YouthNet blog
An insight into youth issues, volunteering trends, charity life and more from the UK charity YouthNet
All | Events | Youth | Technology | Volunteering | YouthNet | Charity World
Tuesday Jun 10, 2008
Raising money from the web
My gut feeling is that really innovative trading schemes for charities are fairly few and far between at the moment – despite the increasingly blurred line between the for-profit and non-profit sectors, which presents huge opportunities (and threats) in this area for charities.
This is YouthNet's take on innovative trading – my colleague James and I gave this presentation at the Professional Fundraising conference at the end of May.
Obviously the slides won't make as much sense as they would accompanied by the scintillating, witty narrative that James and I delivered on the day, but hopefully you'll get the general idea.
Anyone else have any thoughts/comments/other examples of charities trading in innovative ways?
Friday May 02, 2008
People to people fundraising and web 2.0 - what does it mean for fundraisers?
I went to two conferences this week, both of with featured sessions on social networking and fundraising. The first was "Communicating Success" on Wednesday, which attracted a mixed bag of fundraisers and comms people, and the second took place yesterday afternoon and was purely focussed on "people to people" fundraising, social networking and web2.0.
Ted Hart, the US-based online fundraising guru was at both, and the yesterday's seminar was also the launch of his new book "People to People Fundraising – social networking and web 2.0 for charities".
Both were really useful, and helped to shed some light on what can sometimes seem like a bit of a rudderless mess down here in the fundraising world.
To grossly paraphrase the key points from both seminars (and I hope I'm not stealing anyone's thunder here):
- People to people fundraising online is just the same as offline – it's all about relationships and it's what fundraisers have been doing since the cows came home;
- The goal is "less fundraising, more inspiring";
- As things stand, charities aren't raising significant money from Facebook. There's a stack of data to back this up – Clint O'Brien from Care2 had some really interesting stats about the amounts most non-profits are generating from Facebook (eg. average donation per supporter on Facebook is $1.24). Having said that, Allan Benamer has some interesting stats on the Causes application – which has processed around $2 million in one year;
- Charities (and fundraisers) need to be better at "getting out of the way". Increasingly, donors want to share experiences with the charities they support – the more authentic, the better;
- This also presents huge challenges in terms of reporting impact. Look at www.kiva.org – a site that's extremely effective at putting you in contact with the people you're supporting;
- Organisational models need to change. Silo working won't work in this multi-disciplinary world, you need input from Marketing, Comms, Fundraising and Web teams.
For me, some of the key challenges facing fundraisers are:
- How do we build a business case for investing time and money in fundraising from social networks, especially when we know it's not a quick win financially (check out Frog Loop's Social ROI calculator for one take on this);
- Where does this sit within the organisation? If we work in silos, fundraising from social networks will never reach it's true potential;
- How can we make an individual's interaction with our charity as authentic as possible? And how can we "get out the way" when we really need to?
- How do we avoid (or at least remain mindful of) potentially asking our beneficiaries for money, given that they inhabit this web 2.0 world as well?
This final point is particularly pertinent for us here at YouthNet. As a purely online charity, separating the audience that needs and benefits from our content from those that can and want to support us is a challenge. The last thing we want to do is make anyone feel like they have to support us in return for finding the information they need on our sites – whether it's www.do-it.org.uk or www.TheSite.org.
Plenty of challenges there then. Anyone have any thoughts?
P.S. In answer to Peter Deitz's question "Is People to People fundraising dead, or just getting started?" – my two pennies worth is that we're just working it out. For me, the exciting thing is we're just working out what does and doesn't work, and where to focus our energies. So, it's a time for experimentation, openness and willingness to make some mistakes.
The question has opened up some interesting debate – check out the Justgiving blog for their view.Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:04 AM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Tuesday Apr 29, 2008
Which list would you rather be on?
Last weekend saw eager fundraisers all over the UK buying the Times on Sunday, with a view to schmoosing the UK's rich list and securing some major gifts. No surprises there – the number one entry (Lakshmi Patel and family) is worth £27,700 million, or 27,700,000,000 pounds written in its full glory. Obviously, a donation equal to a tiny fraction of this wealth would make a huge difference to pretty much any charity you care to mention, and no doubt Major Donor fundraisers are poring over the list as I type.
At the same time, The Independent ran an interesting alternative to the "Rich List" – with the slightly unimaginative title of the "Happy List". They selected their entries according to how well they excelled in the following areas: Mental well-being, Physical health, Philanthropy, Charity, Pleasure, Environment, Innovation, Volunteers/time givers, Community service, Entertainment .
I applaud the move away from the growing trend of using wealth as an indicator of happiness, although if I'm being picky I do find some of the choices slightly bewildering. Seeing the two lists together does pose the question – which one would you rather be on?
Perhaps the real winners are those that feature on both, for example Sir Tom Hunter, who is worth £1,050 million, has pledged to give £1 billion to charity and is quoted as saying "Philanthropy is the only motivator to continue making money".
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 3:44 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Tuesday Mar 04, 2008
Get your thinking hats on
As I’ve mentioned before, the voluntary sector is facing more and more competition from the private sector to deliver innovative solutions to complex social issues.
This calls for a spirit of collaboration and openness, between charities, sectors and disciplines (and, of course, some extra cash never hurts…). A couple of examples of ways to encourage and facilitate this collaboration have come to light recently.
The first is the Innovation Exchange, which aims to “improve the relationships between third sector practitioners, public service commissioners, social investors and policy makers.” The Exchange has already attracted a pretty heavyweight list of contributors and should spark off some interesting debate.
