I liked this flier from Action Cancer UK recruiting for the New York City Marathon. Changing the shape from a traditional flier to a Big Apple made it stand out straight away and prompted me to take a closer look (I really wasn’t sure what it was for, so I wasn’t just being a curious fundraiser)
The flier was a little bit too big, so that would the only thing I think they could change. But good job. We all know that we need to stand out and this worked
I always think of the Little Britain sketch above when I think of the well known fact that a picture of someone looking directly at you from the page is known to increase response rates, as Paul Dervan comments on his recent post “the real power of one”. It’s all about the eyes
The example above is, in my opinion, one where they have succeeded in getting it wrong. The principle is there, but the picture just isn’t a good one and I believe that this is a poorly designed poster (on display in Peter Mark hairdressers). I have to say I am a little surprised at the Children’s Medical Research Foundation for putting this out there, they do great work and some of their DM pieces are so powerful, using this same principle. