queer ideas

Plus ça change

Hundreds of old charity ads going back to the mid 19th century can be found here. Take a look.

The misdirected power of the brand

Some people think I don't like branding. They are wrong. I love great brands. The trouble is that I don't think many charity brands are very well managed and there are a growing number of pieces of research that serve to confirm my beliefs.

I thought I'd share a few of them after reading the recently published Charity Brand Index which features the UK's top 100 charity brands.

It was compiled using survey data from 3,032 people, who were asked about their awareness of charities and the impression they had of them.

"Respondents were asked about their awareness of 30 charities randomly selected from the list of 150. After highlighting those they were aware of, they were then assigned a maximum of five charities to focus on in the main survey. Respondents were then asked their views on these 150 charities, the metrics subsequently making up the top 100 ranking being: relevance, distinctiveness, familiarity, trust and impression.

‘Consideration to donate’ acted as a proxy for all these measures, which were then all multiplied by prompted awareness to ensure that charities which were loved by a few, but had low awareness, did not achieve a disproportionate rank."

The top ten were:

Macmillan Cancer Support
Cancer Research UK
NSPCC
RSPCA
BBC Children in Need
British Heart Foundation
Comic Relief
Marie Curie Cancer Care
RNLI
British Red Cross

Macmillan, with voluntary income of less than a third of Cancer Research UK, were surprise winners. Their high familiarity score and an extremely positive impression of the brand lifted them clear of the competition.

But what does all this actually mean? What is a brand actually worth?

A study published earlier in the year attempted to estimate the value of American charities. They gave top spot to the YMCA (a charity that doesn't even feature in the UK list) with a worth of almost $6.4 billion. The charity with the best brand image was the American Cancer Society.

A different set of criteria was used to build the US list. They included such factors as size of budget, potential for future growth, volunteer numbers and news coverage in their analysis.

These differences in approaches seem to back up John Murphy's thoughts on brand valuation. John founded global branding consultancy, Interbrand, and has a refreshingly honest opinion on the subject...

"Brand valuation is a 'social science' not a 'physical science'. Valuation opinions will always be just that – opinions."

For me, any assessment of charity brand value has to be based on the additional income it will help generate. The fact that someone knows that a charity exists or answers a specific need is worthless if it doesn't translate to the bottom line. And 'propensity to donate' doesn't quite cut the mustard for me.

It's why reports and studies that inflate the value of brand building activities are so dangerous. Branding is seen by a growing number of people as a universal panacea to a charity's ills and there is precious little evidence to back up their belief.

Branding just doesn't seem to be solving the deep-seated problems the sector faces.

Joshua G2 undertake research into which brands are most loved and hated by the British public and have included charities in their studies. Last year they found that Cancer Research was most loved (followed by Macmillan, RSPCA, NSPCC and PDSA) and Christian Aid was most hated (followed by War on Want,  Oxfam, The Salvation Army and RSPCA). Results for 2007 are here.

But what's interesting is to try and uncover why charities engender these emotions.

Luckily GMI / Mintel did their own study to try and uncover the attitudes underling these emotional reactions (also published in 2008). They assessed charities on a variety of characteristics. These included, trust, social responsibility, pride, innovation, great service, good value, good reputation, distinctive image, consistent high quality and caring for the environment. These were mapped out on radar charts. I've reproduced those for Cancer Research UK and Christian Aid. The darker shape represents the scoring for the charity, the lighter shape is the average for all charities they analysed.

You can see that Cancer Research UK scores very highly on trust and on good reputation. Christian Aid in comparison does very badly on both indices. But what is jaw-droppingly surprising is just how low both charities score on great customer service. But they are not alone – the fact is that every other charity they looked at also scores poorly in this area. Seven other radar charts are posted here (including Friends of The Earth, NSPCC, RSPCA, The Royal British Legion, The British Heart Foundation, Save the Children and Oxfam).

When asked about how engaging these brands were, the results were as shocking. Cancer Research UK was best with 12% of those surveyed describing the brand as engaging. The majority scored in single figures.

And it doesn't take a genius to understand why. Brand guidelines are almost always about the charity. Phrases such as we are brave, we are outraged, we are effective, we are honest and we are just dominate these booklets. And far too often, brand policing is solely about ensuring these sentiments are included in copy. 

What this process does is suppress the focus on generating engagement with donors. A hand typed and signed letter on poor quality stock that talks about what the donor has achieved is rarely going to appear in a set of brand guidelines, but in comparison with a branded corporate style mailing, I know which pack is going to raise most money AND bring the donor closer to the charity. And it is only through reducing the distance between the charity and the donor that we are going to engender real understanding and solidarity.

The days of the self-congratulatory brand are over. We must acknowledge that our brands live solely in the minds of our supporters. Research shows that the majority of people still trust and regard most charities highly. The role of any brand strategy should be to tackle key weaknesses and that includes managing the brand experience as well as influencing brand understanding and values. By doing so, we will take a huge leap forward in managing the ongoing problem of dis-engagement and the accompanying attrition that afflicts so many charities.

My recommendation is we do this by answering the needs of donors. If you haven't seen my posts on donor needs, I'd recommend you look at this.

By engaging and serving those who support us, attrition is being tackled and significant additional funds are being generated – even in times of recession.

Finally, if this has got you thinking, I'd recommend that you read a recent post from Aline Reed on her blog, Bluefrog Creative  where she shares some of her thoughts on brands that generate feelings of love.

Results from massive research study into why donors lapse

Bluefrog's research into why donors lapse, The Fundraiser's Guide to Lapsers, is now available for download by clicking here.