The second is the Social Innovation Camp, which takes place between 4th and 6th April. Their website poses the slightly scary question:
“What happens when you get a bunch of software developers and social innovators together, give them a set of social problems and only 48 hours to solve them?”
Answers on a postcard please.
It’ll be interesting to see what projects and collaborations fall out of these initiatives – it’s also great to see more of a unified approach to tackling social issues.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 10:33 AM ) Link to this post Comments[4]
Friday Feb 29, 2008
Elevator pitches, stats and stories
As fundraisers we get tied up all the time about key messages, and here at YouthNet we're no exception. We've worked quite hard to try and succinctly articulate what we do – something that's harder than you think when you look at the broad scope of www.do-it.org.uk and www.TheSite.org.
Anyway, seeing Joe Saxton talk about the "21st Century Donor" (check out the free report here) at the CHASE conference this week got me thinking about the key messages fundraisers use when asking for money.
One of the things he pointed out was that humans are completely irrational, and many of the decisions we make are linked to an emotional response, rather than hard facts. This is backed up by research – the example Joe gave described how when faced with the choice of donating to save one specific child, or a number of children, many people would choose the individual. As he explained, this is linked to "learned helplessness" – something many of us feel at the moment with regard to climate change. We know it's a massive issue, but it's just too big for us to tackle as individuals.
Everyone knows that stories tug the heartstrings and make people donate, not stats. The oldest fundraising cliché in the book is that "people give to people" – another example of irrational, emotional behaviour driving donations.
This raises a really important conflict for fundraisers – we know that we need emotional stories to demonstrate the need for funding, but we also know that we need to be clearly accountable (which in most people's eyes means stats, spreadsheets and piecharts).
Sometimes we don't get the balance right. So, we end up blurring the two together whilst we're asking for money, or we end up overloading people with dry stats. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, we think that stories, rather than stats, will suffice when it comes to being accountable.
I think this may be the root of some of the discomfort fundraiser's feel about being transparent and accountable. We're used to telling emotional stories, and donors want to hear them – but, as Joe said, no one wants to feel like a charity has made a mug out of them.
So what's the solution? I guess being completely clear about what we're doing. If we're asking for money to tackle a clear need, be emotive, but if we're trying to demonstrate the impact, maybe cold, hard stats are the way forward.
By the way, here's our "elevator pitch" – what do you think?
"YouthNet exists to support 16-24 year olds in every aspect of their lives. Whether it's emergency help in times of crisis, support with everyday issues, or getting involved in their local communities, YouthNet is always there for them. Twelve years ago, we were the first charity to recognise the potential of the internet and today we are still known for our pioneering approach."Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:48 AM ) Link to this post Comments[2]
Wednesday Feb 20, 2008
Brokers make hay whilst the sun shines
Those of you involved in volunteering, in particular employee volunteering, can't have failed to notice the increase in brokers and consultants (I'll call them brokers for the purposes of this post) over the past few years. I have – in particular at conferences and seminars about employee volunteering, for example.
A few years ago, it seemed like it was just us fundraisers scrolling through the delegate lists looking for companies that might be potential donors, with the odd broker scattered round here or there. Now the delegate lists feature increasing numbers of them, and I think reactions to them in both the corporate and voluntary sectors are pretty interesting.
For starters, companies seem to be much happier dealing with brokers than they are dealing directly with charities. I know that's a generalisation, but it makes sense – after all, I don't know of many CSR Managers who enjoy being mobbed by fundraisers eyeing up their community investment budget.
I think this also stems from a disconnect between the corporate and charity sectors – in terms of both language and culture. Whether this disconnect is real or not doesn't really matter. If it's perceived, it's there.
It's this disconnect that brokers and consultants look to bridge.
"It's OK" they say to bewildered companies. "I'll guide you though the maze that is the voluntary sector. I'll use the phrases and words that you know and love, and I'll take some of those tough decisions for you."
"And the invoice is in the post."
Of course there's nothing wrong with consultants and brokers charging for their services. Most of them have great knowledge and expertise of both the corporate and voluntary sectors, and they run a slick, professional ship.
What's frustrating is that when charities seek to generate income through providing services to a company, they're often met with "why should we have to pay for that? You're a charity aren't you?"
On those occasions, I'm sure if we re-branded as a consultancy and went back with the same service, those objections wouldn't exist.
I'm not sure why that happens – I suspect it's related to the perceived balance of power in a "traditional" fundraising relationship – eg. "I have some money to give", rather than "I have a need which charity X can solve".
I've got some questions around this new(ish) company - broker - charity power structure - starting with:
If it's OK for a broker to charge a company for sourcing voluntary sector partnerships, is it OK for a charity to charge a company in a similar way for services it provides? (and I don't mean at a discounted, "charity" rate).
If the consultants & brokers are paid by the company out of their CSR budget, shouldn't they be as transparent about how much they pay the brokers as they are about the donations they make to charity?
I guess the crux of this post is where does the power lie in the company – broker – charity relationship?
And why are companies more willing to pay brokers and consultants than charities when it comes to delivering services?
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 5:15 PM ) Link to this post Comments[2]
Tuesday Jan 22, 2008
Can CSR ride out the storm?
The Economist published some interesting research on CSR last week that suggests that "doing well by doing good" is now firmly embedded in business executive's list of priorities. More than 50% of respondents to their survey said that CSR was a "high" or "very high" priority for their business now, compared to 34% three years ago.
