Main

August 28, 2008

Mission accomplished

stevea.jpg

I enjoyed hearing this story on Radio 5 this morning.

It was another reminder of why I love my job.

Last Summer, Nick, our Creative Director, read a story in The Times about how the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) were not approving a drug which could prevent a common form of blindness: wet macular degeneration. RNIB were campaigning against this position.

Whitewater knows how powerful a campaign ask can be to drive fundraising results. So Nick mocked up a pack and we sent it over to RNIB.

RNLI pack shot

They loved it. They used it. Donors loved it. Fundraising targets were smashed and it resulted in the biggest ever petition to NICE. NICE changed their mind, as reported by the BBC today. And thousands of people will have their sight saved. Thanks to RNIB, their donors and Whitewater's Creative Director.

That's work worth getting up for in the morning.

Steve Andrews

August 18, 2008

Good South African ideas

mj.jpgWhat are they doing back home?

A charity campaign created last year for The Haven Night Shelter in Cape Town, South Africa, was instrumental in bringing the hardships of the homeless people in the city out into the open. Haven Night Shelters are situated all over the Cape Peninsula and do fantastic work not only getting people off the streets, but also in trying to get kids who have run away from home reunited with their families. The essence of the campaign is in highlighting the extreme differences between the have and have-nots of South Africa using media, which would normally be noticed by people looking for new homes.

The Haven Night Shelter poster

The ads, which were placed all over Cape Town, were made to look as if they had been placed by estate agents advertising various properties. Headlines included “Sensational City Living” and “Location! Location! Location!” typical of normal property ads. The only difference was that the visuals did not match the regular lingo used by estate agents. Instead of showing multi-million rand houses, the images are of benches, bush shelters and the underneath of bridges. Press ads ran in newspaper property sections, flyers were dropped into peoples’ post boxes and “On Show” signs were placed at similar locations to the ones shown in the press ads and flyers.

A clever and unique way of bringing a needy cause out into the limelight.

Michael-John Van Vuuren

August 12, 2008

You say it's your birthday!

paul.jpgIn case you aren’t aware, it was my birthday recently. But don’t worry if you missed it, there will be others. I had a special birthday card that I want to tell you about.

It was from Dave. You won’t know Dave, because I don’t know Dave. He works for a website that I visited once. I didn’t buy anything and I don’t even recall leaving my details. Certainly not my date of birth. Did he search for me on Facebook or Myspace? Am I being stalked??

But, I am impressed. It’s not often you receive a handwritten, personalised birthday card through the mail, signed by someone you don’t know, who works for a company from which you have never made a purchase.

Such personalisation is very hard working. Let’s all consider Dave for a moment and think about how much he want’s my business. It costs money to send a birthday card and it costs money to sign it with ink. Does he act on blind intuition, or does he know something I don’t?

If you received a signed (with real ink!), personalised card recognising your donation, would you make another gift in the future? My guess is yes.

Paul Bailey

August 08, 2008

How did the G8 Summit fair up this year?

pritha.jpgThe annual G8 Summit has come round so quickly this year - especially with the food crisis, climate change and the imminent credit crunch recently hitting the headlines. This year the leaders of the 8 richest countries met in Japan's Northern island of Hokkaido. And for the first time, on the request of President George W Bush, the G8 leaders also held an enlarged Meeting of Major Economies with Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Korea and South Africa - perhaps a way to share the responsibility?

Key pledges made were...

Steps against Zimbabwe and a joint G8 statement was read out condemning the way last month's national elections had proceeded. But why did the statement stop short of sanctions? Apparently Russia believe that sanctions are not an effective tool and promoted negotiations as way of resolving the crisis. Surely this is going to be difficult if intimidation and violence continue to be used against opposition supporters. Plus Mugabe and opposition leader Tsvangarai are not prepared to speak to each other.

A commitment to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The host, Japan hailed the summit a success based on this pledge, but what baseline has been set for this? And surely much more is needed much sooner - are there no medium-term objectives?

Moves to boost nuclear power to tackle climate change. However, Germany rightly pointed out the risks in the development of nuclear power. And why were further pledges not made to the development of alternative energy sources like wind and solar?

Increase aid to Africa and help meet the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These include halving global hunger and getting every child into primary school by 2015. But the leaders have been critised by pressure groups for not spelling out exactly how these commitments will be met.

They asked nations with sufficient food stocks to release some of them to help others cope with soaring food prices. But what caused the food crisis in the first place? The leaders failed to tackle this.

In a nutshell, I found this year's G8 Summit disappointing. The leaders did talk about the sticky global issues, but I felt that this was all 'hot air' as they did not really address the causes of these issues and how the pledges are going to be met. It will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next few months with leaders meeting again in September and December to discuss the Millenium Development Goals - I am sure that they are aware that the world will be watching them.

Pritha Bardhan

August 04, 2008

Event power

kate.jpgThe other weekend, along with several thousand other Devonites, I took part in CRUK’s Race for Life in Exeter — a breath-takingly picturesque 5k run, ruthlessly marshalled by wayward sheep. I think it’s fair to say I was doing this for selfish reasons; a beautiful day, the memory of one cream tea too many.

Very surprisingly then — even more so than the fact of crossing the finish — I experienced something completely unexpected: I found myself absolutely overcome with emotion. All around me in a sea of pink, women were gathering in celebration of someone they loved, proudly bearing back panels with photos of their mums, dads, aunties, husbands. As I stood blinking with tears at the start line, a woman of my age smiled at me and quietly touched my arm. I was about to confess, shamefacedly, that really I was fine, that this wasn’t about me — that, amazingly, no-one really close to me had been affected by cancer. Then I caught sight of her banner. She had recently lost her own young daughter to leukaemia. Feeling even more humbled, there was an extra kick of determination in my step when the starting gun sounded.

