I am a total animal nut with big dreams to have my own dog psychology centre where I rescue and rehabilitate dogs! So I got 2 brilliant books by Cesar Millan, Dog Whisperer, and started learning his techniques and some dog psychology. I then set out to find a place where I could volunteer my services, practice my rehabilitation skills so that the dogs will be more easily rehomed and to pass on my bit of knowledge to help our favourite canine companions. But oh.... no no... no.....! "We are not currently recruiting volunteers at this time, your money is always welcome, but your time and knowledge are of no use.” Well that’s how I see it anyway! It infuriated me no end, that there wasn’t even a place where I could leave my email address for when there was availability. I searched the web sites of all the homes I could find that weren’t hours outside London and I either couldn’t find anything relating to volunteers or they weren’t recruiting. But first and foremost I can see where I can pledge my monetary donation.

A friend of a friend was also turned away when she offered to help the elderly - cooking meals, etc. Apparently because there are 'health and safety' issues. Needless to say her time and good heart are not being put to use, spreading joy or happiness.

Why is it so hard to put our time and skills to good use? Why is there all this unnecessary bureaucracy? It’s charity. Or is it? Why is it so difficult to be good and so easy to be bad?

Saxon-Dale Sunderland

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:38 PM | Permalink

After that initial presentation of concepts, when the client chooses the idea they love, a little part of us dies. It's always distressing to see two out of three of your baby ideas go to the creative graveyard, before they've had a chance to develop and grow. Sometimes, we're lucky enough to hear a client say, 'we really loved them all, so let's not lose them. We can use them for x, y and z briefs'.

But mostly, our fledglings are never seen again.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a place where those young ideas could be remembered, celebrated even? There is, of course, www.bestrejectedadvertising.com, but it's really only for the shocking and outrageous. We'd like one of our own please, as a special tribute to all those beautiful but abandoned ideas.

Francesca Boardman and Steve Tse

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:26 PM | Permalink

We would like to announce that Elly Moore has joined us as a Senior Account Manager.

Elly will be working with us on the RNLI, Christie's and Fauna & Flora International.

She's been at Whitewater before, for a whole year in 2005/06, as a freelance SAM where she endeared herself to us all with her positive attitude, infectious laugh and by being an all round good egg!

Elly has loads of experience, gained from years of working on such diverse accounts as Bryant Homes, Virgin Media and Lloyds TSB.

But finally the temptation to work on charities again proved too much.

Welcome back Elly, from all of us at Whitewater!

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:30 PM | Permalink

I was recently pointed in the direction of an interesting post on author Neil Gaiman's blog by our Head of Planning, Mark. It's about a blind man and a train full of people, and if you read the post it's obvious to see why Neil got wound up. It makes me ask: what have we turned in to? Where have all the good people gone?

For me, it also illustrates how on a larger scale, our neglectful attitude could be playing a big part in the way people interact with charities in the UK. What do you think?

Richard Halliday

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:29 PM | Permalink

Whitewater has beaten ten other agencies to be appointed WaterAid’s new direct marketing agency.

Following a lengthy review process, which began in January, Whitewater will be working with media agency MC&C to help WaterAid meet ambitious plans for growth over the next seven years.

Angharad McKenzie, Individual Supporter Fundraising Manager at WaterAid said, “The time was right to evaluate the best way forward for sustained future growth. We concluded that investing our time and budgets in developing a real partnership with a core team would enable us to be more effective and productive in our work.

“We also wanted to establish an agency-client relationship where everyone on the team would be truly committed to our vision and to delivering the very best strategies and campaigns to help us meet it.”

“We believe we can establish a high performing team made up of individuals across WaterAid, Whitewater and MC&C. We see great value in the bringing together of the best people to do the job and over the coming weeks and months we’ll be investing lots of time and energy in developing this partnership.”

Whitewater Chairman, Steve Andrews, said “WaterAid are hugely ambitious so it's a real privilege to have been chosen to work with them. Exciting too as they're lovely people with a great cause."