As the accompanying article points out, some companies are streets ahead in terms of maximising both their beneficial impact on society and their profits and reputation, whereas others seem to be dragging their feet somewhat.
No big surprises there, but the grim news from the world's stock markets this week adds some interesting context.
Will those companies with well established programmes continue to give their time and money? As all fundraisers know, despite the best intentions in the world, cash donations often drop off when the going gets tough. Or will CSR's increasing focus on reputation management move it further up the agenda?
Who knows. It does feel like we're at a bit of a tipping point for CSR though – it will be interesting to see what level of commitment remains if the bad news continues for the private sector.
Friday Dec 07, 2007
Do as we say, not as we do.
So was anyone really surprised by The Guardian's news that banks in the UK have been exploiting charity law to generate "billions of pounds in funds through complex financial deals that use supposedly charitable trusts which are not donating a penny to good causes"? Is it a measure of just how weary we are with banks that this story hasn't created more of a fuss?
I'm slightly ashamed to admit that my initial reaction was an apathetic shrug of the shoulders. If ever there was a sector that seems incapable of moving beyond pure self-interest, it's the high street banks, and it comes as no surprise that they've found another way to generate more profit – regardless of whose name, or cause, they use.
The Guardian gives the example of Northern Rock, who has raised £71 billion – that's right, £71 BILLION – though a trust called Granite. In their promotional literature, they tell potential investors that "any profits ... will be paid for the benefit of the Down's Syndrome North East Association (UK) and for other charitable purposes." Of course, Down's Syndrome North East have seen nothing of this, and apparently they weren't even informed about it.
Best of all, when contacted by The Guardian about it, Northern Rock apologised to the charity for what it described as an "oversight".
The more I read I about this, the angrier I get. I've wittered on about transparency and how both the private and voluntary sectors need to improve on this before, so I'm not going to do it again now. Other than to say how patronising it can be to hear from the private sector that we need to follow their business models, use their parameters to measure impact and return on investment and all the other words we now use – then find out that this kind of thing has happened again in the private sector.
Sometimes it feels like there are two completely separate rules for the private and voluntary sectors – and the one labelled "integrity" is consistently thrown out in the drive for profits (and I'm sure any proper "business men" reading that will be rolling their eyes and chuckling at the naivety of that statement).
Will these banks suffer a downturn in profits as a result of their lack of transparency (some might say bare faced lying)? I doubt it. When poorly administered charities are exposed there's often a direct, negative impact on their "business" – they get fewer donations.
What's the equivalent with the banks? I suspect that this situation is "OK" because the banks are generating more profit for themselves and their investors, so they're hardly likely to kick up a fuss.
What strikes me the most with this kind of story, is the overwhelming sense of being completely powerless to do anything about what has happened. It's like being a kid at school, and finding out that the school bully is actually the son of the Headmaster, and best mates with all the teachers.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 12:00 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Monday Oct 29, 2007
Welcome to the pony club?
I went to a training seminar on Friday afternoon for corporate fundraisers from a mix of different charities. During the coffee break I was stood gazing out the window when another (male) fundraiser wondered over and asked me if I felt, like him, a little out numbered.
Looking round the room I could see what he meant. Out of around 40 delegates, there were 3 guys (myself included). What's more, I would estimate that 75% of the audience were white females, under the age of 30.
A colleague at a former employer coined a term for this huge gender and class generalisation – "the pony club". I think that's a big assumption (and pretty degrading to be honest), but it can't be denied that the majority of corporate fundraisers do fit the same demographic (and I include myself 100% in this group).
I've noticed a similar trend with CSR and Community Investment professionals as well – from my experience most entry level CSR roles are held by women under the age of 30, although the percentage of women seems to drop sharply as you move up in seniority (which some of you won't be surprised about).
So why is corporate fundraising (and I suspect fundraising in general) so dominated by women? In fact, why are there so many white, traditionally middle class corporate fundraisers (and I'm slap bang in the middle of that group)?
Sociologists – over to you.
I'm going to do a completely unscientific study and keep a tally of the gender and ethnicity split at the next few seminars I go to – if you're really lucky I might even put the results up on this blog (unless I get a life in the meantime and find other things to wonder about).
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:46 AM ) Link to this post Comments[2]
Thursday Oct 04, 2007
Is the voluntary sector up for the fight?
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with three other Foundations, have come under criticism from a range of charities recently, by funding MTV's ThinkMTV.com.
According to The New York Times, several charities had applied to some of the funders to support their own social networking sites – and been turned down.
Whilst I completely agree that the infrastructure of the voluntary sector desperately needs investment, I don't see that funding a commercial organisation is necessarily a problem.
As I've mentioned before, the lines between charities, social enterprises and businesses are blurring at an ever-increasing rate – and it's no longer a case of "charity good, business bad". MTV's reach into the youth audience is unparalleled by the non-profit sector – if they can use this to inspire young people to affect social change, why shouldn't they have the support of charitable foundations?
The bad news for fundraisers is that increasingly we will compete with commercial organisations like MTV for resources and funding – in addition to the increasing number of other charities out there doing great work.
How will we differentiate ourselves? I'm not sure that talking about our values, or the "ethos of the voluntary sector" is enough any more. We need proven expertise and excellence to rival the skills of the commercial sector.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:14 AM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Friday Sep 14, 2007
NSPCC in hot water
The Daily Mail reported this week that the NSPCC had "faked child abuse stories to generate cash".