It really got me thinking about how as fundraisers we can all learn from the power of charity events. More than any other activity, they can totally knock for six that prevailing thought - all too common in a world of many fundraising asks - that ‘this isn’t about me’. Personal experience of a cause doesn’t have to be a prerequisite to getting involved but it sure as heck rubs off.

You can find out more about CRUK’s event at http://www.raceforlife.org/

Kate Reeves

July 29, 2008

Going green

richardh.jpgThere was a documentary on television last year - The Great Global Warming Swindle - that had a huge impact on the public, persuading many people that man-made climate change is not taking place.

I found it slightly disturbing that anybody, whether they believed that man-made climate change was taking place or not, would go to so much effort to convince us that going green is a complete waste of time. Well, it turns out that irony of ironies, the programme itself was a complete swindle, and that many of the 'experts' that featured on it had been directly funded by fossil-fuel companies.

This article explains in detail, and is well worth a read if you have a few minutes.

www.guardian.co.uk/environment

Richard Halliday

July 16, 2008

Save a little

james.jpg

Why not see if you can stave off the financial apocolypse for a little longer by following the top money-saving tips of tv's Martin Lewis at www.moneysavingexpert.com

And while you're there, why not vote for which charities should share £100k? http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/#vote

James Lane

July 15, 2008

HFT and Our Lasting Tribute launch Zinnia Fund website

sarahrs.jpg National charity for people with learning disabilities, HFT, has launched a new website dedicated to Zinnia Funds at hft.tributefunds.com

Taking its name from the brightly coloured, lollipop shaped Zinnia flower which stands for “thoughts of absent friends”, the fund represents a meaningful way for friends and family to remember loved ones whilst helping HFT in its work supporting people with learning disabilities.

OLT set up the programme on behalf of HFT to allow individuals to create their own Zinnia Tribute Fund which friends and family can help grow, making donations on special occasions, or on a regular basis.

The new website enables supporters to upload picture and write blog entries about the person the Fund is honouring, whilst at the same time allowing friends and family to sign a visitors’ book, leave messages or light a candle.

“This is proving a very popular way for people to share their memories of loved ones and allows family and friends wherever they are in the world to have a point of contact with each other”, said Katie Tennyson, legacy manager at HFT.

“Raising funds in memory of someone special is a poignant and lasting tribute which can be rewarding for everyone involved”.

Sarah Radburn-Smith

July 11, 2008

Goodbye Hannah!

celia.jpgWe're really sad to announce that production guru, Hannah White, left Whitewater last week to move to Manchester. Thanks for your dedication and hard work, Hannah. We'll really miss you.

Celia Cole

It’s the way they tell ‘em...

mark.jpgAs my poor abused liver recovers from the bashing it received at the recent IOF convention, I’ve been reflecting on the various presentations I’ve sat through. Both as a speaker and as a member of the audience.

This year more than any other, I’ve been struck by how important the delivery of the message is, how crucial the speaker is to the degree to which the message is accepted. In some cases a presentation of little substance was delivered with such personality that the audience was left buzzing with the profundity of the thesis and brilliance of its progenitor. And the reverse was true too – I saw fascinating insights fall on stony ground due to a lack of personality or a delivery that just rubbed the audience up the wrong way.

But so often in fundraising comms we forget genuine personality. Too many asks come from a faceless, brand-policed corporation, where the only concession to real personality is the token case study. And even this will often fail to deliver the story in their own words.

When we put real personality into our communications, we’ve achieved some starling results. Often with very simple asks, letting the force and the refreshing authenticity of the person delivering it drive the response. Hardly surprising – our audience want to connect with people, with the inspiring individuals that represent a culture or attitude that they’d like to be part of.

So lets take the people that make up the causes we represent out of the case study and put them centre stage, in the limelight where they belong. Let’s face it – they’re the best presenters we’ve got.

Mark Cook

June 27, 2008

The good, the bad, the frustration

saxon.jpgI 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

June 24, 2008

Where do all the baby ideas go?

fran.jpg
stevet.jpg

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

June 23, 2008

What have we become?

richardh.jpgI 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

June 12, 2008

Widgets - what do we think?

kate.jpgI 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

June 04, 2008

Numbers kill response

brad.jpgThe 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.

Graph showing how donors feelings about an ask correlates directly with the amounts they donated. The graph also shows that donors gave the same amounts to Child 1 or Child 2, but less when asked to donate to both children.

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

May 07, 2008

Break the Cycle

mark.jpg

I’m reading a fab book at the mo – Joe Trippi’s ‘The Revolution Will Not Be Televised’, from 2004. Among other things, he writes passionately about how the American people became disillusioned with their political system, and it strikes me there’s a clear parallel with our industry.

In the US, party or presidential candidates became overly reliant on sabotaging their opponents through negative TV advertising – even if the advert had little basis in truth, the shocking images stuck and invariably the most vitriolic campaigns won out on polling day. This lead to an escalating ‘arms race’ of negative followed by negative with the cumulative effect that many voters eventually had to turn away, as evidenced by falling voting numbers. Less engagement in politics led to the ads having to work harder and harder, be even more negative and manipulative to have an impact, and so this spiral continued. In Trippi’s words -

‘Its like shining a bright light in someone’s eye – the pupil closes the brighter the light gets, letting in less light, so you shine the light brighter to get more light in and the pupil shuts out more light, until pretty soon, the person just has to look away.’

