Shrove Tuesday, Pancake Day, Fat Tuesday...whatever you want to call it, it's a time to absolve yourself of sins by the way of confession and eating pancakes. Or something…

So to mark this holy excuse for a breakfast feast, the Whitewater ents team (Maria, Richard O, Stewart, Elana and myself) turned our meeting room into a French-style creperie and made fresh pancakes for everyone. I’m glad to say it was a success (no pancakes stuck to the ceiling) and a nice surprise for people coming in from their wet commute to the office.

And now that the pancakes have gone down a treat, we need to observe other traditional part of Shrove Tuesday – confession time! Please add your confessions via the comments section below (Nick C – you may need to spread yours over a series of comments, I think there’s a word limit.) Bless you all.

Nayyar Mughal

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

In support of the RNLI's annual fundraising event – SOS day - Whitewater became Whytewaterz nightclub for one special evening with a Sing One Song night.

Needless to say, there was booze, disco lights, dancing and some retro singing. We sang our way merrily through the decades pausing only to consult the 'bible' karaoke book.

Thanks again to everyone that came. Good fun was had all round and donations (or should I say entry fees) in true DM style are still trickling through. For those of you that prefer pictures… feast your eyes…

Imogen Beilby

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:01 PM | Permalink

If you've been in one place for any length of time, you start to develop a reputation for certain things. Our esteemed colleagues past and present include Barry 'The Birdman' Evans, Steve 'Original Mr Nice Guy' Andrews and Steve 'My Specialist Subject Is Star Wars' Tse.

Unfortunately for Heather Collins, who's celebrating a glorious ten years at Whitewater this week, she developed a reputation for her ingenious if rather colourful language. She's probably added more words to the English language than Shakespeare did.

So to celebrate Heather, her ten years' hard service in the print department, and the invaluable contribution she’s made to life at Whitewater, we decided to surprise her at last Friday's agency meeting. While she popped to the ladies, we all whipped out masks of her face complete with speech bubbles of her most famous phrases, including my personal favourite, "Ass Burgers with Cheese." To say she was surprised is an understatement. But, being as it was Heather, we can't print the actual words she used when she walked back in and saw a room full of Heathers staring (and swearing) back at her. Happy 10th Anniversary Heather!

PS. Can you spot the real Heather in this picture? (Clue – she's the one without a speech bubble attached to her forehead.)

Posted by Whitewater Team at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

We would like to apologise to all Whitewater's friends who received our Christmas ecard, featuring Mr Dean Martin's rendition of Let it Snow, and who shortly afterwards found themselves snowbound.

With hindsight we should have gone with Bing Crosby's alternative version: Let it Snow (But Just a Light Dusting With No Impact on Road Conditions or Rail Services..

Sorry.

Nick Couldry

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:13 PM | Permalink

Just back from another amazing trip to India with The Brooke, filming their latest DRTV ad with our Head of Video Brad.

One special request from The Brooke team was to film a community in Ghaziabad, on the eastern outskirts of Delhi, where a whole programme of work is being funded by an extremely generous American couple.

The programme includes training two village men in farriery skills. Before, if an owner's horse suffered trouble with its hooves, the owner would have to travel 20km with the lame animal to the nearest farrier. And then 20km back. Not good for the horse or the owner. Now the village has a pair of expert Brooke-trained farriers who can give on the spot treatment - and at a cheaper price.

In rural India, women often stay at home, rarely venturing out or even talking to their neighbours. The Brooke initiated a women's group in the community to discuss animal care. This proved to be a revelation to the village women, who now meet every couple of weeks to exchange experiences, lessons learned and generally socialise. Now they're no longer isolated, they discuss their problems together and their animals are thriving.

Brad got some great footage, including a big thank you from the villagers and the Brooke vet team to the American couple who made all this happen.

In an ideal world, everyone who gives - no matter how much - to a charity should be thanked in this way. Okay - we can't thank them all personally, but online video is a mass channel, so we made hay while the sun shone and grabbed loads of extra footage to show Brooke donors all the fantastic work that the charity are doing with their donations.

Nick Couldry

Posted by Whitewater Team at 04:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

...something useful!

Actually, he has plenty of useful hints and tips, as recounted in a recent article from Mail Media Centre.
Download file.

Read his pearls of wisdom on great photography - and a few choice words on writing copy by Fran too.

Posted by Whitewater Team at 03:17 PM | Permalink

I thought this email I got from Charity:water was quite interesting: 

The message is presented as a personal email from Scott Harrison on, like so many bloggers and book authors today, a casual, first-name basis.

The copy seems like it was personally written - it begins by talking about Scott's recent reading of the 'psychology of enormous problems' or the 'numbers problem,' making fundraising theory somewhat transparent. It's believable that Scott did actually read about the issue because that's how he's positioned within the charity. Charity:water is his own personal story and mission. The current campaign is a revisiting of the founding story of the charity.

Harrison explains The Numbers Problem, then discounts it because it interferes with having a 'big vision.' And he's got a point. The Numbers Problem is more significant in the context of mass media broadcast marketing. With internet-based, personal, community-oriented and community-mobilizing 'marketing' - where everything you *do* is marketing - then The Numbers Problem is less of a problem and more of a battle cry. The numbers don't represent just the enormity of the task, they also represent a progress bar and a scale to motivate people, step by step. (See the number graphics at the top of the message)

Five days later I got a second email message with another video: this time reporting on the completion of a well in Haiti.

Overall, Charity:water seem to have embraced the idea that the dominant form of expression and 'marketing' with internet media is personal documentary.

Brad Bell

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:30 AM | Permalink

We are all taught as children how important it is to say please and thank you, and it is often a lesson that lasts a lifetime.

But financial services companies, no-one ever thought they would ever need to learn this. Imagine my surprise when I opened my post at home yesterday. Barclaycard were saying how much they appreciated me being with them. And there it was, in it's own paper wallet, a voucher - £10 to spend at House of Fraser with no catches, no strings attached and no small print.

I must admit to being totally taken aback, yet once I got over the shock, quite chuffed. It also made me think about my credit card purchasing habits. I have three cards and use them evenly. And something as simple as a thank-you and a £10 voucher has made me reconsider. This simple gesture has made me review my spending habits.

Why do I believe this lesson is important to our sector - I see a parallel with charities - how many say thank you properly and genuinely. Does yours? As consumers come under more financial pressure and consider where and with whom they spend their money the charities that say thank you and tell donors what has been done with their donations will really benefit, just like Barclaycard.

Mark Roper

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:53 PM | Permalink

Last month, as part of a process to introduce a new creative team to the RNLI's work, a few of us were lucky enough to go on an RNLI Hit the Surf day. It's designed to develop beach safety awareness, and is taken around the country and attended by school groups – so there is a big element of fun involved!

The day started off at Sandbanks beach, in Dorset, where we were introduced to the lifeguard team and enjoyed a training session on the meanings of beach safety flags and hazards – interspersed with stories of heroism, stupidity and tragedy. We then took a stroll along the beach and were shown their equipment, which included a comprehensive first aid kit and impressive rescue watercraft. A first-aid demo was given at the end of the morning session.

After lunch on the beach, the real fun began.

Unfortunately, following a frightening incident with a rubber ring and general ineptitude in water, I excused myself from the afternoon activities. Instead I was loaded up with everyone else's cameras and bottled water - no pockets in wetsuits! The warm-up session included a race won by Mark Roper – and afterwards they went into the surf for practise dolphin-diving, body surfing, relay races and tube rescues. It all looked like salty good fun!

To end the day we were given goodie bags of t-shirts and certificates. It was a brilliant day out and I learnt that a lifeguard’s job isn't just about running around looking good in a wetsuit (although, that is an important part of it). They take what they do very seriously and are so dedicated you can't help but respect and admire them.

Speaking of looking good in a wetsuit...

Nice one Mark!

Steve Tse

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A few weeks ago I went to the Multiple Sclerosis Awards – a celebration of the best in the MS community held by our client the MS Society. It was an inspiring afternoon, hearing about the amazing achievements of people living with MS and the great work of the Society.

The event kicked off with the award for 'MS Inspiration 2009' – won by Anne Dunham. Anne was diagnosed with MS when she was 27 and started to compete in dressage aged 40. She has won 12 golds and countless silver and bronze medals at the Paralympics.

Other winners included 15 year old Patsy Peebles (pictured below with Tain) who picked up the award for Campaign of the Year for her work to raise awareness of teenage MS.

The awards were a fun afternoon out and a chance to drink champagne with the likes of Moira Stewart, but most of all a real reminder of why we do what we do at Whitewater – raise funds for amazing charities like the MS Society.

Alex Wordsworth

Posted by Whitewater Team at 03:33 PM | Permalink

I recently embarked on an exciting project with my client - the development of a five-year strategy for the whole of the fundraising department. Although we mainly work with individual giving, this work included each area in fundraising; corporate, major donor and trust and supporter services, ensuring that the whole department works towards a common goal.

We brought in an independent facilitator who used specialist tools to formulate and run a pre-planned workshop day to generate the strategy. Having run many of these types of workshop before, Brian had an objectiveness that helped to keep the day running as efficiently as possible. At times he was forced to cut through the charity jargon in order that we came up with a clear overarching aim and a set of strategies supporting that aim.

Prior to the workshop, and to make sure that our strategy was soundproof, we conducted a comprehensive overview of the marketplace involving a PEST analysis, competitor and share of voice analysis, in depth audience profiling including pen portraits and an organisational internal analysis.

Each attendee, including the head of fundraising, the fundraising and supporter services managers, and key agency partners were sent the marketplace analysis materials in advance for reading, thus guaranteeing the maximum amount of time at the workshop was given over towards the development of the five-year goal and its supporting strategies.

We held the workshop at an independent conference facility to ensure focus on the task in hand throughout. After a packed agenda we finished with a few well earned drinks and dinner, giving people time to chat and mull over what had been achieved from putting sixteen professionals in a room for a day!

Now all we have to do is put the strategies in place. Onwards and upwards…

Marcella McGing

Posted by Whitewater Team at 08:32 PM | Permalink

Mere days after Barry's retirement bash, Nayyar-the-bold has settled herself into his still-warm orthopaedic stool.

Some might say she's a bit disrespectful. But they’re not going to say it to her face. She's a red-head and a Brummie.

Next time you're visiting the creative department, say hi to our fabulous new copywriter. Make sure you use the right words though – she really knows what she's writing about!

Francesca Boardman

PS. Speaking of words – there are a few being bandied about at the end of Nayyar’s first week. They are: laid back and bolshy; Indie music, lovely, funky, shoe wearing copywriter; Friendly; Don’t talk to it, Eat it!!!; Bright.