Apparently, a direct mailing from the charity contained made up call transcripts detailing acts of cruelty to children. I'm honestly surprised at the naivety on display here. As I've mentioned many times before (and pardon me for sounding like a stuck record), there is a point at which the drive for transparency becomes detrimental to both the donor, and the charity in question.
In this case, the Advertising Standards Authority received several complaints about the shocking nature of the call transcripts, which it then investigated and found to be made up.
Does anyone doubt that Childline/NSPCC has received calls like this though? In reality, I'd imagine they could show us call transcripts that were even more disturbing than the made up ones they used.
What's interesting here is that the Mail focussed on the fabricated call transcripts, rather than the complaints to the ASA – which makes me wonder what they would like to see in Direct Mail packs. Perhaps real life transcripts, with pictures of the children on the phone calling Childline?
OK – I'm taking things too far there, but there is a point at which the anonymity of the people desperately seeking advice needs to be upheld and protected – at all costs. This also raises the issue of trust, which is absolutely vital to services like Childline and askTheSite, YouthNet's own Q&A service on TheSite.org.
When we have permission, we publish selected questions, with their answers, to our Q&A archive. This means others can benefit from the advice – but in our case it's relatively easy to ask for this permission because we are a web-based service that may give people a bit more time to consider what they ask us.
Obviously the situation is different for a telephone helpline – it's much harder to ask someone on the phone for permission to publish their most private worries and concerns on the phone, immediately after they've told you what they are.
If people needing advice feel the slightest danger that their privacy may not be respected, the service is compromised – which is surely too big a price to pay in return for donors reading some "real life" call transcripts.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 8:09 AM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Thursday Aug 30, 2007
So who does read the voluntary sector blogosphere?
Professional Fundraising ran an interesting article this week about Intelligent Giving, "the independent site for the smarter giver". The site has ruffled some feathers in some parts of the sector, notably after the Institute of Fundraising Awards dinner, when it listed the charities that paid for tables (you can also read a short interview with Dave on our blog here).
Whilst I don't think "the blogosphere exploded" as Professional Fundraising put it, it did cause some controversy. We were caught up in it as well, as YouthNet went to the dinner, and paid for a table, as our Deputy Development Director Sarah explained in her comment on their blog.
Anyway, I've got some time for sites like Intelligent Giving, and the debate that they often spark. What I found particularly interesting about the article though was Intelligent Giving Editor Dave Pitchford's comment that he estimates around 50% of their readers are from the voluntary sector.That got me thinking about the introspective nature of the voluntary sector in the UK, and how much of a problem this is for the sector. Being a fresh faced youngster, I haven't been in the sector as long as most, but it strikes me that we can be almost neurotic in raising and debating issues that start off small and can appear insurmountable, once we've peered at them and prodded them from every angle.
So, some of the questions I've got are:
Is it such a problem that sites like Intelligent Giving are read mainly by people in the voluntary sector?
How do we engage with "the public" more on the issues of transparency, effective ways to give and charity governance?
Why would you read blogs about charities and voluntary sector issues unless you worked in the sector yourself?Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:07 AM ) Link to this post Comments[3]
Friday Aug 24, 2007
The Big Ask goes digital
Friends of the Earth's "The Big Ask" campaign site is a great example of using digital media to encourage participation and deliver a compelling campaign message. The landing page creates a real sense of community and I like the way your own message can sit alongside "famous marchers" like Thom Yorke, Stephen Fry and... um... James Blunt.
Allowing individuals to participate like this is also a good way of reinventing the more traditional ways of protesting, as well as lifting the time and location based restrictions of a protest march.
On TheSite.org we've added a lot more content relating to activism and campaigning, including a pool of "virtual volunteering" opportunities that aren't limited by your location.
Sharing views and forming groups virtually now seems to have passed a tipping point, whereby genuine change can be created from the virtual world – let's hope we see some more examples of this soon.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 8:56 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Friday Aug 10, 2007
Johnson & Johnson puts the heat on The American Red Cross
Johnson & Johnson are suing The American Red Cross after they allegedly violated an agreement made over 100 years ago. The violation related to use of the logo to sell products – in this case health & safety kits sold by the American Red Cross to generate income for their disaster relief work (you can check out the store here).Putting aside the obviously unpalatable prospect of an global business giant suing a charitable organisation that has carried out live saving work for over a century, this raises some really important issues and questions for charities and businesses alike.
Driven by the rise of the ethical consumer, brands and businesses have become increasingly ethically conscious – Marks and Spencer's Plan A being a great example. This means charities no longer have the bragging rights on "doing good" – introducing an element of competition which is causing considerable nervousness in the non-profit world.
On the flip side, non-profits are becoming more commercially savvy – and the private sector is also facing some commercial competition from charities.
So, is this law suit an inevitable by product of the line between charities and businesses blurring?
If The American Red Cross did violate their agreement with Johnson & Johnson, does the fact that they're a well loved charity that does fantastic work make it "OK"?
If charities are going to compete with the private sector for punter's hard earned cash, as a sector do we have the skills and savvy to take on "big business" and win?
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 8:41 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Thursday Jul 19, 2007
The eye of transparency rests on the BBC
Imagine being in the audience on a game show, willing on the contestants to win the prize of a lifetime (or just feeling jealous that it's them up there not you – either works).
Having watched one of the lucky contestants win, imagine finding out that in fact, they weren't a member of the public, but one of the production team on the show.
It's not a particularly great feeling, but it's pretty similar to how some people are feeling today, after the BBC 'fessed up to several breaches in editorial policy on various programmes. In particular, interactive competitions on Children in Need and Sport Relief were mentioned as being won by members of the production team, for various reasons (such as calls from the public being "lost").