We’re no strangers to this in the UK. I can still remember the Labour campaign that ran the words ‘Get out and vote. Or they get in’ under an image of William Hague with Margaret Thatcher’s hair-do. Both frightening and effective! And we’re suffering from serious political disengagement here too.

Perhaps there’s a danger of something similar happening in fundraising too. It’s a fact that it’s often the hardest hitting, the most urgent communications that deliver the greatest response. And as new supporter recruitment gets harder the temptation is for us to get harder, to turn the dial up on the need, the urgency and the guilt. But there’s a very real danger that this negative cycle will only drive away our audiences even further, that the short-term gains will damage our long-term future.

When we break this cycle, treat our audience with respect and give them an inspirational way to connect with the cause, we can achieve great results. So as well as maintaining the sense of urgency that’s so important to response, we can also connect with people beyond the transaction, cultivating a more engaged, more inspired donor and a longer supporter relationship as a result. If we don’t there’s a possibility that consumers will treat us the same as more and more of us are treating politics. They’ll turn away, disengage, close their eyes.

Trippi proved that it is possible to break this negative cycle, and that when you do the results can be extraordinary. Inspirational. Click below if you want to read more.

The Revolution will Not be Televised, Joe Trippi

Mark Cook


April 29, 2008

What recession?

richardh.jpg

Over the last couple of months a lot of charities have been reporting difficult starts to the year - no surprises there when you couple the current economic climate with the empty wallet delivered without fail by January each year...

But our first big Donor cash appeal of the year for the RSPCA has bucked this trend completely, sailing past the targets and giving us the best possible start to the year. Gross income is almost 50% above target and still rising!

RSPCA pack shot

In many ways the creative approach went back to basics; talking to donors about the issues that we know they care about. We told it as it is and our donors responded - have faith and ye shall be rewarded!

Richard Halliday

April 28, 2008

Design in mind...

stevet.jpg

How many times have I heard "I don't like that colour?" or "can you try it in a different font?" or "I think that line would look better reversed out of orange"? Or even "I don't like that pic". Countless times. I may have even uttered those words myself!

Design can be such a personal thing. An external manifestation of your thoughts, feelings, aesthetic sensibilities and what makes you tick. Even when you have a set of brand guidelines, they are still subject to your own interpretation. So when I hear these kind of remarks - it kinda bums me out. But am I being too sensitive? Am I taking things too personally? Do I need to take a step back and be more objective? I came across this site which gives you the chance to read "opinions on corporate and brand identity work". It makes for some interesting reading.

I typed "What is good design?" into Google and this caught my eye: Taste For Makers

I've no idea who this guy is, but he makes some good points and raises some interesting questions. He writes:

Saying that taste is just personal preference is a good way to prevent disputes. The trouble is, it's not true. You feel this when you start to design things.
Whatever job people do, they naturally want to do better. Football players like to win games. CEOs like to increase earnings. It's a matter of pride, and a real pleasure, to get better at your job. But if your job is to design things, and there is no such thing as beauty, then there is no way to get better at your job. If taste is just personal preference, then everyone's is already perfect: you like whatever you like, and that's it.

I'll get me coat then. Seriously though, what do other people think? Is design subjective or is there only ever one true way?

Steve Tse

April 25, 2008

Gone phishing

brad.jpg

I just shut down my Facebook account.

Yesterday I received the following Facebook message by email:

Jody sent you a message.

--------------------

Subject: People, check this out!

You guys gotta to check this out, this nifty little website tells you exactly your secret crush:
http://best-love-finder.info

Input your info like I did, you will be VERY surprised with the results!
Peace!

As marketers, you should immediately understand how significant it is that Jody is a trusted, long-time friend. As such, he has a lot of influence in my life. Last week, he recommended the book I am currently reading. From a marketing point of view, that kind of influence is unparalleled.

And that's exactly what Facebook is selling. Facebook can deliver a trusted network of friends and relatives to advertisers, along with intricately detailed demographic profiles which include hobbies, personal interests, geographical location, sex, age, race, religion, political beliefs, favourite movies, music, and more.

If that weren't enough, Facebook partnerships with leading retailers like Amazon, mean that instead of Jody recommending a book in the course of an email conversation, Jody can now use Amazon Grapevine to tell Facebook to automatically alert all his friends when he buys a book, as a form of not-so-subtle social network marketing.

In the face of a phishing scam however, the value of Facebook plummets. It suddenly becomes obvious that Facebook's value is entirely dependent on the trust implicit in friend and family relationships. Cleverly - and devastatingly - the scam above exploits the trusted nature of friends, family and the Facebook network to trick users into providing all the profile information they supply Facebook with to a 3rd party. Not only does the phishing scam exploit people's trust to 'steal' Facebook's demographic profiles, it undermines the trust in the Facebook network, and worse - it undermines the trust of messages from friends and family. Suddenly, friends and family are not the trusted influences we took them to be.

While I appreciate the value of a trusted network with spam-free messaging amongst my friends, as soon as Facebook is compromised, it loses all value. In fact, it has a negative value. It's a liability. Like anyone else, about 9 out of every 10 email messages I get are spam or phishing messages. However, I do not get phishing messages sent from my friends, and I don't want to have to start carefully evaluating messages from my friends now. I need to be able to have some degree of trust that messages from my friends are actually from my friends.

Fortunately, there's a simple solution. I emailed Jody to ask whether I really ought to check out best-love-finder.