Feel free to use the comments link to add a few of your own...

Posted by Whitewater Team at 03:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's been 29 years since my first tentative foray into fundraising. Almost as long as the poetical career of E J Thribb. Now it's time to stop worrying about whether I've just unconsciously written the same appeal for a second time, and hand over to fresher talent.

'But what,' I hear you all cry, 'are the words of wisdom that you leave us with…?' Time for me to break the embarrassing silence.

When I started, I wrestled for a long time with the question why should anyone want to give their hard earned money to a charity? And slowly the answer dawned: because they want to.

People are naturally generous. Ask any human being for help, and their first, instantaneous reaction is to want to say yes. That, of course, is followed a millisecond later by the doubts – can I afford it, can I trust them, what will they actually do with my money, am I being taken for a ride here…?

Our job is simple. We have to remove those obstacles to generosity so that someone can enjoy the experience of doing good undiluted by regret. Of course there's always someone in the organisation who wants to complicate things. Just try to make sure it isn't you.

Barry Evans

Posted by Whitewater Team at 03:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

People have been asking me recently whether the death knell for direct mail in the charity sector has been sounded. They draw this conclusion from recent Royal Mail statistics showing a decrease last year of 0.7% on 2007 in the number of mailings sent. The phrase, 'lies, damned lies and statistics' comes to mind. To take this one statistic in isolation is extremely misleading.

Direct mail is still working well for fundraisers. However, changes are taking place. Data is becoming even more significant. Charities and their agencies are getting smarter. Data is being scrutinised in more detail than ever. This is resulting in better segmentation, more accurate targeting and subsequently less direct mail.

We recently ran a campaign on behalf of a major UK charity client, sending out a direct mail campaign to a reduced, more targeted file, and it resulted in the largest number of donations the charity had ever received.

So rather than the death of direct mail we are in fact bidding farewell to the unwanted, unopened and unresponsive post that reduces a campaign's ROI and annoys its intended recipient. Good news all round.

In addition, rather than using DM in isolation, some of our best recent results have come from integrated campaigns incorporating multi-channel communications such as DRTV and social networking. These campaigns allow charities to recruit and engage donors in relevant dialogue without the use of any printed matter. This means costs are coming down and relationships are taking place on the donor’s terms, not the charity's, to the benefit of both parties.

So don't believe all you read, the number of direct mail pieces may be on the wane, but it is still a tool with a major role to play as part of the communication mix of most charities.

Mark Roper

Posted by Whitewater Team at 04:20 PM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/us/18charity.html
login name: let-me-in-again
password: letmein

There are a few assumptions in this article which may, when unpacked, might help explain why people give once and go away.

A development director is quoted as saying, "For one thing, [charities] must have a team dedicated to fine-tuning and improving their web site and another team for e-mail marketing, both of which are added expenses. Nonprofit solicitation materials often get caught in systems that trap spam and other unwanted e-mail. Other systems eliminate the compelling images that are so effective in direct mail."

I would imagine a charity has a team dedicated to their web site in the same sense that they have a team dedicated to coming into the office regularly. A web site is not an online brochure. It is not an extra service and an extra cost. Communicating what a charity is about and what it is currently doing is essential to fundraising, and internet media (web, email, chat, sms, video, etc) are the most efficient, cheap, conversational, and democratic media available.

Sometimes it seems charities invest in communications to get people to donate, but invest little to nothing to thank them for giving; or to tell people what difference their gift has made; or allow people to follow their progress; to tell people what's coming up; to allow people to get involved by volunteering, discussing issues, asking questions, or providing feedback on the latest mail pack, for example.

The concept of donating to charity and then trusting them to spend your money wisely with no further question is no longer enough. It was enough when it was all that was possible, but now the internet allows donors to experience so much more, that to offer them nothing in return for giving appears not just ungrateful but downright rude.

These days, the ideal charity web site seems to be more of a 'glass workshop,' where the goal of the site is to make a charity's processes and work as efficient and transparent as possible. Charites do not do something over here, and then tell people about it here. As much as possible, the doing and the telling are melded together. Potential donors should not have to read descriptions about what the charity does, they should be able to look in the window of the glass workshop and see for themselves. And when donors see something that they can help with, they could even conceivably jump in and help out. (Are you a time donor? Or a money donor? A paid worker or a voluntary worker?)

Maybe donors don't want marketing and fundraising messages. Maybe the best marketing is transparency. In the internet age, a donor can expect to see the project they've donated to, meet the other donors, and hear the voices of the people they've helped. Nothing will get people to give again like hearing someone on the other side of the world confirm that you've helped change their life.

Brad Bell

Posted by Whitewater Team at 01:42 PM | Permalink

When did you last know a copywriter who actually retired? That's what Barry Evans, Whitewater's Head of Copy, will do on May 9th having reached... hmm... shall we say 'the age of discretion'?

To ensure a smooth handover, Barry's replacement will step into his shoes at the beginning of March. Fran Boardman is not exactly a Barry replica. She doesn't spend her spare time watching birds or pursuing theatrical projects, for instance.

But her passion for charities is the same, if not greater. She shares a respect for the beauty and subtlety of the English language. And let's face it, she's a damn sight prettier.

So it's hail and farewell. The wordsmiths may change, but the control-beating, inspiration drive - to change the world for better - goes on.

Barry Evans

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:21 AM | Permalink

Just after Christmas, Wikipedia announced that it was closing its annual appeal a full six months ahead of schedule having already hit its $6m target.

Not only that, but following an appeal from founder Jimmy Wales in late December (so Wikipedia could avoid having to make charges or take advertising), over the course of just eight days a staggering 50,000 people from around the world donated a total of $2m. The only fundraising outside of social networking was $2m raised from trusts and foundations.

This is the first year Wikipedia has employed professional fundraisers, and it shows. Fundraising went from $1.2m in 2006 and $2.3m in 2007 - to $6m in 2008.

Wikipedia's head of community giving, Rand Montoya, says that all they did was, 'an amazing amount of the basics,' including thanking people, using clear messaging and making it easy for anyone, anywhere in the world, to give in their own currency.

There must be lessons to learn from this. And Wikipedia is even making it easier for us to do that. It aims to be totally transparent, so it publishes its contribution and donor statistics on its blog, and invites comments from anyone who cares enough to leave them.

As part of the appeal, it tested a number of banners, and it's published the results of that testing, too.

As and when it has more results of the analysis into the appeal, that will also be posted on the blog for others to see what works and what doesn't. Obviously not everything's going to work for everyone, but it's a refreshing change from fundraisers mumbling into their sandwiches when asked to comment meaningfully on their results.

It's not going to change the face of fundraising overnight, but it's a fantastic example of the power of social networking and how openness and transparency can help us all.

Kevin Kibble

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:05 AM | Permalink

If you want to show your supporters that you care about the world we share, here's some good news: Whitewater has gained FSC and PEFC accreditation.

This means, when you buy print through Whitewater, beside your charity's message, all your printed communications can bear either the Forest Stewardship Council or Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification logos - telling donors that you support sustainable forestry initiatives.

To get accredited by both these organisations, Whitewater has invested heavily in staff training, accountable stock control systems and production workflow processes - probably more than you want to know, but it guarantees that the materials we support are certified at every step.

We hope you'll agree, it's a step in the right direction to making a world of difference.

Heather Collins

Posted by Whitewater Team at 03:20 PM | Permalink

How many times have you been in a bar busting for the loo or running home from the bus stop to get there in time?

I'm sure it's something we've all experienced: but when you put it into perspective, waiting for 2 or 3 people before you or having to run up the stairs and turn on the light, really isn't that bad.

Sadly, there are 2.5 billion people in the world don't have access to any loo – bet you didn't know that.
That's why our client WaterAid is raising awareness of this devastating fact and want people who do have loos (I'd say that's all of us) to take action and help WaterAid tackle and combat sanitation in some of the world's poorest countries.

World Toilet Day is today - Wednesday 19th November - download your posters and spread the word.

Lisa Munden

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:06 AM | Permalink

I've been told by our new MD that the most requently given piece of feedback given to him about our website is: 'It's great... but I wanted to find out how Whitewater got its name?!'

Well, as the longest-standing member of staff (more years than I care to remember) and daughter of one of the founders I am uniquely placed to respond.

The answer to the question is... well, it depends who you ask.

According to Sarah Hamilton Fairley (Whitewater's founder, first MD and now Chief Exec of charity Starthere), the name came from a promise she made to herself on an ill-advised rafting expedition in Nepal. Swept off the raft and hurtling downriver, preoccupied with the purifying tablets she felt she should be swallowing to compensate for the vast amounts of river water being ingested as her fellow rafters bobbed by, she swore that, should she come out of the ordeal alive, her brand new company would be named Whitewater.

But if you ask Richard Crofton (co-founder of Whitewater, also now at StartHere), the story is quite different. His version includes a hike up Mont Richard in the French Pyrenees, where he was greeted at the summit by a breath-taking view including glacier, snow, cloud, and spray from a waterfall casting rainbows. The ensemble of different forms of 'white water' were his inspiration for the name of the fledgling company.

Both stories are true and both inspired the naming of the company. Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that two such different stories resulted in the founders (neither of whom lack the courage of their convictions) being able to actually agree upon the name.

Whether Whitewater says to you, 'excitement, danger, thrills' or 'beauty, nature, peace', there's a story behind the name to fit.

Anna Bell

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:08 PM | Permalink

If fundraisers are looking for extraordinary inspiration, we should look no further than the Obama '08 campaign.

Obama's campaign has raised a truly staggering $600 million and counting, blitzing all previous records. In two years! And what's more, 90% of this has come from individual donors with the average donation around $86.

According to the LA Times, Obama's campaign 'built a cash juggernaut using the Internet'. But of course it's not just the technology wot did it. As John Baguely points out, Obama's inspirational leadership is the foundation.

It strikes me that Obama's fundraising reminds us that donating money is not an alternative to campaigning. It is campaigning. And it has put power back into the hands of ordinary Americans. So it's democratising as well.

Those donations have funded the kind of advertising blitzes which previously only big-money Republicans could deliver. Obama's campaign (win or lose) is an extraordinary case study in fundraising, led, as John Baguely says, by the most extraordinary fundraiser of them all, Senator Obama himself.

Image courtesy of Joe Crimmings Photography

Steve Andrews

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:25 PM | Permalink

This is the one time you should ignore your supporters. Because thanking them is probably the best investment you'll ever make. Particularly as now, more than ever, giving to charity is incredibly generous of people who are wondering if they'll be able to afford to pay for their groceries next month.

