queer ideas

It's always the right time for mobile

Mobile seems to be gaining momentum as the 'next big thing' in fundraising.

It's strange, considering just how long charities have been using the medium. I'm not sure if this is the first example of text fundraising, but Bluefrog created this ad way back in 2002 for Shelter (building on the popularity surrounding Big Brother).

It worked. And we've continued to use text as a recruitment vehicle (primarily for press and TV advertsing) either for small gifts or to give people a chance to raise their hand and show interest in a cause.

It didn't take a genius to identify that it was the follow-up that was important. Because you have a telephone number, you're able to call the donor and convert a significant number of them to regular giving.

But with today's smart phones we can do a little more than that. 

This presentation from Just Giving shows a massive increase in the number of people visiting justgiving.com from mobile devices. They've seen a growth rate of nearly 82% in 2011 (and that's just up until April).

They have also identified a pattern of mobile use that we've seen on a number of Bluefrog's specialist donor engagement charity sites. They call it snacktime browsing.
 
Snacktime browsing happens whenever people have a few minutes to go online on their mobile phone. As this JustGiving chart demonstrates, visits from a mobile device are much less prone to the peaks and troughs you tend to see when people visit from a desktop machine.

This is happening at a time when we are seeing huge growth in the number of people using their mobile phone to give through traditional texting. The UK's Haiti moment occured with Comic Relief 2011, when over £15 million was raised through 4.3 million text donations.

nfpSynergy's recent report on charity use of mobiles, Sending out an SMS (PDF), shows the impact this campaign had on text based giving...

The fact is, the mobile phone allows us to get an interactive donation form in the hand of the donor within seconds of them seeing or hearing our appeal. And that's what makes it so special. We know that the desire to give to a cause can quickly fade. The mobile phone gives people the chance to give exactly when they are most emotionally engaged. And, as we know, donors tend to reward convenience.

It's still new technology, so it's not surprising that mobile giving seems to be most attractive for those aged under 35. But, this isn't a bad group from which to recruit regular givers.

But whether we are talking to younger or older donors, offering easy access isn't enough, we have to make sure donors find the use of mobiles satisfying too – otherwise we'll soon find the growth that we are currently seeing will flatline and stall.

nfpSynergy have some advice for us on that point...

"In the early days of the web, charities had a tendency not to know how to include the Internet in their paper-based campaigns. So they didn’t, or they added a web address and hoped for the best.

The new wave of mobile pioneers needs to learn from this and make sure that their campaigns integrate the mobile in as a key part of their communications portfolio.

A TV ad can encourage people to send a text which in turns sends them a web link with which they can visit a campaign microsite. Mobiles and text can act as the links between different parts of the campaign."

If you need any help on putting together a paper on why your charity might consider investing in mobile fundraising, the nfpSynergy study contains a number of case studies that you might find useful.

For a US view, take a look at Ready. Set. Go Mobile for information on mobile fundraising in America.

You'll find more case studies and information at the Association for Interactive Media and Entertainment. And even more at MobileActive (US based).

For up to date statistics on mobile use in the UK, Ofcom is not a bad place to visit.

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.

The Society for Nice, Middle-Class Older People needs your help

This is a simple way to increase response rates and average gift – by a big margin.

Next time you are putting together a brief, forget the real purpose of your job. Whether you are working to end global poverty, protecting Canadian lakes, stamping out cruelty to children or even trying to end discrimination towards people living with mental health issues, simply put everything you know about your cause to the back of your mind and concentrate on this new one instead.

For the creation of this brief, you now work for the Society for Nice, Middle-Class Older People – SONMOP.

This fantastic charity has one purpose. To make nice, middle-class, older people feel good about themselves through sending them great communications through the post (I think the old-fashioned name for these devices is letters, though I understand there are now electronic versions too).

The charity that actually pays your wages is going to help you in your new job by providing the background information to show the donor just why they should feel good. It's a sort of joint approach, where both the charity and the donor wins – a little like a Comic Relief / Sainsburys type of deal.

You'll find raising funds for SONMOP much easier than any other job you've done as the donor's needs are placed at the centre of the brief.

So rather than taking organisational needs such as explaining a new policy, featuring a 'representative' balance of different projects, communicating a set of key brand values or even explaining a project in unnecessary detail our goal is now to give the donors what they want – or more accurately – what they need from a charity.

