Cut and paste

I have been critical of some in the charity sector on occasion, and feel right to be so where excessive money goes not to those intended, but to those who see opportunity for being in a sacred cow industry.

So when I saw this I was impressed: What a donation buys around the world

20% is pretty much a standard agent's fee for any efforts on behalf of a client. So I think that is about right. And they have undercut that target by 4%.

Big up.

The Charity Business

I may seem like I am always down on charities, but I'm not. Well, I'm OK with charity, but not so much the business most major 'charities' brands' have become.

My unease is typified by this poster in our local street. And it's worth noting there are about a dozen such shops competing with rate-paying commercial sales outlets.

WE DON'T ACCEPT OLD BOOKS.

That was what I liked about such shops. Old stuff reused and the money going where most needed. Now they are flogging new stuff (see the poster behind?) to send what % after deductions for admin and marketing?

Charity begins in the media, it seems

Sadly, trust & pateince is in short supply. In government. In media. In charities themselves.

Righteous opposition

Just this morning I have been move to write on a story whipped up by dubious research, then chewed on by various social commentators who the BBC have on speed dial, living nice and near in the right part of London. Their main conclusion seemed to be that people are confused by endless facile filler stories of the kind they themselves were publicising.

Then elsewhere there was a charity operative with the speed-dial to the PR to the mate in the paper who is 'doing without supermarkets'... for a whole 6 weeks.
Maybe she works as a senior climate change analyst.

Because just keep the jaw dropping there is a report by a charity on Britain's businesses' failures to monitor carbon emissions.

Is that the best use of the money donated?

I read this and am appalled

Top companies 'failing to report true greenhouse gas emissions'

I just wonder how much of one's donation goes to a 'senior climate change analyst'.

Sorry to be flip, but really.

The other bit is bad too, but I wonder if it would not be something best left to others to discover, prove share and comment upon.

Oo, I don't know. Like the Government? The EU? The media?

File and forget. At least a column was filled, allegedly.

Helping others... do what, exactly?

I'd like to think, mainly because I asked and paid folk who said/say they know and know how, that our site is a good as it gets for being legal and looking after people's rights and protections, etc. We certainly try, not just for derriere-covering self-interest, but simple good marketing reasons. Trust us and you will use and stay with us.

So, although we don't yet, if you opt in you may get told of various things by 'suitably vetted partners' of offers that may be of interest to you'. Click or delete at will. We are a commercial, ad-based medium after all. Free, mind you... don't forget, all for free.

Now I don't wish to become all Charity-bashing here, but I just got this:

**** supporters revealed

****, the international **** project, is offering its list of more than 15,000 supporters for rental through ****. The organisation is a charity dedicated to providing ****. Their programmes have helped rebuild lives. The list comprises people who have made a donation to the charity. They majority are aged 50 and above and have donated via a mailshot.

Now I'm not sure how these things work, and maybe the folk on the list have opted in, but does this mean I could decide that **** supporters are just my kind of folk and buy in? Not quite the way I'd like to think it is.

Charity begins at... where... now?

I am not against charity. I am not even against the obvious fact that to get goodwill (in whatever form) from donor's pocket to beneficiary takes an inevitable amount of wheel greasing and admin.

But I am starting to think things have gone too far and, typically, 'management' (today's buzzword) has decided on the obvious solution: throw money at a campaign. In my various ad and marketing e-wsletters there were several accounts changing hands in the sector just today.

Trouble is, while some brilliantly conceived and executed award-winner will sail over my head, the following will resonate in my mind for much longer: I should never have offered farm aid to Africa Along with my own experiences offering free resources at the time of the tsunami to a shower of yahoos more keen to get to the free pop concert being held 'to help' than actually work on the problem.

I just wonder who will suffer first.. the executive salaries, bonuses and pensions, or the poor they exist to help?

A not so funny thing happened on the way between forums

Hilary does Davos.