We recently wrote a thank-you letter for our client RSPCA. But it wasn't just any old thank-you letter. This letter thanked donors for everything they'd done for the charity during the previous 12 months. Every response to an appeal, every raffle ticket bought was acknowledged. And thanked.

There was no ask for money in this letter, yet the volume of 'white mail' it generated was far in excess of any RSPCA fundraising appeal (10 inches high and counting…). And none of these letters said "Don't waste money thanking me".

Many supporters wrote and phoned saying how they hate being asked by charities to give more all the time, then going on to say that because of the letter, they'll increase their gift. Another was prompted to leave a residuary gift in their Will.

Being the hardcore direct marketers we are, we wanted our client Sarah Vickery to test it so we could see how it affected the future 'performance' of the supporters who received it. Now Sarah understands DM as well as we do – but she said "No!" And do you know what? I think she was right, because Sarah recognised that there are some things that are so right to do that you don't test them – you just do it!

Nick Couldry

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

There is definitely something special about Whitewater. After starting last week and spending my first three days immersed in agency meetings, learning about our clients, I felt a real energy and commitment from everyone I spoke with. Then I realised: it's in the Whitewater DNA. It jumps out at you and hollers - don't think about being part of what we stand for unless you are passionate and believe you can make a difference. The doors are closed to non-believers.

I worked through the revolution that made the Internet a part of everyones lives and during that time had the pleasure of working with some really bright people on ground-breaking global campaigns.
And still I have been blown away by the quality of the Whitewater team and the care they take in every aspect of what they do. It might be obvious that we care – after all we work with charities and non-profits – yet the result is work of the highest quality. And does it generate results? It had better. We are primarily in the response business so numbers are what makes us tick.

I have been introduced to campaigns that are generating new donors with a positive ROI; new ways of thinking that are making this industry consider a different approach to marketing; and a TV ad which moved one experienced client to tears (and if I am honest, my eyes were a little moist when it finished).

And the Whitewater effect is having a real impact. One of our recent pitch wins was so impressed by our first campaign and the stops we pulled out to hit her deadlines that she sent us very personal thank-you card, while in another instance, chocolates were found on an Account Director's desk as acknowledgement for the hard work put in by everyone on their recent campaign launch. Two separate client thank-you's in the same week - brilliant.

For the first time in quite a while, I cannot wait to get into work. I may have been part of the team for less than 72 hours, but I am already feeling the effect.

Mark Roper

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:11 AM | Permalink

My flat mate saw an ad in the tube and told me about orange rockcorps - an initiative where if you put something in, you get something out. So I checked out the website www.orangerockcorps.co.uk and I was ever so pleasantly surprised... Do four hours of work to help others, and you get a free ticket to an awesome show! How brilliant! Now there's absolutely no excuse for youngsters not to get involved in activities which help make the world a better place.

It makes me so happy to know that there are more than a handful of people out there that want to do things for the better of mother nature and human kind.

So check out the site, get involved and help us save the world! HOORAH!

Saxon-Dale Sunderland

Posted by Whitewater Team at 03:34 PM | Permalink

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.

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:16 AM | Permalink

What 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 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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 08:45 AM | Permalink

In 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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:14 AM | Permalink

The 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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:25 AM | Permalink

The 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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:57 AM | Permalink

There 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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:53 AM | Permalink

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 12:07 PM | Permalink

We'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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:22 PM | Permalink

As 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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 12:28 PM | Permalink

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

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

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

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 08:43 AM | Permalink

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!

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:38 AM | Permalink

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 05:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

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

Posted by Brad Bell at 11:04 AM | Permalink

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:09 AM | Permalink

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:26 PM | Permalink

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 05:11 PM | Permalink

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 04:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 03:47 PM | Permalink

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:55 AM | Permalink

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 Dennis

Posted by Whitewater Team at 04:47 PM | Permalink

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

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 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.”

Posted by Whitewater Team at 03:58 PM | Permalink

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:48 AM | Permalink

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 03:47 PM | Permalink

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

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:22 AM | Permalink

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 is a confluence of trends: Dorothy Donor is happy to listen while she is talked-at, her children, the Boomers, want a conversation. There is a general migration from talk-at media to the talk-with tools of the internet. And Web 2.0 means that the explosion of talk-with tools made possible by the internet are becoming much more powerful, easier to use, more democratic and more community-oriented.

In my next post, I'll talk (with you) a bit more about talk-with media, and how we can take any medium and make it more Boomer-friendly. See you there.

Brad Bell

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:20 PM | Permalink

Just a quick one: Brett Meyer over at the Non Profit Technology Network blog links to a report on the adoption of web 2.0 technologies (social networking tools) by organisations involved in social change (that could mean you).

Brett suggests, based on his reading of the report, that many organisations are using the web only as a tool of information dissemination because they 'experienced a great deal of frustration in determining which tools to use and where to turn for help.'

Is that what's holding us back?

Anna Crofton

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:54 AM | Permalink

"If I see the results, I'll definitely give again," proclaimed one donor.
"If they want to ask for more, they need to show us what they did with the last donation," explained another.
"I want an invitation to visit. To see where the money has gone," demanded the next.

At Whitewater's 24 focus groups, they spoke with one voice. British Baby Boomers want evidence that their donations are achieving results. They want to see those results for themselves.

What better way to achieve this than through video? I know of at least three non-profits that are training frontline staff in the use of video - precisely for this reason. They want to inspire their donors with what their donations have achieved. And to build their trust.

SolarAid is a charity that I'm helping set up. You can learn more through these two videos on YouTube.

SolarAid is building video into their donor programme from the outset. We're going to show donors exactly what their money achieves. We're going to get the charity out the way and get donors talking to beneficiaries, through blogs and video diaries. Donors are going to love it. They'll give more - and they'll tell their friends.

Will video testimony from the field be a bit amateur? If it is, I think this will only encourage our donors. They told us they want 'documentaries, not adverts'; 'a no-nonsense approach rather than marketing.'

Video online will have many uses for the non-profit fundraiser. None excite me more than being able to give powerful, believable feedback to donors. To give them the evidence they crave.

My favourite example of video online? Well, I wont be alone here... it has to be The Buffalo Movie. An extraordinary example of how video evidence can connect donors with beneficiaries - and yet, as far as I've seen, to be done better.

Nancy's call for contributions on how charities should use video couldn't have been more timely - an uncanny reflection of the conversations we've been having around the office. Monday's Carnival should make fascinating reading for anyone interested in how we can harness this powerful medium.

Steve Andrews

Posted by Whitewater Team at 04:20 PM | Permalink

In a blog entry on Modern Marketing called, How The Soap Box Beat The Loudhailer, James Cherkoff outlines how the soap boxes provided by the internet beat the loudhailer of mass media advertising.

"Advertising folks are always banging on about the perfect idea and the genius insight that creates a powerful campaign. One that will change people's behaviour and drive sales and vast shareholder value. But the world has changed. The tectonic plates that the marketing industry sits upon have shifted. What adfolk don't get is however great their ideas - no one cares anymore. Let me explain why..."

What follows is a potted history of the ad industry and the internet. While Cherkoff focuses on the growing trend to switch off the TV and log on to the internet, the article provides a perfect context for discussing a range of ideas about the fundamental differences between the mass media and the internet, why the internet provides far more opportunities for charities than it does for commercial marketers, and how charities can ensure they have mutually beneficial relationships with supporters simply by letting them talk. I hope to discuss some of these ideas in future posts.

Brad Bell

Posted by Whitewater Team at 05:02 PM | Permalink

After Simon's feedback to this post, and then reading this on Bryan's blog, I can't help feeling that I'm playing catch up! Especially as JustGiving are reviewing results from up to a year ago!

I was specially interested to read about Simon's 'lessons learnt' now that JustGiving are into the next stage of the application work. I can't help but wonder, while all us marketers are rubbing our sticky paws together with glee at the possibilities, if the dark cloud of charity infrastructure is lurking just over the horizon.

This somewhat pessimistic view leans on one of the 'lessons' that Simon refer to on Bryan's blog: the importance of application designs coming from Facebook-users themselves, rather than fundraisers giving them what we think they want. I'm waiting to be convinced that charities are ready to embrace Facebook (esp as many are just beginning to see the potential of online) and give 'Facebook-donors' this type of control... from managing the application, sending speedy approvals, and giving satisfactory answers to the question, "Where do these funds end up?"

Having said all that, your results could prove me wrong! I certainly hope they do.

Imogen Bielby

Posted by Whitewater Team at 05:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

'You haven't heard of Facebook?!' splutters my best mate, her jaw hanging open for an exaggerated 30 seconds. 'Well if you wanna keep in touch while I'm in Australia you better get on it.'

So it was this threat that began my love affair with Facebook. That was nearly four months ago. Four months since I answered the question on so many lips: what is Facebook?

No doubt I'm preaching to the converted, but, if you have resisted thus far; Facebook is a social network site, a bit like a web alternative to your address book, with pictures. You use it contact friends by writing on each other’s ‘wall’ or sending private messages or ‘gifts’.

With it’s record-breaking 31 million users worldwide, it can get your brain ticking (amid the bewildering requests from people you don’t know, or wish you didn't know, who want to be your friend).

Us cynics were waiting for the first news story… and we didn’t have to wait long. The BBC reminded us to be wary of Facebook and other social networks, and the horrors lurking therein….

…. University authorities at Oxford are reportedly using Facebook to try and uncover post exam pranks. Techy burglars are rubbing their hands with glee now that they can not only get your details, but also work out if you're at home. Bosses are checking future employees, and boy bands are being discovered - with ready-made fan bases thanks to Facebook and MySpace.

From small beginnings, Facebook seems to be taking over the social scene. This is the chosen way of millions.

Both the Baby Boomers and their children are both showing a distinct distrust of politicians, and anyone purporting to be an authority. The big thing for all of us is trust and control. And who else better to trust than your friends?

Which begs the question, what else can these social networks open themselves up to? How about fundraising on a big, big scale? It could mean opening doors to a whole different audience. A charity could have its own social network page, allowing people to give in a totally different way. The possibilities could be very very exciting – and member-get-member? Oooh don’t get me started.

Imogen Bielby

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

If you've been told that size doesn't matter, it's possible she was just being polite. Nowadays, the little guys are in demand.

Big, established charities may be losing ground in the hearts and minds of the giving public, to charities that are small, focused and less well known. A great illustration of this emergent trend can be seen at The Kitchen Table Charities Trust. It's been set up John Humphrys as an umbrella organisation to promote and vouch for all the small and very deserving organisations it represents. As the man himself says on the site, 'They don’t have swanky offices or air-conditioned Land Rovers or money to spend on expensive advertising. Every penny goes to people in need... I have either seen them myself or know someone who has and can offer an independent assessment.'