It's a liberating experience. One that takes you to the heart of effective fundraising.

I know from my own working life, that it is all to easy to become so excited about new plans, new brands or a great new USP that we can easily start to believe that our donors are as interested in these issues as we are.

Unfortunately they aren't. And by pandering to the desire to talk about ourselves, we fail the cause that we are trying to serve.

Instead we need to talk about the donor and what they have made possible.

An appeal that Bluefrog recently produced for The Prostate Cancer Charity was an example of this. Rather than simply show the donor why money was needed, the focus was firmly moved to telling the donor what they had helped achieve.

But it wasn't just left there. Extra effort was put in to show the donor that The Prostate Cancer Charity knew what they – as individuals – had done, speaking about them in the letter rather than just about ourselves. They showed them they valued them, were interested in them and let them know they saw them as partner, not just a source of income – it was like a super-charged report back

In return, donations sky rocketed.

And this is just one example of how this approach pays dividends.

So let's get back to those great people supported by SONMOP. Here are 5 tips on how you make this appeal as effective for them as possible.

1. Talk about the donor rather than yourselves.

If you make your donor feel special, they are likely to reciprocate.  So show them how important they are. Not through sycophantic praise but by demonstrating that you are aware of what they have done for you. For example, they might not be the wealthiest person in the world, but they could be the most generous or longest standing donor in their hometown. If they are (which can be ascertained through some simple database analysis), then show them you know it and thank them for it.

This is just one idea. There are many other ways to put the focus on the donor.

2. Rather than make your pack easy to put together through the use of machine enclosable components, use real handwriting or post-it notes.

Authentic beats corporate style design every time. For more details on how this works see this blog post by the best fundraising copywriter in the world. And remember, it's not highlighting important information that counts. It is showing the donor that you care enough about them to treat them as an individual.

3. A donor is more interested in hearing about something they have a real interest in, rather than something a charity feels is important.

But don't fall into the trap of thinking a donor sorts your work into the same pigeon holes as you do.

For example, most donors don't really care if they are saving lives through provision of things like clean water, inoculations or increasing food supplies as long as you can help them visualise the difference they are making. A shopping list is a way of both suggesting a donation and making a gift more tangible. You'll know from your own testing that (within a set window) successful gift prompting is more dependent on emotional worth than financial value.

4. Don't think you know better than a donor does.

You'll never out guess a donor. Learn from what they tell you – through their actions and direct communications. Don't think that they are bored with a type of creative approach just because you are. You must always test new ideas, but base them on what your donors need rather than what would work for you.

5. Donors aren't all the same!

Just because some complain about being asked for money twice a year doesn't mean all donors are sitting at home seething because you have had the temerity to ask for another gift. You can ask your best donors for more money more often. It's an idea that Sean Triner calls pareto squared and it works.

And finally

If you don't think your best donors would be found amongst the supporters of SONMOP, you can always set up your own organisation with similar aims designed just for your supporters (but I'd have a very good look at those SONMOP supporters first).

What's wrong with Mashable's Summer of Social Good?

The desire to raise serious sums of money for charities (or non-profits as our American cousins might say) is a fantastic thing.

Animal rescue, tackling global poverty, protection of wildlife and the environment and funding cancer research and awareness are cracking causes that deserve every penny they get.

But after twenty years in fundraising, I'm sticking my neck out. Though I am going to sound a right miserable sod, I don't think – in its current form at least – Mashable's Summer of Social Good is going to raise much money. Not through normal everyday donors anyhow.

Here's why.

Mashable is an amazing resource that has proved its value over and over again by improving our understanding of social media. @Mashable on Twitter has (as I write) over 867,000 followers. Couple that with those who read the Mashable website and throw in a few dozen re-tweets and you have a serious body of people behind you.

But that's not all.

You can add GlobalGiving, the Social Media Club, Treehugger and even Facebook to the mix, as they are just a few of the partners involved in the summer long campaign.

The trouble is, the free transfer of information is not the same thing as the raising of funds. Though coming up with great ideas is hard work, we love to share them. It validates all those hours tapping away at the keyboard. Just ask any blogger. As soon as a post is up, you start checking your stats to see who is looking at it, where your referrals are coming from and how long people spend rummaging around the rest of your site.

Money is a different thing. Getting people to give it to charity is hard.