As mentioned in a previous post, we were fortunate in having Professor Adrian Sargeant review our work and for very kindly writing the foreword. I'd like to offer him my grateful thanks for the significant amount of time he gave to us.

But perhaps more importantly, without the help of the eleven major British charities who gave us access to their current and lapsed donors for the study this research could not have gone ahead. The sector owes them a huge thanks to which I add my own. They are:

• ActionAid
• Barnardo's
• The British Heart Foundation
• The British Red Cross
• Care International UK
• Centrepoint
• Great Ormond Street Hospital
• Marie Curie Cancer Care
• RNIB
• Sense
• SPANA

But as you might imagine, they were not the only charities that were discussed. Their donors – both lapsed and active – had also given (or were giving) to a range of other organisations.

Over the three months of fieldwork, more than 200 people shared their views, their gripes, their experiences and their recommendations relating to over 100 different organisations.

And if there was one thing that summed up our findings, it is the message implicit in a single statement from one of our participants:

"You keep saying this thing lapsed. Lapsed from what? I never felt I was giving anything up."

The increase in cancellations amongst regular givers (Rapidata's recent analysis now shows this is running at approximately 5% each and every month) shows that the sector is not generating the loyalty that it so desperately needs. 

It is too easy and not entirely true to blame the economy for the attrition levels we see today.

Although many donors are very happy with the way that they are treated, many others feel that they lose very little when they withdraw their support. This points to the most important, yet most overlooked element of donor recruitment and development, which is that people give to charities in order to satisfy their own psychological needs – not the needs of the charity.

The answer to this is to place the focus on the donor. Our paper provides seven practical steps that any charity can implement in order to reduce its level of donor attrition and quickly increase available funds. Though much more detail is available in the actual report, the key recomendations are:

• Actively look for ways to start a relationship. Don't just drop new donors into your standard appeal cycle. Engage donors in a dialogue.
  
• Manage donors' expectations.
  
• Don't think about what you want to tell your donors, think about what they want to hear from you.
  
• Concentrate on answering your donors' needs.
  
• Allow your donors to choose how and when they want to hear from you.
  
• Know your donors - listen and remember. And show them that you remember.
  
• If they do go, part as friends. The best chance you have of reactivating donors is if their last experience of you is a positive one.

A more detailed presentation on specific answers to some of the key problems we uncovered is also available and can be arranged by emailing me at [email protected].

The trouble with The Guardian

Polly Toynbee in The Guardian on Saturday painted a grim picture of the current state of philanthropy.

Read her article and you could be forgiven for pulling the duvet over your head and hibernating until spring 2010. 

There's Tom Hunter changing his mind about giving away a billion, 52% of people expecting to cut back on giving and the expectation that the best part of £2.3 billion will be wiped off the bottom line of charity income in 2009. One in three charities are laying off staff, corporate giving is being cut back and finally there's the cancellation of a British Red Cross gala ball. 

It sounds hideous. 

But we are then reminded that charitable giving is dwarfed by government expenditure. Charities are pictured as charming and perhaps a little quaint. They are great for the odd good idea but no match for the leviathan which is central government. And we are warned from thinking that charity could ever replace the welfare state.

It's true. Charity Trends 2007 reports that voluntary donations to the top 500 fundraising charities equated to 2.6% of government expenditure (in comparable sectors). The amount varied from 28% for international down to 0.2% for education. 

But is that any reason to present such an awful view of the impact of the downturn on people's attitudes to giving? When you look at the facts, the picture is very different.

Mark Astarita from The British Red Cross is still forecasting modest growth in income next year. It was the lack of a corporate sponsor that meant the winter ball couldn't go ahead.

Tom Hunter still intends to give away £1 billion, but the current financial situation has just extended his timeline. As he says:

“I believed it then and I guess it’s still my dream. I was always very clear it was in my lifetime and my life isn’t over – I’ve still got another 40 years left in me.”

And we need to remember that a massive part of the impact on the sector's bottom line will be from a decline in the value of house prices and shares. This means there will be a fall in legacies and investment income. It doesn't mean solicitors throughout the land will be inundated with pensioners demanding that charities be struck from their wills.  It's just the economic situation means bequests are now worth less.

I've also recently blogged on some fairly large pieces of research that show the numbers thinking of cutting back on giving are going to be much lower than the 52% cited in the article.

Rapp's recent research on directs debit showed that:

• 8% were considering canceling a direct debit.
  
• 11% were considering reducing the amount they gave via direct debit.
  
• 12% had cancelled one or more direct debits.
  

St Mungo's research in November found that 9% were thinking of or had actually cut back.

Our research at Bluefrog showed that the biggest impact was going to be on people's attitude to supporting new charities. And now with Christmas behind us, we can see what is actually happening to warm appeals – donors are still giving. 

An IOF / CAF poll of 35 charities found that over half of Christmas appeals raised as much, or more than in 2007. Nearly one third said their appeals raised more than last year. Five charities say they have received tens of thousands of pounds more than the previous year. One third of charities surveyed said they received less funds but many charities are still counting donations. 

Corporates might be cutting back, the economy might be playing havoc with share portfolios and property prices but individuals aren't letting us down – gifts aren't drying up. And perhaps the best place to see what is happening is where the credit crunch started – in the housing sector. Shelter has seen a massive increase in demand for its services over the last few months. But as Alan Gosschalk, Shelter's Head of Fundraising says:

"We really depend on more than 100,000 supporters who donate via monthly direct debits and they have continued to be very generous. In addition, our Christmas appeal mailing has hit its target, which is great news."

The Guardian is the sector's in-house newspaper. It's where we find our jobs, read news and get views, opinions and predictions to help us plan for the future. In this instance, I think it's let us down.