It's a sentiment we've seen in Whitewater's focus groups, too. We've frequently heard people saying things like, 'I only give to small charities now': and implying that this is the informed choice.

Large and small charities are equally valuable. Causes need the power and influence of large charities working alongside the 'one problem at time' focus of some of the small ones, and economies of scale can make bigger charities more efficient. The important question is: why is smaller being seen as better by the punters? What makes small charities so attractive? Well, here are some ideas to start the debate:

• Personal impact. Your donation will mean more to a tiny charity - you'll feel like a bigger fish in a smaller pond.
• The real deal Small charities have authenticity, that 'coal face' feeling that many consumers actively seek.
• Trust. People worry about their donations being spent on salaries, admin and fundraising. The bigger the charity, the worse this perception appears to be.
• Need. A small charity seems to need your donation more than big one with reserves stashed in the bank.

There's a lot to learn from the way smaller charities present themselves, particularly if you work for one of the big ones. It's time to get back to basics, to put reality, honesty and passion ahead of corporate guidelines, to stop dodging the earmarking question and give supporters what they want - fresh offers that feel genuinely real and tangible.

Mark Cook

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:54 AM | Permalink

Recently, we beat a long-time ORBIS banker with a wild and wacky paper aeroplane concept. At the same time, for a different client, we ran another mould-breaking concept which crashed, spectacularly, in flames. My idea, embarrassingly.

Which proves what?

Let's go back for a moment to the days of my youth, when the Wright brothers struggled to prove that manned flight had a future. There were plenty of hopeful aviators on crutches after failed attempts at flight. The Flyer herself was built on totally un-aerodynamic principles. She should never have flown.

But she did. Just a few yards. And from there we've gone to the moon and back.

The Wright brothers believed they could fly. They challenged the orthodoxies of the day, and found a way to do it. If we allow ourselves to be discouraged by our failures, we'll never improve - never beat the banker.

So when you hear of another turkey that I'm training to fly, buy me a drink. It may turn out to be an eagle.

Barry Evans

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:55 AM | Permalink

I've recently signed up for another run to raise money for a cancer research charity. The way it works (if you don't know) is that you pay a small fee to participate (for which I get a jolly t-shirt and a pack of stuff that makes me feel like a nice soul), and then you ask your friends and family to stump up the 'rest' - to meet a sponsorship target. Since signing up I've received about ten emails telling me how 'easy' and 'stress free' it is now to raise money online but this is where I've discovered that I have a problem.

I want to participate because I like running. I want to support this charity because it's a cause close to my heart. But why should the people I know feel the same way? They don't even get to run! All they get, if anything, is the warm glow of making a charity gift - a donation that, in all likelihood, would not have been made had I not asked.

Do they feel, as I did when I had to ask, a bit irritated? Because to say 'no' makes you look mean, and to say 'yes' means you have probably been forced by politeness to donate to a cause not necessarily near to your heart.

So I'm thinking I will ask a very few people who I know care about this cause so that I don't make my other friends tire of coughing up for (my) pleasure of running. And I will pay the rest. To put this in context, I've already done one sponsored run this year and left it so late to ask for support that it ended up being a really urgent email on the morning of the run. Thanks my lovely friends, two hours later I'd exceeded my target, but most sponsored me just because I'd asked, not because of the cause. I won't be milking them for more now.

On a small scale I am working out my own list segmentation, comm's plan, and thank you strategy - the care you'd take with your own friends could teach some charities a lot about how to communicate with their supporters.

Dawn Law

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:25 AM | Permalink

As a donor, does it matter whether a charity is registered in my home country?

I was on Facebook when I discovered the option to include a charity within my profile. With my work head on I got excited about the fundraising potential, but when I came to browse through the options, the site's US origins were obvious as I struggled to find British charities (including most of Whitewater's clients).

So I felt an immediate barrier - a mixture of residual web mistrust and a lack of relevance. If I give to the US Leukaemia and Lymphoma Society, will my money actually get there? It doesn't feel the same as giving to the UK equivalent. I'm happy for my commercial web transactions to show up in dollars, but it's somehow more unsettling with a charity donation - it seems such a long way away. And how long would it take for scientific research in the States to eventually benefit someone in my family (the reason the cause matters to me). Two key motivations we are seeing in the sector were magnified in this context: the need to trust and the need for directness, to feel close to those your money is helping.

As I quickly went through this rather unconventional decision process (it's not often you go 'shopping' for a charity), I was inclined to support causes based on three criteria: 1) a presence in the UK 2) a brand name I recognised and 3) Overseas Development because somehow it made more sense – the beneficiaries were always going to be thousands of miles away, regardless of the charity HQ address. Comic Relief was the eventual winner. It ticked all three boxes. And I had already seen it on a friend's profile – peer power.

In fact, the logo now sitting on my page is all about peer to peer. Web 2.0 means international advocacy of causes. In the context of Facebook - a social networking site - this is the primary message and positively encouraged: tell your friends, spread the word, show the world you support us. There's even a counter on your page to tell you how many people you have recruited. It's Member Get Member at its finest. It's also great for brand recognition. And it is truly global.

The internet has given us free rein - the opportunity to support any charity, anywhere in the world if we want to. (In fact, for our empowered generation, this is probably a crafty strategy to dodge a bombardment of paper mail appeals!) But have UK charites fully embraced or even acknowledged their international audience? Have they capitalised on the fact that their organisation is being endorsed and recommended across oceans and time zones? What can they do to alleviate the 'charity begins at home' barrier that I experienced and build on their extended reach? Will it lead us ultimately to a place where the 'Royal', 'National' or 'British'ness of charity brands could become a hindrance elsewhere… or a positive point of difference - a Union Jack worth waving - back home?

Michelle Dennis

Posted by Whitewater Team at 12:14 PM | Permalink

At a stroke, the new logo for the London 2012 Olympics has divided the nation.

As Chairman of Interbrand Rita Clifton points out in the Times article, the logo has 'the Marmite factor' – you either love it or you hate it. But this is the Olympics: it’s meant to pull people together, not push them apart. It should be the Belgian chocolate of brands.

Justifying the design, Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, praised it as a "truly innovative brand" that would appeal to the young. But what about the old? What about the traditional? Didn't Tessa Jowell say it was meant to be 'inclusive'?

I think these comments show what has gone badly wrong here. There is a fundamental confusion between two very different things: a logo and a brand. This serves as a salutary warning for all charities as they increasingly base their communications on the commercial model.

A logo is a thing: a concrete object. A brand isn't. A brand, as our ex-Director of Planning Bryan Miller was fond of saying, is 'what people say about you when you're not in the room' - it is intangible and difficult to control, because it is not owned by a company but the consumer. It is the sum total of all the thoughts, feelings, impressions and experiences that people have when they come into contact with the organisation and its product, or when they write a cheque to save a life. Jeff Brooks summed it up earlier this year: "Your brand is what you do and who you are. What you look like is the smallest part of that. Most branding guidebooks pay lip-service to this fact, but none of them do anything about it. And that's no surprise, because they can't. A brand is bigger than a set of rules you can put down in a spiral-bound book."

Scissors cut paper and brand always beats logo. If one minute we're told the Olympic logo is meant to celebrate inclusiveness, but the next minute we're told there will no discussion whatsoever about changing it then, believe me, the brand ain't inclusive. In fact you could say it is totally exclusive. Elitist. Top-down. Patronising.

The logo may want to say inspiration, but the brand is disappointment. London pride? More like London laughing stock. Where we wanted idealism, we have cynicism – a feeling of 'here we go again' – and a sense of impending doom. What more can go wrong? The only good thing to come out of this dreary fiasco is the creativity it’s inspired in others.

Charity staff: be aware you don't own your brand - and that includes the Chief Executive. Your brand belongs to the beneficiaries and the donors – and a shift from grey to magenta is not going to make up for an offhand remark, a poorly typed letter or not even being thanked. Intelligent visual design is of course vital, but it cannot stand alone. If you want to be 'inclusive', be inclusive – it's so much more than a colour scheme and a jagged line.

Chris Nield

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:33 AM | Permalink

There's been plenty in the trade press lately about how the public trust blogs more than corporate marketing. I guess it's because blogs come from real people, not Communications Departments.

Charities wanting to really inspire their donors (and prospective donors) should take them very seriously. And if you want an insight into why, check out how our newest client, Médecins sans Frontières, is using them.

Canadian doctor, James Maskalyk, is working for MSF in Abyei, Sudan. He is writing a blog about his experiences. It's truly inspirational stuff; particularly because it comes directly from him in real time, not in a sanitised quarterly charity newsletter. He shares his doubts, his fears, his hopes and his triumphs. He happens to write beautifully, but it doesn't matter when he leaves uncorrected typos or uses poor grammar. Because it's real.

Read this entry and you’ll see what I mean.

And then read the public's comments. They brought tears to my eyes.

Here's what one donor wrote: "I have been a monthly donor to MSF for some time. On Tuesday, I will ramp up by contribution, because I have a house, a job, a healthy beautiful sometimes-maddening daughter, a garden, rain, food --- and hope. I wish I could give those things to the mother whose baby you tried to save. I cannot, so I will do what I can."

Blogs are not a 'latest fad'. They’re one of the most powerful fundraising tools I have ever seen.

In previous posts, I've talked about the need for charities to offer something tangible to donors. This is a different kind of tangibility - one which puts donors directly in touch with the work they're supporting.

Steve Andrews

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:58 AM | Permalink

I'm a BIT of a movie geek, and often wonder why some sequels are given the go ahead - as if they could possibly improve upon the original. Are they trying to beat the banker?

Take Aliens, sequel to the classic Alien. More action, more guns, bigger explosions, bigger aliens, faster, more intense – bigger is better! But not always.

Look at the Bond films. Regarded as having gone downhill for a while, last year's Casino Royale – which went 'back to the basics' of Bond – seems to have injected new life into the tired franchise and put it back on track to greatness. Less style, more substance.

So where am I going with this?

It's often hard to beat a banker. You sometimes wonder why you bother. But creative, like creative people, gets tired sometimes, and response rates start to drop. You can run out of cold lists - and it never hurts to see if a new creative approach can uplift response, or the ROI.

Go the Aliens route, or the Bond route. Try bigger and better, or a stripped back, spare approach. Either can work, as long you have the heart of the charity in mind and the authenticity and transparency to match. Don't fear the banker. Sequels can sometimes be even better.