And, as a fundraiser, I know that simply putting four causes (no matter how great they are) in front of a donor isn't going to mean much money is going to change hands.

Take a look at some basic statistics from the traditional world of fundraising through direct marketing.

• The average highly personalised cold recruitment appeal sent to a targeted cold list presenting an emotional case for one particular organisation might generate a response of 1% or 2%. 

• The average press insert – again presenting an emotional case for support – placed in an appropriate publication will generate a response rate of about 0.001% or 0.002%

• A strong display press ad will have a much lower response - perhaps 0.0001%. And often less.

• Then you have a tweet of 140 characters. Hardly enough to include the organisation's name and what the Summer of Social Good is about.

• That 867,000 might be expected to generate a cash response of about 0.000001%. That's about 1 (or maybe 2 people) / tweet. I'm not talking about click throughs here as they will be higher - I just think the number of actual gifts, based on my experience of other media, might really be this low (if you know better, please get in touch - I'd love to be shown I'm wrong). 

• If @Mashable followers were asked ten times a day, that would generate up to 20 new gifts (at the higher end of my estimation). At $10 a go, that works out at $200 / day. Over the three months of the campaign, we might see $18,000 generated.

In the words of Kevin Keegan, I would love it if I was proved wrong. I love Twitter and I think @Mashable is a great resource and I want nothing but success for them both.

That's why, based on a fair amount of time at the coal face of raising funds, I would make the following recommendations to @Mashable about how they might improve the Summer of Social Good.

At the crux of the issue is the fact that people are most likely to give to charity when they feel involved and engaged. Normal tweets won't reach the emotional buttons that cause people to give.  If fundraising was as simple as asking for money, I'd be doing a very different job (ideally something to do with shark research).

If Twitter is going to raise serious amounts of money (outside of emergencies) we need to recognise that a different type of relationship is required. So to pay back Mashable for the huge amount of great ideas they have shared with us, here are the top ten tips of a humble fundraiser on how to make the Summer of Social Good more effective.

1. Make the ask personally

A direct message (DM) is better than a normal tweet. If that message is from @Mashable it's certainly going to be read, particularly if they address the reader by name. Rather than just ask someone to give, ask the people that you DM to let you know if they are going to give or not. It's harder work than putting out a general tweet, but as I've said, fundraising isn't easy.

2. Show people you value them

The most basic sign of recognition on Twitter is to follow people. It shows you are interested in them and what they have to say. I still don't fully understand why some very large charities follow so few of their followers back – this isn't about broadcasting, it's about connection. Obviously you want to avoid the pirates and the Britney vids, but following is the start of a relationship. It's a huge number to manage, but effort equals reward.

You could, of course, set up a second account - one for the day job and one for charity work (see point 5 on how to make it look different).

3. Justify the ask

A broad "please give $20" (or even $10 or $5) is never as effective as giving donors something tangible to do. I've posted before on the benefits of earmarking a recruitment gift. Organisations such as Nothing But Nets and Charity:Water (the latter helped Twestival raise $250,000) have grown very quickly through making the most of our desire to do something "real" to help people in need. So rather than just asking for money, ask people to give to do something like planting a tree or provide a meal for a real person.

Tweetsgiving, for example, raised over $11,000 in 48 hours through taking a focus on building a single school in Tanzania by asking for $10 a brick (and getting support from over 100 press and blog sources).

4. If you can't justify the ask - make it personal and relevant

The charities that will benefit from the Summer of Social Good are in the big league – The Humane Society of the US, Oxfam America, WWF and the Lance Armstrong Foundation. They will be looking for unrestricted funds that they can spend on broad areas of work. This is not a great way to motivate people so I'd suggest looking at other ways to make the ask engaging. 

One idea might be to place the focus on the donor and ask people to donate 1 cent for every follower they have as a sort of Twitter Tithe. It might be expensive for those with tens of thousands of followers, but would get people thinking. If you add a Twitter Tithe calculator you'll get people starting to interact as well.

It may even be something that might be attractive to the big twitter players who want to show they are doing their bit, which brings us to...

5. Give people a badge

The sticker on the lapel has worked as a means to thank and build social momentum for generations. In the UK , the poppy is seen everywhere in November and red noses sell in their millions raising money for Comic Relief. These symbols are so powerful that people feel left out if they aren't wearing them.