Jody writes:
Spam bot. I got some from someone else and it went through my account. I just shut down my facebook account because of it.

Me too - as you know, my friends are very influential.

Brad Bell

April 18, 2008

Fantastic website

stevea.jpg

It's not often we're inspired by the stuff we find on the web. But this is one website that really is worth exploring. It's the TED site, and it contains videos of presentations made at the annual Ideas Worth Spreading conference, by some of the world's greatest thinkers.

Personal favourites include Hans Rosling, whose energy turns data on world poverty into real theatre. And William Kamkwamba: How I built my family a windmill. Check it out when you have a chance. It's an inspirational reminder that the solutions to Africa's problems are in the hands of their own people.

Steve Andrews

How not to upgrade

dawn.jpg

Just got a call from a charity I donate to on a regular basis. I've been giving to them each month for over a year. It was a call from a nice enough chap in a call centre, who thanked me for my regular donations and asked me what had made me start giving this regular gift. I said it was because I liked the animal I was giving money to (elephants) and wanted to help them. He was a nice man and he said that that was a good straightforward reason.

So then he started to tell me a little about the work the charity are doing with elephants, and it was ok, although quite long, and it was obviously coming off a script as it wasn't really up to much interrogation, and it had that feeling.. that feeling where you know you are going to be asked for something... it was all building up to it...

So he told me a little story about what the charity are doing with elephants, which was slightly confusing - it was about people protecting their crops from elephants by planting chillies around the fields, I wasn't immediately clear on who this was helping - it didn't instantly seem to be helping my elephants but he explained that they needed to come up with ways that people and elephants can live alongside each other... which I agreed was a good thing...

Then he told me about another scheme, with tame elephants policing crops and stopping wild elephants from getting to them... again, I'm not sure... what about the poor hungry wild elephants? It was hard to take it all in on the phone in the middle of the office, but it didn't sound quite what I'd imagined was happening.

Anyway, then he thanked me again for the money I gave, and clarified the amount (it is only £2.50 a month) and asked if I was able to help a bit more by increasing that to £5 a month. Now this is double what I currently give, and although the update on the elephants / chillies / policing stories had been quite nice, they hadn't made me feel massively enthusiastic. It was a bit more like I was making it hard for the elephants to get food.

So I said no, I didn't think I will increase at this point, and he sounded disappointed, and said 'oh, ok, well you see there is so much more for us to do to protect the elephants...how about £4?'. But it wasn't about the money, more about what they were doing with it. And it was kind of annoying of him to be disappointed I was not wanting to give more. I still give. So I asked if the man knew if my money was going directly to elephant projects, and he didn't know (he referred me to the web site), thanked me again for my contribution and was gone pretty fast.

It had all started so well. A nice thank you call. But the information I got has raised more questions than I had 10 minutes ago.. does anyone have a good experience of an upgrade call?

Dawn Howarth

April 02, 2008

Why won't they take my money?

fran.jpg

Last night, I was door knocked by a development charity. I didn't know much about them, having never written for them, but after giving the guy a good grilling, I was impressed.

They ticked all the right boxes for me, so I offered to sign up for £2 a month.

I don't know what I expected - maybe a 'thank you, that's great. Here's the form - you won't regret it.'
But instead, I was told that my £2 a month wasn't good enough and that they could only accept £5 a month minimum. And really that was pretty cheap - they usually only take £10.

I'm sorry, but WHAT? You're a charity and you DON'T WANT MY MONEY?

I understand that there is a cost associated with coming to my door, administering a Direct Debit, giving me feedback, etc. I made the point that I didn't know them and that if they continued to impress me, I would happily upgrade my gift.

He walked away without my money and I went to bed feeling like a nasty cheapskate who doesn't care enough.

I don't want to feel like that. I want to do my bit and I want to feel great about it.

No wonder so many people are left with a bad impression of charities. Has anyone else had this experience?

Francesca Boardman

March 31, 2008

Useless pen-pushers?

niamh.jpg

I was leafing through Campaign the other day, and something caught my eye. It was in The Internet Question section written by one Max Harrington (Campaign, 21 March). Here’s what made me stop:

“Would agencies be more efficient without account handlers?”
Eh? Come again? I thought. But he went on to say:
Why do so many agencies employ so many useless pen-pushing people called account handlers? As a client, I don’t want to have people get in the way between me and the smart and creative people. They love meetings, but never bring the people we clients really want to meet – the planners and creatives.

Ooh, I love a rip-roaring discussion. So here I go.
My opening gambit is this: Account handlers are the lynch-pin that keep every agency and client relationship going. They are the people who ensure anything gets done. But then I would say that. I am one.

But really – “useless”, “people getting in the way” of Max Harrington and “the smart and creative people”. Hang on, who is this guy’s agency? No client should ever feel like that.

This brings me to the question, what makes a really great account handler? What is the most important attribute? Is it someone who’s got great attention to detail? Perhaps someone that thinks creatively but can stay focussed on the overall purpose of a communication? Or is it someone who can bring great strategic thinking to bear on client objectives?

Well I would argue that a good account handler is all of those things. They can bring the people who are necessary to meetings and let them get on with the actual doing when they are not needed. A good account handler is the person who pulls together all the skills and talents from the agency and ensures they work to deliver the client objectives on time and on budget and on brief. I think we’re pretty good at that at Whitewater myself, but it’s true good account handlers are hard to find. Obviously Max should keep looking!