Steve Tse

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:03 AM | Permalink

I picked up Third Sector in the Whitewater kitchen the other day and came across an article about its State of the Sector Survey 2007 – carried out in collaboration with thinktank nfpSynergy – into the clash in attitudes between the charity sector and the public.

Basically, staff in the charity sector and members of the public were asked for the ten words that would describe their ideal charity.

The outcome? Charities want to be seen as 'challenging', 'inclusive' and 'visionary'. Oh dear. Imagine going to a party and the host saying, 'Oh you must talk to Saskia, she works for charity and is very challenging.' Oh really, is that the time? Bye!

Even worse, charities want to be seen as 'passionate'. Anyone who has ever worked in a charity will tell you that the ones who forever protest their passion are the ones who never bother to do the filing, learn how to use the database or even answer the telephone.

The public, on the other hand, just want charities to be 'trustworthy', 'honest', 'determined', 'effective', 'helpful' and 'friendly'. How very unsophisticated.

It says a lot that people in the charitable sector, who are entirely dependent on the public's goodwill for their livelihoods, would rather be seen as 'inclusive' than 'helpful' (which didn't even feature in their top ten.) This is a sector dangerously in love with its own cheesy charity jargon, and with a population that's sick to death of spin, this is a massive own goal.

Notice to sector copywriters: when copy comes back, rewritten by the communications department and sounding like a diktat from some ghastly New Labour policy droid - all 'passionate about challenging poverty' and 'meeting targets' - resist.

Charities! Stop yammering on about how dynamic, innovative and super-sexy you are and just talk like a human being. You'll be amazed how far it'll get you.

Chris Nield

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:40 AM | Permalink

Last week, I left a comment on the Intelligent Giving blog. If you're not reading Intelligent Giving, you need to start. Here's what I wrote in response to their reporting of a Third Sector survey:

For 30 years, charities have built much of their fundraising off the back of elderly donors; what the Americans call the 'Civics' and British fundraisers sometimes call 'Dorothy Donor'. What these donors wanted was 'care' and maybe a little bit of 'passion'. But essentially they trusted charities in much the same way that they trusted the police, the government, the press, their GP, etc.

This generation is now passing on and we're moving to the era of the Baby Boomers. Savvy, demanding, questionning... and not assuming for one moment that just because you're a charity you are honest and trustworthy.

That is what your survey is showing. Many fundraisers are stuck in the 'Dorothy Donor' mindset and are still coming to terms with the enormous changes that are taking place in their future supporterbase.

Intelligent Giving is a classic example of this. Set up by Baby Boomers (or post Boomers very much in the same mindset) to empower donors. Blimey. Dorothy Donor didn't need that! She 'cared' and she 'trusted'.

Some charities (indeed the Institute of Fundraising) reacted with alarm when IG first launched. Further evidence, I feel, that fundraisers are yet to grasp the changes taking place.

The existence of IG is, in itself, evidence of the trend being shown in this research!

Charities need to embrace IG – and urgently try to understand the implications of this research. If they don't, they're toast.

Steve Andrews

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:37 AM | Permalink

Do charities have a right to lottery cash?

Flicking through this week's Third Sector I noticed several articles about charities' rights regarding lottery cash.

The front-page headline has the Conservative party's charities spokesman accusing the sector of not standing up for itself - accusing it of passivity in the face of the Olympics lottery 'raid'.

Inside, Nick Cater's opinion piece, ‘A bloody funny way to finance charities', on how Camelot has failed to live up to its fundraising promises and general slowness in distributing funds, refers to using National Lottery cash for the Olympics as 'looting' and describes operating the lottery as 'riding on the backs of charities'.

On to the letters page and the ‘Letter of the week’ complains that due to the Olympics funding ‘many charities will not receive money they have a right to expect’.

In all this discussion there's no mention of where the public or the people who actually play the lottery might want the money to go. Not on mismanaging the Olympic games you might think - but is there a groundswell of popular opinion that taxes should be raised (or services cut) to pay for the Olympics so that heritage and arts charities don't miss out on a couple of years funding?

Many charities have done pretty well 'riding on the backs' of Britain's lottery gamblers, but they don't have a right to lottery cash. People are entitled (via the government) to divert lottery funds to whichever good causes they feel like – including the Olympics – and if charities think that their cause should take precedence they'll have to persuade the public, just as they do for individual donations.

James Lane

Posted by Whitewater Team at 12:48 PM | Permalink

It's a well-known fact that I am a huge football fan. I've supported Tottenham Hotspur for over 20 years, through all the highs and lows (and, sad to say, there have been a lot of lows).

Now call me naïve, but I honestly believe that if there was a bit more 'love for your fellow man' in the world there would be fewer wars and we wouldn't need as many charities. So I was very pleased to hear the news that the entire Spurs team have donated a day of their wages to the ‘Mayday for Nurses’ campaign.

The money, being donated by footballers on 13 May, will go into a nurses' hardship fund. With inadequate pay, stressful jobs, and often large student loans, this fund could make the difference between a nurse being able to continue in her vocation, or being forced to quit. Footballers are being asked to lead the way in the hope that their high profile will mobilise public support.

Visit the website to find out more about the campaign and show your support – you can put your support behind a particular team too, if you're a fan. You'll be added to a league showing how many fans have signed up from each team.

Spurs are number 1 in the table at the time of writing (a significant improvement on their current 6th place in the league) – is your team's fan base making you proud?

Fatima Talidi

Posted by Whitewater Team at 01:44 PM | Permalink

Charities that can be bothered to say 'thank you' to new donors(!) often talk in terms of a 'new donor welcome process' or 'donor welcome pack'.

I've got a problem with this. It seems presumptuous.

From a donor's perspective, it's akin to expecting a night of passion when all I did was buy you a drink.

From a fundraiser's perspective, saying 'welcome' could well suggest genuine complacency on your part. You've bagged me. I'm yours. You can rely on my help.

But all I did was give you a cash gift! Take it for granted that I'm going to keep on giving and you could end up taking the easy route when you craft your next warm appeal (a weaker proposition that's easier to get passed the comms department). And I might not respond. Ever again.

If you treat me as nothing more than a person who once gave you a cash gift and quite possibly will not give you another, maybe you'll work harder to thank me properly, to make me feel great about my decision to give, and to ask properly for my second, third and fourth gifts. I've talked about the importance of a good 'thank you' before. (Katya goes as far as to say we should thank our donors three times as often as we ask them for money.)

OK, so maybe 'welcome' is the right word if I have joined your membership scheme. Or signed up to a regular gift. But even then, I still need convincing. Be sure it's not a symptom of complacency.

Steve Andrews

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

My job during the day (as a copywriter), and what I get up to in the evenings (scribbling poetry) aren't too different. Both involve long hours in front of a computer screen, mugs of coffee, much head scratching and the odd cry of 'Yes!' And whenever a piece of writing comes together, there is an amazing sense of satisfaction.

The best copy is like poetry when it grabs our attention and doesn't let go. When it moves us. Shakes us up. When it sparks our synapses, becomes part of our brain chemistry. When we learn to look at something in a fresh and enlivening way, so by the time we've finished reading, we're not quite the same.

Here's a poem that I think does that brilliantly.

Chris Nield

Posted by Whitewater Team at 05:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This article makes depressing reading for anyone still labouring under the illusion that the print industry is making great strides towards putting their eco-house in order.

But it does make the point that clients are driving change, so on a more positive note, take a look at this new site launched by the print buyer for Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Among a wealth of information designed to guide buyers wanting to reduce their impact on the environment, the site also lists suppliers with FSC and ISO14001 accreditation. Invaluable if you want your greens to print really green.

Heather Collins

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Kentish Town doesn't have a huge range of shopping choices, but that has never deterred me. In a way I'm grateful - if our offices were in the West End, I'd almost certainly be broke all the time. But one thing Kentish Town does offer is plenty of charity shops.

The great thing about charity shops is that you never know what you're going to find - and when you do find something, it's hardly ever what you were looking for. I quite like the idea of my shopping experience being left to fate. With Spring already here, it would seem NW5's residents have had a good old clearout and distributed their weird and wonderful unwanted items to the various stores down our road. I might be what you would call a big-spender: on average I think I spend over £70 a month between four stores - run by PDSA, Help the Aged (did you read that they can now claim Gift Aid on donated items?), Oxfam and The Hornsey Trust.

Among my most recent purchases is a set of Jungian tarot cards. Only £2, a bargain - surely everybody should have a deck of tarot cards?? Give me a month or so and I'll be reading them like a whizz... Also an old desk globe - essential for planning my next holiday.

But I think my favourite item yet has to be the gift I received on Tuesday. As I was doing my weekly rounds (stock changes often, and you have to visit regularly if you want to find the gems), I came across an enormous papier-mâché sunshine, hanging on the wall. The Manager insisted I take it: he said it reminded him of my smile, and that it should be with me. I couldn't help but blush, but a smile crept over my face. It is a rather odd piece of art, and it was a real feat getting it home, but it is already hung in my room, and every time I look at it now, I can't help but smile as I recall how it came to be mine.

That sunshine reminds me every day how easy it is to spread goodwill from one person to the next, and how long lasting the affects can be! Charity shopping makes your money go further. It supports the causes you care about. And my goodness, you can find some treasures that money just can't buy.

Meghan McRae

Posted by Whitewater Team at 01:52 PM | Permalink

Postage, Downstream Access - DSA, to those in the know - is becoming more and more exciting. No honestly! Bear with me…

When the Royal Mail was opened up to competition by alternative carriers in January last year, we looked into whether there were benefits for our clients. There weren't, then. The new DSA carriers weren't interested in providing an alternative service to MS3 1400, because they still had to pay about 13p per pack to Royal Mail to carry the job "the last mile" - so there was no margin in it for them.

Now all the big deals have been done and the contracts signed for the hugely lucrative transactional post market, DSA operators are at last setting their sights on other markets – like ours!

This, coupled with the news last week that one of the major obstacles to charities taking advantage of DSA – namely VAT – has now been drastically reduced, means that there are now very significant savings to be had.

It would almost be rude not to.

If you'd like to know more information about how DSA works and how you can use it to make cost savings on both postage and fulfillment, well, you know where to find me.

Heather Collins

Posted by Brad Bell at 02:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As I was working on a presentation this week, something struck me: the charity sector is packed full of challenger brands. Quite a few of them are Whitewater clients.

Very often, a cause area is dominated by one well-known player which, by virtue of its size and associated resource, becomes the all-too-easy default option for donors. These organisations – the CRUKs, Oxfams and NSPCCs of this world – bag the buck because they're able to lay claim to the generic cause. So the rich charities keep getting richer, with more to spend on consolidating their position. Organisations targeting similar donors on a fraction of the budget might feel like their outlook is very bleak. But they needn't - because, actually, a challenger brand is the most exciting thing to be.