In the voluntary sector we're pretty obsessed with transparency and accountability, and in a way it's comforting to know that an institution like the BBC is grappling with the very same issues that we're trying to get to grips with (indeed, we were mentioned in a very interesting debate over on Intelligent Giving this week. In fact, whilst we're on Intelligent Giving, this isn't the first time the BBC, in the form of Children in Need, has fallen under the transparency spotlight).
I was particularly dismayed to hear about one of the BBC programmes mentioned yesterday – Sport Relief. Sport Relief ran what to my mind is one of the very few successful SMS fundraising campaigns back in 2002 – at the time it was fantastic to see a new fundraising technique being used to such good effect, and I remember feeling inspired and slightly jealous of the resources and platform at Sport Relief's disposal.
I don't know the details of the breach in editorial standards on Sport Relief, but it would be pretty tragic if those early interactive campaigns that generated significant funds for a great cause were rigged (even if the decisions were taken as a result of huge production pressures).
I haven't been a big fan of endless reporting on funding, in particular when it is purely driven by the needs of the funder, as opposed to a set of mutually beneficial outcomes, but this episode has really brought home how vital transparency is.
It's also shown how important it is to be open when things have gone wrong, and I think the BBC have done an admirable job in coming clean and drawing a line in the sand about the consequences of any future breaches in policy.Posted by Sam Thomas ( 10:57 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Monday Jun 11, 2007
The Rise of the Reporting Machines
I'm all for measuring impact when it comes to fundraising, and, for the most part, I get the impression that charities are steadily improving when it comes to accountability and transparency.
Recently though I seem to be having more and conversations that revolve around the amount of time and resource that goes into measuring the impact of charitable support. I'd be really interested to know how much staff time is spent across the voluntary sector on measuring impact, and, more to the point, what the impact of all this measurement really is.
What I mean by that is what really happens to these reports once they're written? I know some of it ends up in a CSR report, or the company website, but is it really communicated to employees for example?
Does that even matter?
Also, does impact reporting offer any guarantee that donations have been used wisely and cost effectively?
Even if that isn't the primary purpose, I think it's definitely an underlying theme.
If one of the main purposes is to inspire employees and donors, then coming up with a figure for the total amount of cash levered from a partnership certainly isn't going to float my boat. I'd rather hear some inspirational case studies, or get out and about and try and see the impact for myself.
So who is all this reporting for? If the main purpose is for donor organisations to demonstrate how active they are in their communities, then shouldn't the resource needed sit more with them?
As a starting point, I'd love to see some independent research into how much cash is being spent by the sector on reporting. As this figure increases over time, are we going to have to start fundraising for money to spend on reporting?
Perhaps we'll end up in an eternal cycle of getting donations to fund reporting, then reporting on that reporting, until we stop being charities and start becoming reporting machines.
Monday morning rant over - as I mentioned at the start of this post, I'm 100% behind charities being accountable and being able to demonstrate the impact of their support. I just think sometimes we're in danger of measuring the wrong thing.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:15 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Thursday May 03, 2007
Greening Apple
Imagine winning a Webby Award, and it being only the second best thing to happen to you that week.
That's the happy circumstance for the people behind Greenpeace's Green My Apple campaign.
On Monday they won the Activism Webby for their site which, parodying Apple's look and feel, attacks the company for using "hazardous substances that other companies have abandoned". It's actually quite a straightforward campaign, but because Apple's branding is so strong, hijacking it is very effective.
Greenpeace was pleased with the award, yet, as they said: "It's a victory that has a bittersweet taste, in that the Webby Awards celebrate a world made possible by the very electronics industry which our e-waste campaign is challenging, and which our Green my Apple project is but a part."
However, by Tuesday there was reason to be more cheerful. Apple announced a shift to a greener policy that, while not everything that Greenpeace has asked for, did represent significant progress.
Posted by Tom Green ( 10:45 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Monday Apr 30, 2007
Branding Science
Love Creative (the people being the branding of 'V') are working on a new project for the Science Council.
The Science Council are developing a brand new website for young people and the website will be a place where young people go to find out about the interesting opportunities that studying science can offer. So, the first thing they need to do is choose a name for the new site. They’ve developed 6 alternative names and they need your help to choose a winner. 10 lucky voters will win an Ipod.
You can vote at www.sciencevote.co.uk.
Monday Mar 26, 2007
Giving a toss
It's always good to see charities being rude and offensive, so my initial response to the Give A Toss campaign was positive. The fact is that they are trying to encourage men to wank in a cubicle - there's no point being shy about it. So, posters of women in tight T-shirts emblazoned with the legend "We want your sperm", spoof news videos and an (admittedly terrible) online game all seem appropriate enough.
However, a campaign like this needs to be backed up by facts. And that is where the site falls down. Badly. There is a short paragraph explaining that "the decision to donate can have far-reaching consequences" but nowhere on the site can I see mention of the fact that a law change in 2005 means that donors no longer have the right to anonymity.
That seems to me like a fairly crucial piece of information, and The National Gamete Donation Trust, the charity behind the Give A Toss campaign, should be up-front about it.
In fact, on reflection I even find myself sympathetic to the arguments of those who think the whole campaign is ill-conceived.
*Olivia Montuschi, of the Donor Conception Network, a group representing 1,000 families, said: "I was very shocked. This campaign appears to promote the image of a sperm donor as someone who is not hugely responsible - the very opposite of the image we would like to see portrayed.*
Quite why anyone, without anonymity, would wish to donate is another matter.