I've been impressed by the number of people going green with their Twitter icons in support of democracy in Iran. By giving people an opportunity to add a badge to their picture another reason for giving is created and the social momentum starts to build. A frame, flash or picture effect offered to people who give, could really help. These guys have the right idea.

Then give people a different badge

The credit card companies know that people like to be able demonstrate how rich or caring you are by what sort of card you use. Let people upgrade their badges when they give more money or recruit more people.

6. Test your message

Anyone involved in fundraising knows that testing and re-testing messages is the key to success. Many people think that charities don't really know that much about metrics. They couldn't be more wrong. Real success comes from knowing your data inside out. The current range of sample tweets available could be better.

People might want to brag about how good they are, but it must be subtle. These sample tweets are just too direct to be attractive to the donors I know.

By testing and analysing response, we'll learn what works.

7. Let people help in the way that works for them

Ask people to choose different responsibilities - giving money, getting the message out, recruiting others to give, blogging. Social networks have been used to raise money for centuries and anyone who has ever managed an appeal committee knows that you get people to do what they are best at AND what they actually want to do in order to reach your goal. A registration that allows someone to define themselves with a role (with a set of responsibilities) is much more powerful than just asking for a re-tweet or a small donation. Which links neatly to...

8. Focus the landing page on the donor

There must be about twenty logos on the current landing page. It's about everyone else other than the donor. Click through to the charities and it's just about them and their work. In the bottom left hand corner of the landing page there are some of the latest tweets - but that's about it. Donors want to see and hear about what they can do (going back to points 3, 4 and 7). It is a subtle difference that makes the difference between success and failure.

It may be that some form of reporting back is part of the next stage of the plan. If it is, why not tell potential supporters about it. Which brings us to...

9. Show someone the impact they have made

Show supporters how their money has made a difference. The team at Charity:Water are excellent at this. Another charity that has a very donor focussed approach is MSF.

10. Show people you know them

Once someone has engaged with the Summer of Social Good, recognise the fact in every communication. Don't drop back into the easy but largely ineffective (for fundraising) mass tweeting. Twitter, like blogs, represents a means to start the realtionship. From then on it's back to fundraising basics.

And finally

I'm relatively new to Twitter and blogging and maybe I don't know as much as some of the experts. I might have a rather red face come the end of August, but I think far too many charities have forgotten the basics of fundraising when it comes to new media. 

The majority of charity blogs, websites and twitter streams are about pumping out what the charity wants to say. It's when an organisation stops and asks the donor what they actually want to hear, that amazing things can happen. Twitter is a fantastic tool that allows us to listen (if we can be bothered to follow back our followers). I would suggest to charities that is where the secret of its power lies.

If you think I am misguided, mad or simply ignorant, please let me in on what you know.

Finally, if I've suggested things which are already in place, please accept my apologies. 

My seven stages of Twitter

You must have heard about Twitter. If you are already a user, you'll probably be able to relate to much of my experience. If you haven't yet joined, hopefully this will help you find out what lies in store for you.

First a few notes for the real beginner.

• A tweet is a micro-blog. You have 140 characters to share a thought. People use URL shorteners so that they can post links. 
• A follower is someone who reads a twitterer's tweets. When you follow someone, their tweets are automatically delivered to you as they are posted. 
• The @ symbol before a name is simply there to define the name of a Twitter user. I'm @markyphillips for example.
• The # (hashtag - it's alt 3 on a mac) defines discussion topics to enable simple searches. #followfriday for example is the hashtag given to the day each week when recommendations on people to follow are shared (you will have to sign up to see what is happening on followfriday).

Now, back to my seven stages...

Dismissal

I first heard about Twitter a couple of years ago. I'm not sure who told me about it first. It was either @rydesign or @breathingsince.

At that point it looked to me like some sort of mass texting service that you could use to let your friends know about the state of your hangover, what you'd had for lunch and what particular song was playing on your itunes.

I thought it seemed like a load of rubbish.

Signing up

After hearing and reading a few news stories, I finally signed up in February. I made some inane comments along the lines of those described above. My opinion hadn't really shifted much.

Fiddling

I started following a few people and organisations outside my network of friends and got a few follows back. Being a newbie, I didn't quite understand the rules. I did a small number of business type tweets that referenced queerideas.co.uk and Bluefrog along with other sites and news that I thought might be of interest to charity fundraisers. 