Niamh Neville

March 25, 2008

A little appreciation please...

stevea.jpg

A friend of mine replied to an email recently and added a few comments on how he was feeling about a charity he supports. He didn't expect me to post it up on our website so he didn't shy away from some fairly choice language! So choice that I'm adding it here as an attachment in case you're easily offended by bad language. Only open it if you're over 18 and able to deal with a bit of swearing. OK. A lot of swearing.

I'm over 18 and can deal with a lot of swearing

Read it yet?

The charity that my friend is referring to here is a genuine sector leader in donor care.

Giving to charity should be a rewarding and inspiring experience. Isn't it shocking how we can get it so wrong? We're so desperate to squeeze more cash out of people that we end up alienating and upsetting them. We spend so much time asking and so little time saying thanks. As a sector, we haven't even begun to understand what relationship fundraising/donor care/donor stewardship (choose your favourite) means.

But watch this space for one seriously exciting new Whitewater initiative that will start to redefine what caring for donors actually means. Or give me a call and I'll talk to you about it.

Steve Andrews

March 13, 2008

So how was it for you Darling?

kevin.jpg

Although a pretty unremarkable Budget (some might say dull) in many ways, the Chancellor’s surprise gift to the sector is the three-year transitional relief scheme for Gift Aid. What this means to charities is that for the next three financial years they can still claim Gift Aid at the 22% rate, equating to 28p for every pound donated under Gift Aid. There was outrage in the sector at last year’s Budget when it was realised that the leveliing out of the basic rate of Income Tax at a flat rate of 20% at the bottom end would cost the sector around £85m in 2008-09 lost Gift Aid, and most estimates suggest that the transitional relief should be worth £300m over the next three years. So, all of you who have already printed new Gift Aid materials mentioning the ‘new’ 25p claim – oh ye of little faith!

There was other news on Gift Aid that effects small charities and the dreaded Gift Aid Audit promising a lighter touch from HMRC and to help the Government has launched a new online help service at www.direct.gov.uk/giftaid - however on checking I find that the information still points to the ‘new’ rate of 20% from 6 April 2008. This is not surprising, it seems charities are going to have to claim the Gift Aid at 20% with the transitional relief made up from a new ‘grant’ from the Treasury to make up the difference – this ‘new money’ won’t be available of course until after the Finance Bill gets Royal Assent in July.

So that’s it then, we get three more years to find out how to raise an extra £100m a year – shouldn’t be too difficult!

Kevin Kibble

February 26, 2008

Tell it like it is!

alex.jpg

This is a very personal view, but I hate mobile phone adverts. The current campaigns for Orange, T-Mobile and Vodafone are quite similar; they all feature smug 20-something groups of friends getting together doing kooky things set to a folk music soundtrack. All of these elements are pretty annoying but for me, the worst thing is that they are trying to make out that mobiles are something they are not. They are dressing up what is essentially a piece of equipment used to call people and send texts as some sort of hippy lifestyle choice – when in actual fact, the product couldn’t be further from this. Of course this is nothing new, advertising has been doing this for years, but sometimes pretending your product is something it is not, can really wind people up.

At Whitewater, we’ve recently being carrying out various different focus groups for our clients. These have given us the chance to ask real people what they think about different marketing messages. One of the key things that kept on coming out was ‘be straight with me’. People don’t like to be conned. They don’t want their charity to ‘bullshit’ them. Instead they want to be given the facts so that they can come to a reasoned decision themselves. This doesn’t mean that we need to take the emotion or craft out of our communications, after all we do still need to be engaging. But it does mean anything that can be perceived as trying to trick or just not telling it like it is, will often be rejected by the public. In fact, we’ve found that our best campaigns are the ones that are direct, upfront and honest, like our September warm campaign for the MS Society to raise funds for an MRI Scanner, which Andrew blogged on in January.

It would be great to hear your feelings on the matter. Should we, as individuals, be treated like the marketing savvy, intelligent people we are? Are charities getting it right, or wrong in comparison to big commercial brands? Let us know your thoughts…

Alex Wordsworth

February 25, 2008

Let's discuss...

brad.jpg

Last week, someone came to the door of my house. (Approximately 8pm, London, W12.)

Anna and I were having dinner. Chicken soup. Watching Curb Your Enthusiasm. The one with John MacEnroe. And the doorbell rings.

It's a charity guy asking for money.

My friends usually call before they come over.

Is turning up on people's doorsteps, uninvited, to ask for money a good or bad idea for a charity?
From a personal point of view, I find it immensely irritating. Discuss.

Brad Bell

February 21, 2008

An ideal world

fatima.jpg

I would like to think that we all care for our fellow man in this world, but sadly, this is not true.

Charities rely on the support of kindhearted people, who want to make the world a better place. There are so many deserving causes, but not enough donors to ensure that no one has to go hungry, sleep rough, be denied basic services or be abused.

I’m reminded of an ongoing conversation I have with a friend, where he firmly believes that ‘charities waste money on people like me’ and ‘I will never give to charity as the money never goes to the people who actually need it’.

I have done my best to convince him otherwise: 1) you have to speculate to accumulate, and charities make far more money than they spend – without fundraising they would not be able to help as many people as they do; 2) charities do not spend lots of money on administration (normally under 10p per pound), and many are transparent with regards to how the money is used; 3) without charities to help those in need, there would be even more problems in the world.

Until we can convince people like my friend to care about someone other than themselves, and get them to start trusting charities to spend donations wisely, then charities will have to rely on that small minority of society, who care enough to part with their hard earned cash.