Posted by Tom Green ( 10:20 AM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Wednesday Mar 07, 2007
Is Bono running into the (Red)?
Unless you've been living under a rock over the last few years you can't have failed to notice the (Red) campaign to raise money and awareness to support The Global Fund's mission of fighting AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in Africa.
This week has seen a really interesting reaction from advertisers, charities and (Red) themselves after the initial results of the campaign were reported. Since 2002, the campaign has generated $18 million for The Global Fund, soon to be $25 million when (Red) have completed their latest accounting.
Advertising Age gleefully reported that despite a marketing spend of up to $100 million the "Costly Red Campaign Reaps Meager $18 Million". In the article they ask the question:
"...is the rise of philanthropic fashionistas decked out in Red T-shirts and iPods really the best way to save a child dying of AIDS in Africa?"
I think this is a worthwhile question to ask about a lot of initiatives (have a read of Nick Temple's SSE blog post about Global Cool for a well put argument), and if you're asking which is better – everyone buying a (Red) product or the same amount of people making a donation to The Global Fund - then there's no question which is more effective.
However, in the case of (Red) I don't think it's as simple as that, and Advertising Age seem to have overlooked the point that maybe the majority, or even a significant percentage of (Red) customers may never have donated to charity before.
The overwhelming impression from the Advertising Age article is that this won't make any difference, and in fact may actually mean young people give less in the future. Trent Stamp, president of the Charity Navigator, says:
"The Red campaign can be a good start or it can be a colossal waste of money, and it all depends on whether this edgy, innovative campaign inspires young people to be better citizens or just gives them an excuse to feel good about themselves while they buy an overpriced item they don't really need."
Now I'm as cynical (if not more) as the next man, but I also think we shouldn't condemn the campaign already. (Red) have responded to the article on their site, and as they point out:
"There is actual data showing that when people become aware of crises, they give more money rather than less. Your writer doesn't mention that data. We believe (RED) will lead to more rather than less giving."
I hope they're right and I can't help feeling that there's an element of "Bono Bashing" behind the joyful reaction to the campaign raising less then they may have hoped for.
*UPDATE* I just (belatedly!) picked up on this post by Ann Hadley about Buy (LESS) Crap, a site created by WPI and Romantic Static - there's a great conversation about cause related marketing and the (RED) campaign going on - well worth a read!
Tuesday Mar 06, 2007
USA Today 2.0
Following Tom's post about vinspired.com, fans of the News might have picked up that USA Today has just launched an all new "2.0" version of their site. It features a whole load of features, allowing you to tag content, see the most popular stories, submit your photos for relevant news stories and join in and comment on their Community Centre.
I was thinking about the launch of another "2.0" site last week as well, as I came across "MyActionAid", ActionAid's community site. The site allows fundraisers to share experiences and photos on the forum and create fundraising pages.
I'm really interested in how both of these sites will get on. I know ActionAid have nothing like the resources of USA Today, but I think it might highlight some interesting comparisons in terms of how useful some new "2.0" functionalities are, and what the other ingredients for success are for sites that thrive on contributions from users.
The reason why I think this comparison might be a useful is that I think people may use the sites in different ways, but the tools available to them are broadly similar. By that I mean both sites invite people to contribute and discuss issues that are important to them – but USA Today has a regular supply of topical, controversial content in the News, whereas I think it's fair enough to say ActionAid won't.
I like the look of the ActionAid site but I can imagine it'll be a challenge to get people to keep contributing and coming back to the forum. Having said that, if people taking part in a time specific fundraising activity for ActionAid use it for the duration of their activity and then never come back, maybe that should be viewed as a successful community site?
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:11 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Tuesday Feb 20, 2007
Non-profits and accountability - again
Ever since I read Michael Schrage's article in the Financial Times on transparency in the voluntary sector I've been mulling over why it gets my goat so much.I think part of it is that I'm getting seriously bored hearing the same thing about accountability and transparency. I also think the article contains quite a few huge generalisations that aren't particularly helpful to the whole debate.
To kick things off, Michael says:
"...corporate results are measured in the marketplace while philanthropic results are not. That invites mischief and mismanagement."I'm sure this has been written to provoke debate (or wind up people like me in the voluntary sector), but I don't think you can draw immediate comparisons between the private and voluntary sectors when it comes to measuring results. I don't believe outcomes for non-profits are as clear cut as the financial performance of a company.
For example, how do you measure the success of a young person leaving the care system managing to budget for their weekly shop for the very first time? Is that comparable to a strong performance over the financial year? I'm being slightly facetious here – I know he's talking about financial performance in both the private and voluntary sectors, but I still think it demonstrates the point that solutions for the voluntary sector don't always involve replicating what the private sector does.
All too often it feels like "big business" thinks it can rock up and tear into the way charities operate – don't get me wrong, of course there are an awful lot of lessons the voluntary sector can learn from the business world, but there seems to be little or no reciprocation in terms of the private sector taking things from successful non-profits.
Later, Michael says:
"Freedom and fairness demand individuals and institutions have a right financially to support lawful ideals and causes. That right does not entitle philanthropists to policies subsidising inefficiency and opacity."
I completely agree – but he seems to miss the point that all this transparency and opacity comes at a cost. Who should fund the time, systems and processes needed to bring all this transparency in?
Increasingly, non-profits find themselves spending more of their time reporting on how they've spent donations, which of course is central to the push for accountability.