Interest

@AlineReed let me in on @serafinowicz's use of Twitter and Just Giving to raise £5,000 for Comic Relief.  I blogged on this back in the middle of March. The fact that someone was using it for fundraising suddenly lifted Twitter out of the realms of a disjointed stream of consciousness into something that charities could use to engage donors and raise funds.

Oooooh I thought (in a rather Frank Spencer way).

Engagement

I started following 'hard core', looking for all Twitter streams that interested me. From social networking specialists, through to charities, fundraising, advertising, Arsenal, news, celebrities and politicians. I gained new insight into charity fundraising, uncovered fantastic pieces of psychological and social research, discovered great new organisations like herorat.org from @AmandaSanter and started to interact with CEOs of charities like @Kjer from FORGE. 

I started being braver about my own tweets too. I saw that personal comments helped to turn organisations into people who I grew to like. Rather than just keeping it to newsy items, I started to joke and returned to a few of the tweets that I'd dismissed weeks earlier. I even started to swap restaurant reviews with @causeperfect and we have been talking about setting up a 140 character restaurant review twitterstream called #wowchows (credit to Jackie for the name).

I also moved from using the twitter website to TweetDeck for my computer and Tweetie for my phone. These make it easier to communicate with large numbers of twitterers.

Conversion

Recently my brain has started changing. I am now thinking in 140 character chunks and I'm much more economical when explaining issues. 

What has been the biggest surprise is that it has changed how I give to charity. If I like the people who are tweeting, I'm much more likely to give to them. As a result I'm now a donor to the Lake Simicoe Conservation Foundation in Canada through @KimberleyCanada, Borneo Orangutang Survival Inernational through @DerekHumphries, Charity:Water through @scottharrison and as I've mentioned already, to FORGE through @kjer. I've even got around to re-starting a direct debit to Amnesty International UK because of the tweets from @SusanneUre from Amnesty in Canada.

Smaller charities in the UK have also caught my attention. Organisations like @HearingDogs and @bullyinguk are in the big league on Twitter being regularly recommended on #followfriday. The biggies such as @theNSPCC and @christian_aid are still comparatively quiet and follow very few people.

Twitter is another enormous step in the globalisation of charities. It is changing the ground rules on a weekly basis. Just because I live in the UK, for example, doesn't mean I have to support a charity based here. The feedback I get from my Twitter friends is what is important to me. 

I can see that more of my donations will be given through the way I interact with them on Twitter. Next on my list is going to be the sponsorship of a Lion Guardian through Wildlife Direct - brought to my attention directly by the CEO – @paulakahumbu.

Evangelist

Of all the social networking vehicles I've engaged with, Twitter has been the most enriching and rewarding – in all senses. Yes, there is a fair amount of chaff amongst the grains of wheat, but each snippet of news that I read, each thought that I'm exposed to and each link that I click returns so much that it is worth it.

I really can't see the day when I'll stop blogging and I don't see Twitter damaging blogs at all. At the end of the day much of the joy of Twitter is through being referred to larger thought pieces, more detailed stories and research findings and I'd like to continue adding to the knowledge and understanding that Twitter is helping tens of thousands of people to unlock.

Why don't you join us? New friends, understanding and knowledge comes free with every sign up.

You start here.

One reason why Sainsbury's supports Comic Relief

On Monday, Sainsbury's posted its best quarterly sales growth figures for two and a half years.

One event that helped boost sales was Comic Relief. 19 million shoppers were attracted to the store around the week of the event. That's more than at any time outside Christmas.

They also sold more than 6.8 million red noses.

It proves it really can be better to give than receive.

How to use Twitter to raise money

Everyone is ranting about the massive amount raised by Comic Relief. But behind the huge numbers is a great little idea by Peter Serafinowicz, who managed to raise over £5,000 on Red Nose Day with a combination of Twitter and Just Giving.

His idea was Twitter based vegetable pop star pun war.

All entries had to be tweeted and copied on to Peter's Just Giving fundraising page with a £2 donation per entry. It was that simple.

A couple of the better entries included:

• Pak Choi Division
• Glen Campbellpepper
• Artichoke Garfunkel
• The Pea Gees
• Elvis Parsley 

I'm sure you get the drift. 

The game kicked off at lunchtime and continued until the winner was announced at about five the next morning – it was The Notorious V.E.G.