queer ideas

What's the point of branding?

So you've got a brand. You've brainstormed with stakeholders, you've paid many thousands of pounds for a sparkling new logo, a corporate identity and a list of adjectives that are going to help you change the world.

And what's the result?

Has it increased response rates to your mailing packs? Has it helped reduce attrition? Has it increased donor loyalty?

If it hasn't, maybe something is going wrong.

In the commercial world, a brand adds value to a product or service. In short, it increases income.

For charities, things aren't so clear cut. I've seen 'brand expenditure' justified in terms of increasing awareness or extending knowledge of organisational goals.

All well and good. But if that doesn't translate to more supporters giving and doing more, I'm not sure that a new brand can be classified as a success.

That's why I was rather concerned to see the some of the findings from the 2010 Charity Brand Index survey (you can see my thoughts on the 2009 survey here).

A total of 3,203 adults took part in the survey, answering questions regarding recognition, individual giving, publicity work, trust and support.

When the answers had been cross-tabulated and added up, each charity was left with a score and this year, Cancer Research UK came out on top, followed by BBC Children in Need, RSPCA, Macmillan Cancer Support and Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity. SSAFA Forces Help saw the biggest rise and NDCS had the biggest fall.

You can see the full index here.

But what's most interesting are the findings about general attitudes to charities. And for me, one result stands out above all the rest – they found that less than 30% of people thought that charities were using money well, down from 32.5% in 2009.

It's left me scratching my head. Donors are continuing to lose touch with the charities they support. Trust might be up, but what about engagement? it seems to be in decline.

We know that one of the most powerful ways to engage a donor is to show them how you have used a gift. It's something donors welcome. When you ask them what they want from a charity, it's pretty much top of the list.

And if we are trying to add value to a charity brand that will translate into more funds, surely this research is showing us that we are doing something wrong. Any study of attrition rates would tend to confirm this view.

Donors have ultimate power. If they don't like the way they are treated after giving once, it is highly likley that their next gift will go elsewhere.

Perhaps they might think that by ignoring their role, we are being a little ungrateful and maybe even a little arrogant. It's happened to organisations like GAP, Coca Cola and Tropicana. There's no reason why it couldn't happen to us to.

So rather than producing advertising that says how great our charity is, perhaps we could learn from what fundraisers were doing before many of us were actually born and produce ads like this from January 1964 that thank donors for their role in raising £1,000,000.

It shows donors just how important they are - in no uncertain terms...

"So people live who would have died. And children have a chance... because you sent a cheque".

If I'd given to the appeal, that ad would have certainly made me feel good. Maybe I'd have given again. And perhaps that's what charity branding should actually be about.

Secret taping of ad agency working for the RSPCA

I've managed to get my hands on some more secretly taped recordings. This time it's an agency brainstorming some ideas for a TV ad for the RSPCA.

You can hear what was captured by clicking here.

Not quite sure which agency it is, but i do seem to recall the voices from a tape I featured earlier in the year.

As before, you can find similar stuff here.

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.

Further developments on the use of the £1 pack

Since my post on the £1 pack a few weeks back, I've received a couple of examples of how other charities are using it (thanks very much to those readers that sent them in). One of the most interesting of which has recently been mailed by the RSPCA.

They have taken a slightly different angle. They have enclosed two donation devices. One is a traditional £2 a month direct debit form and the other is a coin carrier that can hold two £1 coins. 

Interestingly, this pack has been running for a number of years. I've looked in the special Bluefrog bag of old appeals and I've found one dated 2006 and another dated 2007.

The pack has obviously been created for an older audience (with a strong female bias). They enclose three free commemorative postcards, the font is very large and the central theme is the RSPCA's unchanging service to animals in a changing world.

At Bluefrog, we've achieved great success with this concept with younger audiences. I know from experience that it will also work with older ones, but their conversion rate to DD isn't as good.

It strikes me that the £2 a month is still the primary goal. The £2 coin drop ask is likely to be a cash sweep to help improve ROI and then lead in to a follow-up approach. 

I haven't supported the RSPCA since I was a child, but this has intrigued me. So I'm investing a couple of quid to see what happens next. Who knows, I could become converted to a committed giver.

Do you want your donors to love your charity?

I remember being at a fundraising conference a few years back where delegates were talking with jealousy about the passion that people had for football teams and rock stars. One person summed up this feeling by saying how he felt when he went to see his favourite band:

"When I go to a concert, I just go crazy with my air guitar. I want my donors to do that."

Football teams and rock bands generate huge levels of passion and commitment. People will spend thousands of pounds following them. Cripes, some people will even emblazon their bodies with names, logos and even pictures – just like my friend Chelsea Paul.

But are charities ready for what that sort of passion entails? Do they really want it? 

Would they welcome thousands of people turning up at their offices in response to a change of policy. Petitions being delivered pressing for the removal of chief executives. Or even be in the situation that faced Mike Ashley, owner of Newcastle United, who didn't feel safe enough to go to a game at his own club?

And of course, there is the reverse of love – hate. For every person who loves a team or band, there will be another who takes an opposing view. Let's take the football team who currently top the Premier League for example – Manchester United.