However, I wonder how many donors would be happy to know that rather than their donation funding 10 vaccinations, or a new well for example, the charity has used it to send time reporting on how they've spent a donation from someone else?
If the business world is so exasperated by the lack of transparency in the voluntary sector, rather than moaning about it perhaps it should put its hand in its pocket and provide the resources (and cash) that charities need to improve.
Interestingly enough, another article in today's FT says that:
"Consumers in five of the worlds leading economies believe business ethics have worsened in the past five years and are turning to "ethical consumerism" to make companies more accountable."
So, perhaps the corporate sector has still got some work to do around accountability then.
Or maybe I'm just feeling a bit defensive about it all...
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 5:12 PM ) Link to this post Comments[4]Destination 2014
Consultation lovers will, no doubt, already have discovered the Destination 2014 website. It's where you can have your say about the plans of Capacitybuilders in the aftermath of their decision to play a more central role in running the voluntary sector infrastructure at the expense of the sector Hubs.
NCVO, one of the organisations that stands to lose most from the Hubs reduced role, has produced an interesting briefing about the Destination 2014 document, welcoming some proposals but expressing strong concerns about what appears to be an extension of Capacitybuilders role.
3.4 Capacitybuilders appears to have given itself a much broader focus, describing its vision for the sector as a whole, and setting out its remit in a way which goes substantially beyond its agreed mission... And yet the consultation does not ask whether voluntary and community organisations agree with the role Capacitybuilders sees for itself and how it plans to move forward and achieve change and its key objectives. Capacitybuilders needs to seek agreement with the sector as to where it should prioritise its energies, in order to then determine its operational activities.
It will be interesting to see how many people express similar comments throughout the consultation, and how Capacitybuilders - an organisation launched only a year ago and currently funded solely by government - responds.
Posted by Tom Green ( 9:50 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Tuesday Feb 13, 2007
Charitable quangos
When is a charity not a charity? When it gets most of its funding from government.
That's the view of Nick Seddon, anyway.
It used to be the case that a charity in need of some money turned to the public for support. But this is no longer so. Some of the biggest and most famous charity brands are now all but dependent on the state. These include Barnardo's (78% of annual income), NCH (88%) and Leonard Cheshire (88%).
The state has now become the biggest donor to charities in the UK, outweighing contributions from individuals, trusts or companies.
Politicians are beginning to define what charity is: it's what the government will pay for. And this relationship gets uncomfortably close when government departments use government-funded charities to carry out research that supports government policy. Thus the National Family and Parenting Institute (97% state funded) and NCH (88%) produced an inquiry into the relationship between the state and the family that reads just like an official government report. This little arrangement is convenient for the government because it carries all the authority associated with an "independent" charity.
The counter argument is that putting money into charities allows the government to deliver services in a greater variety of ways. While state funding inevitably follows a certain agenda, politicians are primarily looking for solutions to social problems and the third sector has a good track record of coming up with them.
Seddon does, in fact, acknowledge this point. The danger, he says is that smaller charities are in danger of losing out and he suggests categorising charities according to how much state funding they receive.
If we don't want to do away with the big charitable quangos, as much of what they do is important, we will have to make sure we don't do away with the charities that take not a penny from the state - the many small, local organisations that play a vital role in creating inclusive communities, and which are increasingly struggling to survive.
Update: Martin Narey, chief executive of Barnardo's, rebuts Seddon's argument.
Posted by Tom Green ( 12:57 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Thursday Feb 08, 2007
Fundraisers wreak their web 2.0 revenge
I picked up a very interesting online conversation highlighted by Beth Kanter on her blog yesterday.
The conversation started when Ami Dar from Idealist.org felt compelled to express his disappointment at the lack of consistency in terms of feedback and grants from the Omidyar Funding Network. As Ami points out:
“In meetings and conversations with colleagues across the sector, as well as in our own experience at Idealist.org, the story is always the same: organization X meets with people from ON (Omidyar Network), the ON people are invariably very nice, and make the organization feel that funding will be forthcoming, easily and quickly. The organization is ecstatic and counts on this (since when 99% of funders make you feel this way, they mean it), but then nothing happens. Emails and calls go unreturned, often for months at a time, meetings get cancelled, and people are led on for a year or two until they finally give up.”
The first interesting thing to note is that Ami posted this on the Omidyar Network Community site. I have to say I do have a lot of sympathy (as I’m sure all fundraisers do) with Ami’s point when it comes to funders in general.
What’s most interesting for me though, is as Beth points out on her blog, this is a great example of the era of transparency that web 2.0 has ushered in. It’s fantastic that someone is able to express their opinion on a sensitive subject, as well as have a conversation with others about it right where it counts – on the website of the very organisation that they’re commenting on. Posted by Sam Thomas ( 10:15 AM ) Link to this post Comments[8]
Friday Feb 02, 2007
CSR and companies - come on, don't be shy!
The folks at Intelligent Giving released an interesting piece of research this week. Called the Ethical Bonuses Index, it looks at how companies support their staff with time off to volunteer and matched funding for payroll giving amongst other things.
It’s a useful piece of research, but what I like most is that they’ve been quite open about who responded and who didn’t. This naming and shaming has sparked off an interesting discussion on their blog about how well companies communicate these policies to their staff.
These are the kind of conversations that need to happen more often within companies (as well as in the “real world”). I get the impression that all too often CSR managers lack the resource, budget and genuine backing from senior executives in their business to seriously promote innovative, effective community investment programmes to their staff.
