from large corporations in return for certifying their activities as "sustainable".
I visited Kaziranga in Assam, India which has the highest density of tigers. The local rangers said they don't get any help from these aid organizations. Looking at WWF activities in detail suggests they do almost nothing for the local people. The WWF leadership ( http://www.worldwildlife.org/about/leadership ) has no representation of people who actually live in the areas which are key to survival of these species. In my opinion, that dooms it to failure. My belief is that to save tigers, you have to provide the people who are poaching tigers with a viable financial alternative. I would much rather the person taking a photo of a tiger in the jungle be a genuine local rather than a corporate employee doing greenwashing. http://tigers.panda.org/t2/mars-cindy-jiang-joins-wwfs-tiger...