I have created a love-o-meter and put Man U through it to see what happens (OK it's not a love-o-meter, it's just Google and I'm searching "love manchester united", "love man u" and "love man united" against the "hate" equivalents).

I've found 123,600 references to loving and 70,100 to hating, which gives a love-o-meter ratio of 1.8. Chelsea does better with a ratio of 2, whilst Arsenal gets a good 3.4. Liverpool, however, with 232,000 loves vs only 40,800 hates, tops the "Big 4" with a ratio of 5.7.

It's similar for bands. Coldplay generates a return of 5, whilst there is another massive Merseyside love in from The Beatles with a ratio of 12 (with over 1.15 million loves).

(And while we are at it, Mcdonald's with their I'm lovin' it campaign, generates 18,700 hates).

And I imagine you know that I couldn't resist testing a few of the country's biggest charities on the love-o-meter. The number of returns was tiny compared to music and football. Only a few hundred people were driven to blog or comment about the voluntary organisations that I chose – Oxfam, NSPCC, RSPCA and The National Trust. 

As you'll see, The National Trust came out way on top with a ratio of 94.8 and at the bottom was Oxfam with a ratio of 4.

But it's the comments that people make that are most interesting (if you discount the obviously ridiculous ones such as:

"Last time, I gave them my old demob suit. I turned the telly on and saw President Mugabe wearing it...I hate Oxfam".)

The vast majority of love posts for Oxfam, for example, are about the shops.

"I absolutely love Oxfam! they're definitely my charity shop of choice".

"I ave to say dat I personally love oxfam!!!!! it may sound stoky but omg the clothes are top of last centurys range and they are amazingly stylish and cheap".

And the hate ones are often about face to face recruitment or direct debits.

"Sometimes, i hate Oxfam for having my money when I want to go to lunch or buy something frivolous, but it's a fleeting thing."

"I hate Oxfam. Walking through town today, i have been accosted by several of Oxfam's offensive young chuggers."

Ok. Back to being sensible. The idea of the love-o-meter is nothing more than a little fun messing around with Google, but I think there is something we can learn from it.

People have their emotions stirred when something effects them personally – by winning goals or fantastic music or more mundanely by finding a great bargain in a shop or by being inconvenienced in the street – but it would seem people are rarely driven to strong emotion by what a charity is actually doing towards achieving their key mission.

And I don't think it's because they don't care. 

I think it is because we are not talking enough about the role of the donor in what we do. We give facts and figures in magazines, appeals and on-line but we forget that human beings are powered by emotion – not by reason.

As Lovemarks points out, a whole range of studies have proven that if the emotion centres of the brain are damaged in an accident or by disease, we don't just stop laughing or crying, we also lose the ability to make decisions.

It's best summed up by the neurologist, Donald Calne:

"The essential difference between emotion and reason is that emotion leads to action while reason leads to conclusions."

And if we are going to get people to love charities as much as football teams or bands we need to remember it's what we offer the donor that is important. By moving them emotionally, by engaging them, by offering them a chance to grow – by focussing on their individual needs as people – we will succeed.

Then we may have another issue to deal with as people try to gain more control over what charities do, but as my dear old friend, Martin McAuley often says:

"That's a different class of problem, Mark".

Build it where they already are

There are some interesting statistics available from Robin Goad on Hitwise regarding a recent RSPCA viral campaign.

Simon's Cat creator Simon Tofield, released a new episode of his cartoon series on YouTube on December the 8th. But rather than being about Simon's cat, it was about his sister's dog and created for the RSPCA to highlight the problems of pet obesity.  

As you might imagine, there was a direct link to the charity's Give Animals a Voice website that helped generate a massive peak in visits over the next few days with up to 16.5% of traffic being generated by YouTube.

There's an interesting aspect worth pointing out in the importance of traffic generated from Hotmail (Microsoft Live Mail), which accounted for approximately 25% of traffic on two days. It's also fascinating to see, as Robin points out, that traffic went back the other way - for the week ending the 13th of December the top rated site after Give Animals a Voice was YouTube.

I've already Blogged about FORGE's "buld it and hope they'll come" website strategy (which didn't work). The RSPCA have taken a different approach. They are being successful because they are tapping into a community that already exists. Simon's Cat's YouTube channel has over 60,000 subscribers  and some of the cartoons have had over 7.8 million views. This audience is going to contain a fair number of cat (and dog) lovers who could benefit from a reminder about pet health, but will probably also be good prospects for a gift too. 

This approach of "build it where they already are" seems blindingly obvious. The days of put up a banner and hope they'll click are over. You might get picked up by the YouTube massive if, like Kiva, you get a great partnership deal, but now our goal must be to focus on going to our audience where they are in a way that works for them and adds real value to our brand.

MarketingSherpa has found that a large number of marketeers are already planning on taking this route. Their September 2008 survey of 382 marketing professionals found that 48% were planning on increasing their marketing budget for social networking sites compared to 43% who were planning on reducing their spend on online display advertising.

It's also interesting to note that a third of those surveyed were planning to reduce their spend on products like Google's Adwords and Yahoo's Search Marketing.

When it comes down to it, people are more likely to engage with us when they feel comfortable. If that means we need to go to their homes on the web, then that's where we should be. Just like we used to go to their real homes (and as we still do, for that matter) with the always reliable direct mail pack.