Charities have a part to play in this – more transparency, disclosure of how and where money is spent, honesty about their running costs and how much money they actually spend helping people. Any negative stories regarding a charity, and how they spend/misspend donations impacts the sector as a whole.

Things are only going to get harder in the future, with so many charities in the marketplace, there is increased competition to recruit and retain your supporters.

I therefore send out thanks, to all of those who support a charity – if only there were more people like you.

Fatima Talidi

February 08, 2008

Feeling confident..?

mark.jpg

Probably not. January 2008 saw consumer confidence dropping to its lowest level ever, according to Nationwide economists. It’s understandable, we’re all feeling a little shaken by the credit crunch, slowing housing market, rising bills and looming recession in the US. Downer.

So how will all this affect fundraising? Time will tell of course, but I think we’d do well to remember how our prospects and supporters are feeling about their finances when we construct our asks. And that’s particularly true when asking people to tie themselves into the financial commitment of a regular gift.

In these uncertain times, choice, flexibility, targeting and reassurance might be more important than ever.

Choice – so people can give at a level they’re comfortable with and have the option of giving a cash gift if they don’t feel able to commit at the moment.

Flexibility – let’s construct offers that allow people to be flexible in their support, to give when they want, to take payment holidays if they need them.

Targeting – so we don’t overstretch supporters with a low income by asking for more than they can afford. This will increase their likelihood to attrite, particularly when confidence is low.

Reassurance – let’s deal with their concerns about financial commitment right up front and offer them reassurance that they will have complete control over their gift to you.

The worst thing we can do is bury our heads in the sand and hope that all these threats to disposable income will go away and we can just carry on as we were. But if we adapt ourselves to suit the climate and our supporters' hopes and fears, I’m confident we can weather the storm.

Mark Cook

February 07, 2008

In praise of one-night stands?

kevin.jpg

This report garnered from a conference report in FundRaising Success magazine shows that our US cousins can think laterally about relationship fundraising!

In a session at the DMA Nonprofit Federation’s 2008 Washington Nonprofit Conference, ASPCA’s Steve Froehlich managed to get the audience going with a little risqué banter.

In the session titled, “Repeat After Me… I Will Give Again: Cementing Relationships that Garner a Second Gift,” that Steve co-presented with Margaret Carter from American Red Cross and Convio’s Brian Hauf, he started off with this provocative question:

“Before I begin, I’d like everyone who has ever had a one-night stand to think about how they felt the morning after.” (A collective sigh of relief when the audience realised he wasn’t asking anyone to raise their hands).

Some possible morning-after emotions:
* Maybe a little excited… but uncertain if it was a one-time thing.
* Confused… maybe a little scared.
* Regret, embarrassment, remorse.
* Used or cast aside.
* Uncertain about the future.

This was quickly followed with, “Now I’d like you to think about the last time a stranger asked you for money and you gave it to them… maybe with a credit card. How did it make you feel a couple of days later?”

No real surprises when Steve listed some possible post-donation emotions:
* Maybe a little excited… but uncertain if it was a one-time thing.
* Confused… maybe a little scared.
* Regret, embarrassment, remorse.
* Used or cast aside.
* Uncertain about the future.

A neat way of making a point that “It’s not a relationship unless it happens a second time.” Here are Steve’s tips for securing that second “time”:

* Say thank you quickly, communicate in the natural tone that reflects your organisation, and enclose a second ask with an envelope.
* Use a monthly donor invitation phone call within the first three or four months after the first gift.
* Suppress the donor’s name from list exchange for the first few months a donor is on the file.
* Try posting online leads in your mail stream and vice versa — an integrated donor is a valuable donor.

Steve didn’t own up to the “how about you?” question.

Kevin Kibble

February 04, 2008

Priceless insight

michelle.jpg

If you’re wondering why Whitewater’s Planning department is looking a bit wide-eyed and scratchy-headed at the moment, it might be because we’ve been in something of a research phase recently. We’ve been in places like Manchester, Leeds and Brighton, focus-grouping and talking to donors like mad. They have fascinated us, surprised us, inspired us and, at times, rendered us speechless.

We’re still in the midst of conducting all kinds of research - on behalf of the NSPCC, Brooke, Multiple Sclerosis Society, Christie’s, Mental Health Foundation and Fauna and Flora International. We’ve been testing strategic directions, brand positioning, alternative fundraising propositions and regular giving products. We’ve been understanding attitudes, motivations and prejudices. We’ve identified some significant barriers to giving and some very exciting fundraising opportunities.

Of course, some research topics are more challenging than others. The NSPCC’s legacy project saw me encouraging a roomful of women in their eighties to talk to me about death and money. Nervous? I was trying to remember everything I learned during my First Aid course! I needn’t have worried. One of the ladies was quite deaf, and another a little bit feisty, but they were all absolutely charming. Terry Wogan didn’t come out of the discussion too well though – accepting a fee for Children in Need was ‘scandalous!’ apparently. Poor old Tel.

I’m so pleased our clients are investing in their own primary research, because the depth and quality of insight you get from truly, carefully listening to real people is priceless.

And it’s priceless in more ways than one. As anyone who has ever sat on the darkened, ‘Big Brother’ side of a viewing mirror will know, giggles are practically guaranteed. And the good news is, our new office in Old Street has room for us to equip our own qualitative research facility later this year. So there will be plenty more opportunities for us to delve into the donor psyche – an enlightening but slightly scary place to spend a few hours… even with sandwiches.

Michelle Taylor

January 16, 2008

That ol' tax chestnut

kevin.jpg

Yet another bashing for charities enters my inbox this morning courtesy of the Third Sector Daily Bulletin. 'Failure to claim Gift Aid cost sector £1bn in 2007' screams the headline - can it be true? Are we throwing away a further 11.5% of the sector's total voluntary income?