Whilst I don’t want to simplify the whole debate, for me it does boil down to the usual business case issue with CSR – is it worth a business spending time and money on CSR initiatives, and do they deliver any value to the bottom line? Of course I’m going to say yes, but it would be nice to have a really open and honest discussion with businesses about it.
On that point I was really encouraged to hear about Marks and Spencer’s “Plan A” – their “100 point plan to tackle some of the biggest challenges facing our business and our world”.
They called it Plan A because there is no Plan B - which is a pretty clear indication of their commitment.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:38 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Thursday Jan 25, 2007
Bullsh*t bingo anyone?
As in many fields of work, here in the non-profit world we're no strangers to buzz words. We've all tried picking the low lying fruit and thinking outside the box, but this morning I came across a term that almost made me choke on my muesli - "filmanthropy".
According to OnPhilanthropy this gem came from business leader and philanthropist Ted Leonsis. No one could disagree that films and documentaries have the power to elicit social change, but I think Susan Herr is making a huge generalisation when she says "Nonprofits and academia couldn't achieve in decades what was wrought in one year by a film from one Jeff Skoll whose for-profit film company, Participant Productions, was established to create "impassioned entertainment."The film she's referring to is "An Inconvenient Truth", but is she seriously suggesting that the film alone has done more for the climate change movement than decades of academic research and lobbying by non-profits all around the world? That's a seriously bold claim.
In the same article I notice that Kevin Bacon has also launched a new fundraising site - sixdegrees.org. The article says the site is "MySpace for the retail philanthropy crowd" but the amount raised on the site is less than $70,000 as "the fury of the Internet effect has yet to be released". I hope the site is a great success and I'm sure Kevin has great plans to promote it – hopefully beyond relying on the "fury of the Internet effect". Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:53 AM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Wednesday Jan 24, 2007
It's carbon judgement day - but don't worry no one can be bothered to check
The Guardian says today is Carbon Judgement day, a day when we all measure our carbon footprint to find out just how much we've screwed up the environment over the last year.
As the article points out, "we will all need to get more carbon-literate over the coming years."
I couldn't agree more, but having read through their 5 point plan that outlines how to measure your carbon footprint, in all honesty I just can't be bothered.
I know I'm not offering any solutions, but if this is what getting "more carbon literate" involves then I think we're in real trouble. I feel strongly that as individuals we need to change the way we live, in order to reduce our impact on the environment, but some of friends don't feel nearly as passionate as I do.
I can only imagine the grief I'd get if I asked them to work out their carbon footprint in this way...
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 1:17 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Friday Jan 19, 2007
"Consumer Philanthropy" - are we nearly there yet?
Some days it's so easy to feel enthused, excited and hugely passionate about the developments that are taking place in the world of social networking, philanthropy and non-profits.
Every now and then, however, I do sometimes wonder if we're all getting carried away with all things 2.0 – maybe it's not all it's cracked up to be. For charities in particular, there are obvious concerns about how much to invest in technologies that aren't completely bedded in and part of the furniture (and Steve Bridger's nfp 2.0 blog gives some pointers on how to work round them). Will the trailblazing non-profits reap the rewards and usher in a new utopian world, where individuals across the globe are engaged, informed and inspired to take action? Or will these new technologies stay within the corporate sector, things that only companies with balls and money can use to good effect? (OK I know in all likelihood it won't be either of these extremes, but bear with me I'm trying to be dramatic).
On days like today when I feel a tad sceptical, articles like this one by Tom Watson for OnPhilanthropy help me regain my enthusiasm. As it points out, there are some real signs that we may be at a tipping point in terms of "consumer philanthropy" as they call it.
"...if you look beyond the headlines, there are signs. And there are two trendlines heading for a collision - on one hand, people are ever more conscious of philanthropy and its role in commerce and society; on the other, these people are talking to each other more so than ever before."
I think this is also tied in with the rise of the "ethical consumer". As big business cottons onto the fact that the voluntary sector doesn't have exclusive rights to "doing good", and consumers become more enlightened about society's inequalities and needs, the links between business, society and philanthropy are strengthening all the time.
Great news for the non-profits that can fit with this model, pretty scary for those that don't have a strong, sexy brand I guess.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 2:21 PM ) Link to this post Comments[3]
Thursday Jan 11, 2007
A political Lottery
Yesterday, Sir Clive Booth, Chair of the Big Lottery Fund, spoke out against the idea that it's resources could be used to cover a shortfall in funding for the 2012 Olympics.
Sir Clive is no stranger to the political controversy the Lottery Fund can attract. His own appointment was criticised last year when it was revealed that he had campaigned for Labour at the last three general elections. Judging by yesterday's comments, however, his independence should not be doubted.
"I don't know how anybody could live with themselves, let alone Gordon Brown, if they were taking money off [other] projects...to close an Olympic funding gap," Sir Clive said. "It would be criminal. We have already seen our budget top-sliced and we have readily accepted that should go to the Olympics as our contribution. But I don't really see why all the wonderful good cause projects should have to subsidise the Olympics beyond what we have already done. I am trying to draw a line in the sand."
There has been fierce debate about how Lottery money should be spent since the first tickets were issued. Some, like Luke FitzHerbert, remembered in obituaries this week, felt that it was little more than a tax on the poor and would be used to replace other public funding.
With the added spice of the Olympics the Lottery could yet become a major issue in the run up to the next election. The Tories have promised "to put Lottery cash back where it belongs - in the hands of charities, heritage, the arts and sport" but the details of what exactly they mean by this remain vague.
Posted by Tom Green ( 10:46 AM ) Link to this post Comments[1]