I may ruffle some liberal feathers here, but this came across to me waaaaay too 'I'm in and can. You're out and can't'.: What I found at the forum

'Not to detract from the many fine things that doubtless get discussed and maybe even achieved by you and your colleagues (and media camp followers) as you move on from Davos and the (WSF), but to me these were just dates in the political calendar, and some very long and boring periods spent online reviewing posts.

Speaking for this part the UK’s less well funded, as I get invited almost daily to conferences about similar issues of great concern, I could do with receiving immediate and unstoppable support as I rally at the registration pages demanding to be let in for free. But it seems endless staff and budget-bloated NGOs are making it a pretty good industry for the conference organisers, airlines and hotels, especially accommodating organizations who can run to co-coordinators of trade programmes. I just wonder who gets to go, who pays, why and the ROI’s being derived.

Frankly there DOES seem to be something like a World Social Forum every day, and they are all having a real impact as vast hordes shuttle between them.

Just... maybe not the one intended?'

I'm all for talking if things get done that offer a return of value, but the massive grant support for these talking shops does not seem worth it if this is what we get.

Shame the example had to be the FoE, but really, how much gets spent where it's needed, and how much on... other stuff?

Charity begins, at 17.5% of spend

At least it used to when I ran my agency, unless you did a deal and waived the media commission on top of doing the creative and production for free (which we did, but usually on the understanding we could really go for it with the concept).

Save the Children overhauls marketing

This is a story in a specialist publication about a specialised industry, but the numbers and the players (and numbers of players) makes me queasy at what actually may be going on here.

I know it should be as simple as getting money from a donor to a worthy recipient, but no longer can be. And I know 'marketing' is a legitimate part of making that match. But... how many people are feeding off the money before it even arrives?

Mad - On the plus side (not sure about the media)

Let the (blame) games begin!

I don't play much sport. I watch even less. Especially now that the whole thing has become a business on one side and I can appreciate the abilities of most sportsperson no more than the money spent on training and success at finding new, legal 'aids'.

However, I am now a (poor, in every sense) student of cause funding, and I do not like what I read here: Good causes miss out as Olympics soaks up half a billion in Lotto funds

As I bang on about specious ROIs being used, even trumpeted in the environmental world, I should not be surprised that the small matter of setting a budget and sticking to it seems to have been neglected.

A lot of Pols these days (have to) start of their interviews with 'I'm not in the business of blaming anyone'. Well, I'm afraid I think we need to get back to this a lot more. Every inefficient, egotistical and especially corrupt individual who is engaged in a project and cocks up, especially because of self-interest, should be named, shamed, fired and not compensated.

When good... goes bad

Way back in the annals of this blog is a post I made about a Greenpeace anti 4x4 campaign in our local train station, whereby the 'offending' vehicles were 'booted' with a custom piece of cardboard along with a windscreen sticker with something sanctimonious written on it and an exhortation to engage with their green energy tariff. Turned out it was part of npower.

In much the same way as one sees merit in the separation of church and state, and the almost inevitable mess when the gap gets bridged, so I must say I am seeing no winners when charities decide to hook up with commercial interests, at least in certain ways becoming ever more obvious.

Island media storm over RSPB and wind farms

I'm afraid all it does is make me look more closely at their corporate structures, the senior execs' salaries and the pension plan cut they are striving to score, and my hand stays well clear of my wallet.

DMlemma

Asa creative person, especially one who had some fun and did some good (King of the Die-Cut!)with Direct Mail, I am always now on the horns of a dilemma when it comes to this as a medium of advertising.

It's not looking too good for the industry: Industry braced for fresh backlash

Mind you, as I survey the DL sized kuk from banks, etc in my rubbish bin, I'm pretty sympathetic to the public's view.

But every so often a little bit of creative magic finds its way to being opened and read.

One such is this from Save the Children.

Basically, it's a boring brochure. But by making it a kid's exercise book and shooting holes I was hooked by it and the message. Which isn't a bad one either.

I doubt an email would have worked the same way. And I also assume that it did not cost a fortune to make this impact.