Read the story closer and all is not as it appears. The annual Take TaxAction report is based on information published by HM Revenue & Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions and then put together by Unbiased.co.uk. The website gets its figure of £1.04bn by combining £700m 'failure to use Gift Aid' and £337m payroll giving.

This is the same Unbiased.co.uk who claimed in December that the sector failed to claim £808m last year (differing from CAF's estimate of £700m) particularly because "Payroll giving is an administrative burden for companies". On the ball there then!

In truth the sector is getting better, particularly in claiming Gift Aid. I'm with the IoF's Megan Pacey on this, the HMRC figures actually show Gift Aid claims are increasing, and considering that up to a third of all donations from individuals might not be eligible for Gift Aid reclaim, charities are actually making good progress.

When was the last time you saw a piece of DM without a Gift Aid declaration, or made an online donation without a Gift Aid prompt?

There is always room for improvement in whatever we do and tax-efficient fundraising is no exception, but this type of 'analysis' that needs to produce bigger and bigger short-comings to guarantee headlines proves little and helps even less.

Kevin Kibble

January 10, 2008

New Year tales of woe

kevin.jpg

If you took the time to read the national newspapers during your long and hard-earned seasonal break, it would surely not have escaped your attention that the UK economy (and the rest of the world for that matter) is on the brink of meltdown. The so-called credit crunch, falling house prices and stock markets all lead to predictions that large numbers of us will be on skid row in 2008. Fundraisers beware, all is doom and gloom.

And yet history shows that charities do not suffer unduly during periods of economic woe - why do we think that is? Opinions vary, but I like to think that when it comes to the crunch, one of the last things we would cancel is our direct debits to charity. The donor/charity relationship is not purely economic, and those charities who have worked hard on their donor care and communications should see less effects from 'hard times just around the corner'. I hope so for all your sakes and let's hope 2008 doesn't turn out to be as bad as some predict.

Happy New Year.

Kevin Kibble

January 07, 2008

Whitewater Announcement

As part of Whitewater’s ongoing commitment to new product development and innovation, we are very excited to announce the appointment of Kevin Kibble (formerly Managing Director of Professional Fundraising magazine and Fundraising Initiatives Limited) to the Whitewater management team.

Kevin Kibble

Kevin will take up the role – with immediate effect – of MD of Our Lasting Tribute, with special responsibilities to advise and develop other new product offerings for the charity sector.

Whitewater Chairman, Steve Andrews, said, “Whitewater is declaring 2008 as the year of innovation in individual donor fundraising. We have some very exciting ideas up our sleeves and need someone of Kevin’s calibre to help us to make them happen. We’re really thrilled that he is joining us.”

Kevin Kibble added, “This is a great time for me to be joining Whitewater. The new developments at Our Lasting Tribute take in memoriam fundraising to the next level, and the innovation team have some revolutionary ideas for individual giving that I look forward to helping bring to the sector.”

Why we do what we do...

niamh.jpg

This time last year, I was in Katete, Eastern Zambia. I was living in a rural guesthouse, with no shower, in an area rife with malaria, cholera, TB, HIV and a few cases of bubonic plague. I kid you not, I spoke to the Health Minister of Zambia who assured me that they’d killed all the rats and fleas so it was all fine now. Having no real way to check if I was insured against bubonic plague, I believed him.

Health risks, food shortages and hygiene deprivation aside, my month in Katete was the best thing that ever happened me.

I have worked for or with charities for a long time. Initially I was excited by the thought of working on something meaningful. That my 8 to 10 hours a day would in however small a way make the world a better place. But sometimes when we work in fundraising, we can get really caught up in the details – results, timings, meetings, approvals by committee. It’s hard work. It is also really easy to lose sight of why you work in the charity sector. When you are not caught up in work, life's about 'what’s for dinner?', paying the rent, and in my case, saving a deposit to buy a house with my husband.

Then one wine fuelled night, I thought 'there must be more than this. Where’s the excitement gone?' We decided then and there, my husband rather reluctantly, that we would take the house deposit we’d spent years saving and just take off.

After amost 12 months on the road, we made our way overland to Katete. I’d wanted to do some volunteering, to put my hard learned fundraising experience to use and found a Community Centre in Zambia called Tikondane. When we arrived, we were greeted by Elke - the director and founder of the Centre. Originally from Germany, she’s lived in Katete for 15 years. She came to help train nurses in the local hospital and stayed.

Tikondane is the most amazing place. It provides employment through a basic guesthouse and restaurant, supplied by a kitchen garden. They have income generating activiities such as soap making, knitting, sewing, tin smithing, a barbershop, candlemaking (for those frequent blackouts) and carpentry. These activities supply the community centre and guesthouse as well as generating small amounts of income. The Centre also provides a community school attended by 312 children, 228 of whom are orphans. They provide village outreach, health education, build wells, pit latrines and run health seminars. In short they do amazing work with very little.

What did I do? Well I worked on fundraising proposals, I developed presentation materials to help Elke present better when she did her fundraising trips abroad. I helped her plan for the future and work out how to divide costs in a way supporters can understand. I also helped out in the school and attended workshops – like the Living Positively group, where all 25 people have HIV.

In all, I helped raise over £20,000, but the truth is, the people at Tikondane helped me far, far more.