I've been dipping into Eating The Big Fish by Adam Morgan recently. He builds a strong case for challengers to break the rules of their category. Rather than trying to beat dominant organisations at their own game, rather than emulating their stratgies on a smaller scale, he would encourage challengers to stop being copy cats, stop letting the competition define them and break the mould. His formula for competitive advantage? Be as daring and creative in your advertising and publicity as you can.

Asking the question, 'how can we zig while everyone else is zagging?' is a sure-fire way to freshen up our thinking and to keep us interested and inspired by the work we do. We took this approach for the client presentation I mentioned at the start of this post… and we had an absolute ball working on it. I hope the client - a challenger brand - was as excited by the ideas it provoked as we were, and that I'll be able to show you some of the results here in due course!

It can be incredibly liberating to take a brand into new waters. But it inevitably means taking a risk. In our sector, perhaps more than any other, this a scary and uncomfortable concept because charities have to be so frugal with and accountable for their marketing spend. Learning what has worked for the competition is a sensible approach, which minimises the risk - and I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should be irresponsible. We'd be mad not to learn from tried and tested techniques that we've seen perform well. But the safest route is unlikely to be the one that allows a charity to fundamentally cut through and really get noticed by the donors they desperately need to attract.

Perhaps I'm just feeling feisty. But I'm going to keep Adam Morgan on my desk and encourage our clients to be brave little fish.

Michelle Dennis

Posted by Brad Bell at 09:27 AM | Permalink

A recent article in the Guardian identified polar bears as latest 'poster child' for the fight against global warming. It got me wondering... why hadn't I seen the great white beasts staring out at me from a charity tube ad or insert yet?

Iconic images of polar bears (supposedly) stranded on icebergs, or lying on melting ice, have been the basis of a massive amount of PR activity in the last 6 months; surely this public awareness could add plenty of weight to fundraising appeals by the right charities - imagine the persuasive power of a big furry bear (claws and teeth sheathed) as the face of a national fundraising campaign running in line with the BBC's Planet Earth series!

Their declining numbers have even been a key factor in the US Government's recent admission of global warming - clearly qualifying them as the most powerful of spokes-animals.

No sooner than I had finished my thought and turned the page of my newspaper, then what should fall into my lap but an insert from a leading environmental charity - orangutan on side, polar bear on the other. The insert invited me choose whether to support the polar bear programme, the orangutan programme, or both. So, it's hairy tree-swinging veteran of the fundraising game vs the even hairier new pretender: I'd be interested to know who wins...

Richard Halliday

Posted by Brad Bell at 10:31 AM | Permalink

Now I'm thinking there's really something in Nick's theory...

Steve Tse

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:24 PM | Permalink

I recently travelled to Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent to spend the day visiting the lifeboat station there with Barry my writer on the RNLI account and Imogen our Account Manager. What a great trip it was - it's always so good to visit the 'coalface' of our clients' work.

We met the coxwain and couple of his volunteer crew members who told us about what motivates them to risk life and limb to save the lives of strangers at sea. Suitably stirred by their stories, we took a tour of the station and had a look at the two lifeboats, both spotless and in superb condition.

We were invited aboard the Trent, and saw it from a perspective usually reserved for crew and rescued sea-goers. This experience directly inspired a couple of ideas for appeals, and probably will see us through many more.

Everything was spotless, neatly stowed, safe and secure. The Trent could have been fresh from the boatbuilder. 14 metres long, she carries 4,200 litres of diesel, giving a 250-mile radius. Two V10 engines (mounted at 180 degrees to each other - weird, but it works) each give 850 horsepower. Astoundingly, she can carry up to 74 survivors as well as the ten crew.

The upper steering position seems remarkably high for the length of the vessel and you can imagine without too much difficulty - but with some nausea - what it must be like up there, tossed about in a heavy sea.

Every six months the Trent has an underwater inspection. Every two and a half years she gets a PRISM refit (whatever that is) and a total refit every five years.

There's a neat little galley where the crew can make tea and coffee, and a Tupperware box of chocolate biscuits - it's good to know we have so much in common.

I want one! But to be honest, I'm probably better suited to the smaller, remote-controlled model...

Simon Mills

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:43 AM | Permalink

In My Lame Attempt at Video, the folks at see3 wrote:

"I thought, lets make this trip to Israel an experiment to see how easy it would be for me and Dori to produce some short videos for the web while on the trip. I am telling clients all the time how easy it is and so I needed to know a little more about what I am saying."

Agency people, eh? Excellent experiment!

Lately, I keep learning the same lesson repeatedly: you don’t know something until you do it. Blogging is pretty straightforward in theory, but you don’t find out for sure until you actually do it. The things you thought would be easy turn out to be difficult. And vice versa.

It seems we approach creating a blog as we would any other project: plan what it’s about, get it started with some early posts that are temporarily kept private, design what it looks like, and have some kind of launch. And that seems to keep being wrong. A better approach might be: don’t try to define what it will be about, just start posting. Do a quick design which you know will change. Don't 'launch' - a blog is always alive and never finished. Meaning, design, readers will all emerge. Keep in mind you're creating a blog, not a book.

Anyway, I enjoyed the video and it led me to see how video blogging could be really interesting. Think of a video as photos with sound, and if a picture tells a thousand words, a 15-30 second video clip could communicate the same message as several blog posts.

For the end user, I get to see fragments of the context of your trip/work/life, like hyper-charged photographs, and you don't have to spend much time editing (titling, searching through footage to meaningfully cut together).

The entire editing process might mean grabbing one or two good bits, that are representative but aren't necessarily loaded with meaning. Meaning will emerge through cumulative posts, over time. Maybe the blog publishing tool is really the video editor, not Movie Maker. After all, you're not making a documentary. So once you’ve got your shooting sorted, it's quick and dirty the rest of the way - it has to be, if you're going to update once or twice a week!

So now you’ve got us interested - deliver! I’ll be back tomorrow ;-)

Brad Bell

Posted by Brad Bell at 11:25 AM | Permalink

Let me introduce you to two examples of extraordinary fundraising that give us all a clear insight into our future.

The first is the tale of the water buffalo. Make time (eight minutes) and click the image below. Many thanks to Steve Bridger for drawing my attention to it - it's truly inspirational.

The second is so good I'm struggling for superlatives. Check this out.

The implications for fundraisers are profound.

Earlier this week I sat through the first four Whitewater Baby Boomer focus groups and, while it's early days, I've heard plenty of donors say they're bored and turned off by fundraising that asks for generic donations into the corporate pool. And, conversely, I've heard them thrilled with the idea that donations might actually pay for the stuff they've donated to. Ear-marking really is the future, whether we like it or not.

The Water Buffalo story shows exactly what will happen if we fail to understand this. Donors will take matters into their own hands or find other charities, who do listen, to support. Kiva.org cuts out the organisation-as-middle-man completely. Philanthropists make direct connections with people who need help.

Fundraisers take note: this is fantastically important. It's the biggest issue we face in 2007.

Steve Andrews

Posted by Whitewater Team at 03:17 PM | Permalink

"How," asked Nancy, "do you engage with audiences who are overloaded with marketing messages and images?"

Well that's quite a question - one we grapple with every working day, on every job. Where a prior relationship exists between charity and donor 'cut through' is easier but by no means inevitable. Recruitment of new supporters is an even greater challenge.

Our pool of prospective donors is more knowledgable than ever about marketing techniques, and quite possibly fatigued by the glut of choices presented to them. So we try to reach out to them with honesty and authenticity - with an integrity that some corporates might find difficult to muster. Our most successful recruitment materials ask for more than just donations. They ask for action, and promise the donor that they too can make a difference.

Our insert for Amnesty International UK asked the reader to send a message to the governor in whose Chinese prison languished Rebiya Kadeer – a mother jailed after speaking out about her community's needs. At the same time, they were offered the opportunity to join Amnesty. Thousands returned postcards to the prison official: most signed up to a monthly donation to Amnesty at the same time.

By returning to its original mission – asking supporters to write those holding prisoners of conscience, demanding their release – Amnesty presented readers with a genuine, and proven, way they could affect positive change. And they did: Rebiya Kadeer is free, and said that the postcard campaign probably played a part in her liberation.

The journey of the Animal Welfare Bill through British Parliament provided a similar opportunity to the RSPCA. 170 years ago, the Society backed the passing of an Act of Parliament prohibiting cruelty to domestic animals. With a mailpack based on the case of Barney, a dog who died from neglect due to legal constraints on RSPCA Inspectors, readers were asked to 'help change the law', by giving their support to to the RSPCA and their campaign.

The Bill has now passed into law and will be in force in just a couple of months. I hope we'll be writing back to everyone who supported the campaign with a simple note of thanks.

The messages are simple and compelling. The aims are real and achievable. Any ideas too complex to be made digestible and comprehensible by a good brief and a competent copywriter have no place in donor communications. The results of packs like this make me sure that, by relative spend, non-profit fundraisers are at least as creative and persuasive as our for-profit counterparts. Last financial year Whitewater raised over £9million in revenue for our clients - without a 'must-have' product in sight.

Anna Crofton

PS: This post was included in the Carnival of Non-Profit Consultants, this month hosted by Nancy Schwartz at Getting Attention. Head over to this month's round-up for links to incisive and insightful comment on the topic of 'Cutting Through'. You won't be sorry.

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:18 PM | Permalink

Anna gave a lot of virtual gifts for Christmas this year, and I was really impressed with how well she matched gifts to people. People received gifts that closely matched their personalities and interests, which made them seem much more personal than one might expect from a virtual gift.

For example, from the shopping list:
The fashion-mad sister got three pairs of sturdy leather shoes for african children
The sister who works with horses got post-natal care for a mare and foal in the developing world, through the Brooke
The sportsmad twins got footballs for african schools
Mum and stepdad, keen apiculturalists, got a hive of bees
The stepmother, mother to three teens, got 'a moment's peace' (conflict negotiations)
The psychologist brother sponsored a brain cell (research into degenerative brain diseases)

This kind of personalisation made virtual gifts appealing for giver and receiver. I know I wouldn't want to get the same virtual gift as someone else. With a virtual gift, it seems more true than ever that it's the thought that counts - going to the trouble to get a gift that is appropriate and relevant to the recipient, as opposed to ordering 12 goats for 12 family members.