WaterAid saw agencies of all sizes and varying degrees of charity experience before choosing Whitewater, who demonstrated their ability to come up with inspirational creative; innovative, yet practical strategies and an unrivalled passion.

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:24 PM | Permalink

I saw an article in Brand Republic a while ago, that may raise some interesting debate.

The article discussed how widgets may replace email as a marketing tool in 5 years time and are going to be for online marketing what SMS was for mobile - a disruptive technology that will change the way we do things.

The case put forward was that email is about telling and that showing is a more powerful form of expression. The smarter the widgets, the more we could do with them. If widgets were put on a mobile phone, the story widens and the audience becomes more broad. They won't be just useful to teenagers anymore but will be used by almost everyone.

it would be great to know other people's thoughts regarding this?

Kate Whitehead

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:47 AM | Permalink

The Head v. Heart discussion broke out again recently at Whitewater: do you focus an appeal on the rationality of staggering numbers and mass need, or focus on the emotions inherent in helping one person?

In the book Made to Stick, Why some Ideas Survive and Others Die, Chip and Dan Heath share an interesting experiment at Carnegie Mellon University that explored the Head v. Heart question.

The following is a mashup of ideas from a research project, a book, and 2 web sites.

In Volunteer Power News - Number 58, The Power of Emotions, Thomas W. McKee summarizes the experiment:

The researchers offered five dollars to participants who had just completed a survey (the survey was insignificant). Upon completion of the survey each participant received along with their five dollars an envelope with a request for a charity-request letter giving them an opportunity to donate some of their five dollars to Save the Children.

The researchers tested two versions of the request letter. As you read these, ask, "Which one would you respond to?" and then ask, "Which one did the people in the test respond to?"

Version One:
• Food shortages in Malawi are affecting more than 3 million children.
• In Zambia, severe rainfall deficits have resulted in a 42 percent drop in maize production from 2000.
• As a result, an estimated 3 million Zambians face hunger.
• Four million Angolans-one third of the population-have been forced to flee their homes.
• More than 11 million people in Ethiopia need immediate food assistance.

Version Two:
• Any money you donate will go to Rokia, a seven-year-old girl from Mali, Africa.
• Rokia is desperately poor and faces the threat of severe hunger or even starvation.
• Her life will be changed for the better as a result of your financial gift.
• With your support, and the support of other caring sponsors, Save the Children will work with Rokia's family and other members of the community to help feed and educate her and provide basic medical care and hygiene education.

The researchers gave the participants the two different letters, then left them alone to make a decision how much money, if any, to put back into the envelope. On average those who read the statistics contributed $1.14. But those who read the story of Rokia, gave $2.38-more than twice as much.

Katya writes:

Now it gets really interesting: the researchers decided to give a third group of people BOTH sets of information. People who got both letters gave $1.43.

The lesson?

From Chip and Dan:

Statistics shift people into a more analytical frame of mind. When people think analytically, they are less likely to think emotionally.

Or as Thomas puts it:

Just because people believe there is a problem does not mean that people care enough to act.

Katya continues:

Researchers proved this argument by asking people analytical questions like math problems before getting the Rokia letter, while other people were asked to free-associate after hearing the word, “baby.” The people who did math before getting the letter gave $1.26 while the people who thought about babies gave $2.34.

Chip and Dan Heath say:

"It's not about pushing people's emotional buttons, like some kind of movie tearjerker. Rather, the goal of making messages emotional' is to make people care. Feelings inspire people to act." The message must move from the heart to the head.

I love this graph, from later in the series of experiments. Feelings correlate directly with amounts donated. And the detrimental impact of numbers begins at 2!

For further reading, I recommend "If I look at the mass I will never act" - Psychic numbing and genocide, by Paul Slovic. A PDF is also available.

If you want to know more about the Rokia study, try this Google search for "Rokia, a 7 year-old girl from Mali"

Brad Bell

Posted by Whitewater Team at 12:56 PM | Permalink