They made me remember why I love working with charities. That’s something I never want to lose sight of again. So if you are getting ground down with the daily stuff, remind yourself why you do what you do. Put up a picture on your computer. Go on a field trip, talk to a supporter about why they support your charity. In short do whatever it takes to get excited. I promise you’ll love working again.

Niamh Neville

January 04, 2008

Compare and contrast...

barry.jpg

Just before Christmas I received two follow-up mailings. Both from homelessness charities. Both mailsort light. And instructive to compare.

The one from Shelter had a handwritten message on the envelope which took my eye. ‘Important reminder – please treat as urgent.’ All appeals are urgent: but this one asked to be treated as urgent.

The short(ish) letter inside, after the obligatory prompt in the headline, for a gift of £30, spent two paragraphs reminding me of the case history in the foregoing mailing, before politely making the key point (though in bold type) ‘I hope that if you haven’t already...’.

Over the remaining four paragraphs the Chief Executive reminds me of the happy outcome of this case, and thanks me cordially for my ongoing support, with the by now traditional caveat in the PS. ‘Should my letter have crossed in the post...'

The one from Crisis had been sent by ECONOMY post. Nice touch. The one-piece letter with tear-off donation form comprises just six sentences, a headline and subhead, and three bullet points. It goes for the throat.

‘Christmas Appeal Reminder – PLEASE HELP NOW!’ screams the headline. And the first sentence puts the reader right on the back foot:

‘We sent you our Christmas appeal in November and as yet we have not had a response from you.’ And the reason for this abrupt approach? ‘We haven’t reached our targets for this appeal yet.’

Wow! If the Shelter pack is as gracious as a maiden aunt, then the Crisis pack goes in 'all guns blazing'.

I do not seek to adjudicate here. There is no right or wrong. But what would be wonderful to know – and what we shall probably never know because these charities compete for funds – is which worked best? Did polite outmanoeuvre abrupt, or did the direct assault storm the citadel? Or did both work equally well with different kinds of audience?

If somebody out there knows, and is willing to share the secret, I promise only to share it with the deserving.

Barry Evans

November 26, 2007

Resistance is futile...

paul.jpg

Recently, I took a little trip to the RSPCA Southridge Animal Centre. What a fantastic job they are doing there! Anna, the Centre Manager, gave me a tour and introduced me to the current guests.

Southridge is filled almost to capacity, with animals looking for new homes. Some pets have been unloved or neglected and have had a hard time of it. Others have been cruelly mistreated and abandoned and will need extra love. The team at Southridge act as foster parents, giving animals veterinary treatment, suitable care and old fashioned love so that they may be given a new home and a new lease on life.

All of us on the RSPCA team are very proud of the work that the Society does towards rehabilitating and re-homing mistreated animals and we always enjoy visiting Centres to meet the animals they help. The only problem is leaving the dogs behind.

If you are looking to give a rescued animal a loving new home, Southridge Animal Centre is located in Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, and is open to the public from 11am to 4.15pm, 6 days a week (closed on Wednesday). Go and visit – I know they’ll be thrilled to see you.

Paul Bailey

October 08, 2007

Do you iGoogle?

lucy.jpg The internet was supposed to make things easier and quicker - yet I still never have time to keep up-to-date on everything that's important to me. As someone who juggles their time between work, a small child, managing a kitchen extension and keeping up with friends and family, iGoogle has been a bit of a discovery for me.

For those who haven't tried it yet, iGoogle offers a personalised homepage, giving at-a-glance access to key information on the web. On my homepage I've added feeds from most of the websites I used to regularly access - so from one page, I can now keep an eye on news headlines, charity sector updates, my clients’ website traffic (and how they are being perceived across the web), my Hotmail account, my Facebook profile and several essential parent and kitchen related sites.

Has this changed the way I used the web? Yes. I would never have had time in a single day to check all these websites - now, just by visiting my homepage, I can.

Is that change of behaviour relevant to marketeers and charities trying to build their online relationship with donors - absolutely.

How does a charity take advantage of this change in behaviour and make sure they are on their donors and prospects homepages? By being clever with their web content and offering information feeds of relevant and interesting daily updates.

Lucy Morrell

October 01, 2007

What's web 2.0 trying to say?

brad.jpg It seems to me that Web 2.0 is telling us it's time to talk with supporters, not at them.

It's no secret that broadcast TV is losing viewers to the internet. People are turning away from a device which broadcasts one-way messages at them, to one where they can have conversations. On the internet, we can ask questions and share opinions - TV can't provide that kind of active involvement.

There's no escaping it: TV is a 'talk-at' tool. Communication is one-way; it wouldn't be TV if you could ask it a question and expect some kind of response. While broadcast media is 'talk-at', the telephone is an early example of a 'talk-with' tool - for obvious reasons.

The point of the distinction is that most communications media fall easily into the 'talk-at' or 'talk-with' categories, and charities can use this distinction to foster a dialogue with supporters. Or rather, charities can avoid opting for 'talk-at' tools without considering whether they've neatly ensured that it's impossible for supporters to talk with them.

In the charity world, we're seeing the transition from one major donor demographic to another, from Dorothy Donor to the Baby Boomers. One key difference between Dorothy and the Boomers is that Dorothy didn't mind being talked at. She trusted and respected authority. Her media choice was - and largely still is - newspapers, radio and TV. With the exception of the telephone, 'talk-at' media (mass, broadcast media) was all there was.

In contrast, Boomers are typically described as more individualistic and less trusting of authority. They want accountability. They want to ask questions. But they can't do that when the institution or organisation they want answers from will only communicate through the one-way messaging of talk-at media.

So it seems there