I don't know if Anna had to go through five different catalogues to get appropriate gifts, or if she's just clever enough to see the connections between gifts and individuals, but the end result was that the recipients seemed genuinely happy, even moved, by their presents. Opening the envelopes gave everyone a minute to reflect on how very fortunate we all are, and how lucky we are to be in a position to give something, however small, to someone else - it was really a refreshing moment to slightly redress the balance of all 'stuff' acquired that day.

A 'physical' gift is never designed specifically to appeal to a particular personality. They aren't even designed to be gifts - they're just things that are treated like gifts. Virtual gifts are virtually always gifts

Brad Bell

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Nancy Schwarz, our friend at Getting Attention, is kicking off 2007 with a survey on the goals and challenges faced by nonprofit communicators (if you're reading this, that probably means you).

Seven questions, seven minutes - fill in the survey here.

Nancy's report back on responses will highlight trends and models, so our communications can be more effective than ever.

Anna Crofton

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:00 AM | Permalink

Whitewater's research will put more flesh on the bones of what we know about the Boomer generation's charitable giving motivations, but the 'big picture' is already being quantified.

Jeff Brooks, on his most excellent Donor Power Blog (really a must-read for anyone in our industry - add your bookmark now) points us to this article in The Vancouver Sun.

The takeaway message:
"72 per cent of baby boomers (in B.C) want to know exactly where their charitable dollars are going before they hand over their cash."

(Emphasis ours)

Brad Bell

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:28 AM | Permalink

Our last post of the year is a gift to all Mac users: a new resource for Mac tips - the venerable Mac for Mom. 

What is it?
Mac for Mom is a blog of Mac tips.

Who's Mom?
I'd forgive you for thinking maybe Mom is a giant corporation that makes robots, if you'd forgive me for thinking you watch too much TV. Mom is actually my Mom. She is a real, iBook toting, flesh and blood person.

Why is it called that?
Mom told me she thought the name of the site suggests it's for people who find "for Dummies" books too difficult, but it's really just meant to suggest that it's easy. Not George Bush easy, but easy enough for a Mom who is new to Macs. 

What's this got to do with Whitewater?
For many years, I've emailed Mac tips around the office. This worked well enough as long as people followed along. However, when new people joined - people who would be most likely to benefit from some extra guidance - they'd get a slew of older Mac tips messages all at once. Obviously, not a very effective means of distributing information. 

When my Mom got a Mac, I initially thought I'd drip feed her the tips from Whitewater to help her get the most out of her Mac experience. However at that point, it seemed obvious that a blog would work better than email. Email required too much organization for me to drip feed her the older tips. She was in the same position as people who had newly joined Whitewater. So I decided to design a blog for her. 

Later, when Paula suggested some kind of Eejits Guide to Macs for new joiners, it didn't require much of a leap to see that the people at Whitewater would benefit from having the Mac tips available on a blog. It would be a central library of categorized tips that new joiners could refer to; people no longer had to file messages in their email; they could use it at home; and they could subscribe to the RSSS news feed. 

And so we have come full circle: Mac for Mom is a collection of tips written for the people at Whitewater, but available to Mac users everywhere, on a blog designed for my Mom. 

Have a great Christmas break - we'll be back blogging again in the New Year.

Brad Bell

Posted by Whitewater Team at 05:16 PM | Permalink

Steve Bridger, in a one-liner in his post about 'Buzz Marketing Directors', awakened me to the concept of generosity in blogging and linked me over to this post. Maintaining a blog clearly requires a certain generosity with time and energy - both commodities in short supply.

But as Steve Rubel points out, it's the bloggers who are generous not only with their time but with their expertise, their links, their thoughts, insights and experiences, who are the ones whose sites become resources we value.

Seth Godin is a prime example. If you're interested in viral marketing, and the generation of inspiring ideas, you'll be familiar with his work but you might not know how much he's doing to promote the use of web 2.0 technology by and for non-profits. He's released a free download for non-profits, 'a one-page cheat sheet with six cool (free) things you can do before the end of the day.' It might all be stuff you know already: if so, be generous and pass it to someone who doesn't.

Anna Crofton

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:39 PM | Permalink

From the comfort of my sofa last Saturday night, along with several million others, I felt emotionally obliged to dial in a vote for my favourite on X Factor. It was 'incredibly close', and my vote 'would make all the difference'… and, well, Ray is such a cutie!

So I guess it should come as no surprise that, sandwiched between the two installments of Simon Cowell's ratings smash, I came across another offering relying on this most responsive and lucrative of telly formulae.

Yet ITV's Extinct is different. It combines the 'democratic' premise of a glut of reality shows - the audience phone vote - with the urgency and serious undertones of the one-night-only telethon, in the vein of Children in Need or Comic Relief. Most impressive from a professional point of view is that it carries a fundraising message throughout, for one, openly-branded charity.

Running every night for one week, just before Christmas, drenched in celebrity endorsement and with beautiful, high-budget production values, Extinct encourages viewers to vote for the endangered species they want to save. A percentage of the call cost goes straight into the 'prize fund', to be distributed among the eight 'finalist' animals, with the highest amount being used to fund a project to protect the 'winner'.

This brilliantly subtle PR/fundraising combination from WWF applies every direct response trick in the book, while coming across as a credible, educational, mainstream programme. Interspersed with VT of cuddly pandas and earnest studio chat, the viewer is frequently referred to an additional donation phone number and website. Straight to WWF. Exclusively to WWF.

I'm dying to know how this partnership came about but, however it was negotiated, the result is impeccable. And as a charity marketer, it makes me really wish I'd thought of it first. All that's missing is the Christmas Number One.

Michelle Dennis

Posted by Whitewater Team at 03:44 PM | Permalink

A magazine subscription offer mailpack I received some time ago (before the operation).

Dear Mr Couldry,

As a perceptive, open-minded, fun-loving 21st century woman, you may despair of finding a magazine that doesn't preach at you, trivialise you, stereotype you - or just bore you.

Well they certainly didn't stereotype me.

Nick Couldry

Posted by Whitewater Team at 02:50 PM | Permalink

It's time to invite your Finance Director to the next fundraising brainstorm. Or have her manage your next donor acquisition campaign (so she can climb the steep learning curve on how difficult it can be).

The days when charities could get away with opposing any hint of restricted donations in their direct marketing might be over!

'Dorothy Donor' gave to charity because we asked. That was all she needed. She believed in what charities stood for and that they would spend her money wisely.

Not so her sons and daughters, the Baby Boomers. They're far more demanding... and they just love ear-marking! They want to know what their gifts will achieve, preferably something tangible which they could even visit one day! (Just to be sure you actually spent their money where you said you would.)

Finance Directors love to tell direct marketers that they can't ear-mark. Oh.. except Corporate and Trust fundraisers; because they've learnt the hard way: no ear-marking means no donation.

Hmmm. I think the Boomers are starting to teach direct marketers the same lesson... it's just harder to see what's happening. If your charity is struggling to recruit new donors of the 40 to 60-year-old variety, maybe, just maybe, you're seeing evidence of their aversion to your 'strictly-unrestricted-funds-from-direct-marketing' policy.

And yet it's not THAT hard to commit to more ear-marking. It just takes a little imagination and engagement from the Finance Director. So, next time you're planning an acquisition campaign, why not invite your Finance Director to the brainstorm?

Steve Andrews

PS. These issues were recently debated by Whitewater's clients at a Business Breakfast meeting. We'd love to see you at our next meeting... you just need to become a client!

Posted by Whitewater Team at 04:42 PM | Permalink

What do people hate about charities? Direct mail appeals from charities they haven't given to. They throw them in the bin. And when they moan to their friends about charity direct mail, their friends agree, because they throw them in the bin as well. Why do charities waste their money sending direct mail appeals when everybody throws them in the bin?

It's a huge issue for charity fundraisers - not talking in response terms, because we know that direct mail appeals work; otherwise we wouldn’t send them, would we?

But the vast majority of people who throw appeals in the bin don't know that they work. All they know is that they throw them in the bin and so do all their friends. This wouldn't matter much if we were selling credit cards, cars or gardening equipment, because the recipients couldn't give a damn if commercial organisations waste money. But they do care, very much, if they think charities are wasting donations.

And that reflects badly on all of us. Despite knowing that our audience think we're wasting money, we keep bombarding them with direct mail appeals because a small percentage of them respond and make it worth our while.

But we don't tell them that.

Perhaps you don't think it's important what non-responders think, as long as the responders make it worthwhile to keep mailing.

But long-term, it does us no favours at all. Those people who throw away our mailings aren't just 'not interested', or 'giving to another charity', or 'haven’t had the right ask yet'. They are beginning to actively distrust us because they believe we are wasting donated money. And they will tell their friends.

Let’s do something about it before it's too late. From now on, let's print something like this on all our recruitment outer envelopes:

ABOUT THIS MAILING: [Charity name] relies on public donations and we use mailings like this to inform people about the work we do, and ask for their support. These appeals are designed as economically as possible. To print and post this to you has cost us XXp and, although not everyone who receives one will respond to it, it is still an extremely cost-effective way of raising funds to help [cause]. In fact, over XX% of our income comes from appeals like this one.

Think it's a dumb idea? Think it's a great idea? Tried it already? Got a question? Let me know - post a comment below.

Nick Couldry

Posted by Whitewater Team at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

I am about to be involved in a dramatic reconstruction of the Wannsee Conference.

("Please, sir, what’s that, sir?" "The Wannsee Conference, in 1942, was when the senior state officials of the Third Reich decided, under the direction of Reinhardt Heydrich, on the exact nature of the final solution of 'the Jewish problem'. Now pay attention, Couldry, and stop drawing Messerschmitts on that girl's blouse.")

This prospect made me start thinking about the nature of professionalism. One of the remarkable aspects of the final days of WWII is that, as the Red Army rolled inexorably west, the cattle trucks continued to rattle in vast numbers beneath the wrought iron words 'Arbeit Macht Frei'. Despite the annihillation of exhausted German troops starved of fuel and supplies, Adolf Eichmann continued to perform miracles of organisation to grease the wheels of the extermination machine.

It was a remarkable display of professionalism.

Professionals carry out a brief, as instructed, to the very best of their ability. They use all the skills in which they have been trained, and get paid accordingly. So do the girls who hang around King’s Cross, to whom one should pay equal respect.

But if you're looking for someone to admire, I say save it for the gifted, driven amateur. It is amateurs who change things, who invent things, who are unafraid to argue with the system that is, in favour of the system they believe should be. If that amateur can bring professional skills to the task, so much the better: but the fire in the boiler will always be the amateur's.

And as I was thinking these thoughts, what should pop up in my in email inbox but another endearing collection of homespun wisdom. Sometimes, in all that sugary, tooth-sticking marshmallowyness, there's a nut to bite on:

Remember: the Titanic was built by a large group of highly trained professionals. A lone amateur built the Ark.

The views expressed above are those of the writer, Barry Evans, and not necessarily shared by other Whitewater staff.

Posted by Whitewater Team at 04:25 PM | Permalink

A couple of months ago I spotted an article in New Scientist (bear with me) which reported the results of an interesting experiment carried out at Newcastle University. In the canteen of the Psychology Dept there is a drinks vending machine with an honesty box next to it. The research team placed a poster next to it, detailing the prices of the various drinks. On the poster was a photograph which the team changed periodically, between an image of some flowers and an image of a pair of human eyes. On the days when the poster showing the eyes was displayed, takings in the honesty box increased by 276%.

Another article in New Scientist reported an experiment conducted at Harvard, where 96 volunteers played against each other anonymously in games where they donate money or withhold it. Donating into a communal pot would yield the most money, but only if others donated too. Half made their choices undisturbed at a computer screen, while the others were faced with a photo of a cute robot called Kismet - ostensibly not part of the experiment. The players who gazed at Kismet gave 30 per cent more to the pot than the others. The researchers believe that at some subconscious level they were aware of being watched.

Here’s an idea… let’s test it on a donation form. We could test an image of the need above one donation form, against a close up of one of the recipient’s eyes looking straight at you on another.

Who’s up for it?

Nick Couldry

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

A paragraph at the end of an article about Top Gear's Richard Hammond’s accident caught my eye this weekend: “Car enthusiasts have raised £60,000 in donations via justgiving.com for the air ambulance that took Hammond to hospital”. By the time I logged on to justgiving yesterday, the total had risen to £166,000.

In an environment where we’re wrestling with ways to broaden the reach of charities and break out of traditional approaches, here we have the best possible case study. One mad keen motoring buff, a member of a like-minded online community, sets up a fundraising page entitled ‘Get Well Soon Hamster’. Within hours, the Yorkshire Air Ambulance Service becomes relevant to an international audience of car enthusiasts who couldn’t be more different to Dorothy Donor in age, gender, lifestyle or attitude.

Relevance is key to fundraising and we usually start with obvious proximity to the cause, but this example has made me wonder whether a spot of quick, lateral thinking could open up new audiences. Of course Richard’s high profile media coverage was responsible for the scale of response, but it’s made me realise how effective interactive channels are when an opportunity for a timely appeal presents itself – a few carefully chosen digital posts could be powerful. And it shows that an ‘emergency’ appeal doesn’t necessarily have to be about emergency relief. The phenomenon we’ve seen here plays directly into the key principles of communicating with today’s donors – supporter-generated, personal, participative, dynamic.

Since I’ve been writing the fundraising total has exceeded £182,000: enough to buy another air ambulance… and not a proposition in sight!

Our best wishes go to Richard and his family.

Michelle Dennis

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:41 AM | Permalink

London Zoo are building ‘Gorilla Kingdom’ to give their their lowland gorillas the stimulating and naturalistic environment they deserve. We’re the lucky people appointed to help them raise money for it, and that task started with a creative briefing at the Zoo. After a tour of the building site we had an extra surprise in store for the creative team, Bee and Chris - the chance to get up close and personal with the gorillas soon to move in.

Nothing could have replaced the buttock-clenching experience of standing face to face with Bobby the Silverback. Bobby is truly magnificent. He’s similar in size, shape and attitude to a hairy Mini Cooper, and seemed to think that we were staring at his woman (alright I admit I was, but you have to admit she's gorgeous! (that's her, Zaire, above)). He glared at us, he ran at us and he threw a ball of hay at Chris. After standing our ground for several seconds we agreed that he is indeed the boss of us, and beat a hasty retreat.

We came back to the office buzzing. For the rest of the day I could hear the guys enthusing about their experience with our gorilla cousins. And I’ve just seen the concepts – watch out for an award winner!

So I’m going to be on the look out for more possibilities for inspiring briefings. And if you’re a fundraiser, try and get your agency team as close as possible to the cause before they start working on the job, even if you don’t have access to lowland gorillas. I’m sure you’ll notice the effect in the quality of ideas, the creative and the results.

Mark Cook

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:21 AM | Permalink

There has been talk for a while now about declining response rates in fundraising direct marketing. ‘More charities using DM’; ‘the older charity givers are dying off’; ‘people are giving less frequently because they are having to save for their old age’, are some of the reasons given. I would like to add another.

Since I began my career in charity DM nearly twenty years ago (as Londoners spent their nights in shelters as the bombs rained down, and news crackled across the telegraph wires of the relief of Mafeking), I have witnessed a gradual loss of passion in the way charities have expressed their need for money. A lot of this has to do with the pervasive culture of ‘management-speak’. In an effort to present themselves as professional organisations, many charities have embraced this way of communicating without thinking about how it is perceived to people who are prepared to help them.

Organisations change, we know that. And most of the time it is for the better: they become more professional, efficient and they begin to make real differences to the problems they are working to end. But many lose the passion that made them decide to change the world in the first place.

Twenty years ago, fundraising had passion, it had drama, need, urgency. But all too often, nowadays, I see appeals which are simply statements of a charity’s work that would not look out of place in an annual report. ‘Positive messaging’ has neutralised the need. A fear of saying something ‘wrong’ has destroyed the drama. A culture of responsible professionalism is putting paid to passion.

How can a donor be passionate about a charity which is not?

Nick Couldry

Posted by Whitewater Team at 09:38 AM | Permalink

UK fundraising has lost one of its most talented direct marketers, copywriter Tom Monk.

There is no writer in this land who has won more Institute of Fundraising/Professional Fundraising magazine awards than Tom. As Head of Creative with Whitewater, he won the double in 2001 (and they weren’t his first), picking up direct marketing awards for acquisition and development. And then in 2004 he repeated this extraordinary feat through his own company, Ideal Creative.

This is no surprise to those who worked with him. He was one of a small band of exceptionally talented writers that just got it. His copy would be word perfect and the donors would roll in.

Tom cut his fundraising teeth at Save the Children before his talent was spotted by Marc Nohr at Burnett Associates and he joined them as a junior writer. From there his career was glorious but far too short. Cancer claimed his life at just 38.

My personal memory of Tom was of a guy who just loved to hear about my kids, much more than anyone I knew. My heart breaks for his own family, his wife Emma, and their beautiful kids, Denis (5) and Florence (3).

Tom’s family ask that donations be made in Tom’s memory to Sightsavers. Give generously in tribute to a man who did so himself. And read The Guardian's obituary for Tom here.

Steve Andrews

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:19 AM | Permalink

In the 1960s (I was there, and I do remember) there used to be a joke, which went, roughly: ‘Free Nelson Mandela – with every packet of cornflakes’. I was reminded of it by a recent article in the Guardian, which you can catch up with on their website.

In the article Richard Adams looks at aspects of our freebie-obsessed culture – acknowledging, in passing, that ‘even charities these days rarely ask for money without enclosing a free pen’.

For someone like me, constantly riding a knife-edge between ethical probity and commercial effectiveness, Adams touched several nerves, and researched some fascinating stuff. (Like the fact that Austrian churchgoers were the most likely to take newspapers without paying for them!)

I’ve always believed that nothing free is ever worth what you pay for it. But to what extent should we encourage the most acquisitive elements of human nature in order to promote philanthropic causes? There are some charities which adopt a totally ‘noli me tangere’ (do not touch) approach to commercial defilement. And others who would gladly accept a million pound donation from a successful arms dealer.

Would you?

Barry Evans

Posted by Whitewater Team at 12:55 PM | Permalink

You may have read about my friend Miriam elsewhere on the internet, but I’d like to tell you about her, and how my colleagues helped me honour her memory.

I first met Miriam about 10 years ago when we worked together at Quarto Publishing. I was taken with her immediately. She was so friendly and full of love for everyone – and in return, everyone loved her. The thing I remember most about Mim is her voice and inimitable laugh – when you heard it you couldn’t help but smile and feel a warm glow inside.

Miriam was only 32 when she was killed in the July 7th bombings that hit London last year. I was – I am - heartbroken. We’d actually been out of touch since I left Quarto; these things happen, and you think, “there’ll always be time to catch up”. But we’d see each other occasionally through mutual friends – and when we did, it was as if no time had passed.

A couple of months after her death Steve A suggested that Whitewater could do something to raise money for the Miriam Hyman Memorial Fund. The Fund was set up by Mim’s family with sight-saving charity ORBIS, who, coincidentally are one of our clients.

It was a great idea, but I was having real difficulty thinking of something we could do that would be worthy of Miriam’s memory.

And then it struck me: I had read that Mim had hiked up Mt. Snowdon with her friend Keren, and that she loved going for walks on Hampstead Heath. So why not a sponsored walk? It was the perfect idea.

So that’s what we did. On the 23rd June 2006, we walked 16 miles around the Chiltern Hills to raise money for Mim’s Fund.

And what a perfect day it was. We started from Berkhamsted Station and went along the Grand Union Canal Path. Rested at Cow Roast Lock before moving on to meet the Chiltern Way. We followed the route to Grim’s Ditch, then through Drayton Wood and Beechwood Farm, before stopping at the White Lion in Buckland Common for a spot of lunch and first aid for blisters!

Then on for the second part of the walk... keeping on the Chiltern Way down to Durham Farm, through endless woods and fields (very picturesque), past Hampden House and Barne’s Grove before ending the walk at Steve and Claire’s house, nestled in the woods.

To end the day, a great party was laid on with delicious food from Marie Clare and funky sounds from Simon C and his band, Soul Jam, and guest vocalist Esther, Miriam’s sister. Despite tired feet and weary bodies we danced until late in the evening. Even I danced! - and I NEVER dance!! But I was dancing for Mim. And I was dancing because I was so happy and proud of what we have achieved. We hoped to raise £7,000. It was an ambitious target, but to pass it and go past £9,500 is just amazing. This event has been very close to my heart and I’m touched by the passion and commitment people have shown throughout.

There are so many people to thank... Steve and Claire for their hospitality, the Walk Committee (Nicky T, Clare H, Steve A, Nick C and Simon C), Marie-Clare and her helpers for feeding us all, Simon C (who, after setting the pace for the whole 16 miles, found reserves of energy to perform a stonking set with his band Soul Jam), all my brilliant colleagues, Mavis, John and Esther Hyman for their continued support throughout, and everyone who sponsored us! Thank you one and all. It’s been a privilege and an experience I will never forget.

I’m sure that somewhere, dear Mim is smiling on us with a twinkle in her eye.

Steve Tse

Posted by Whitewater Team at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)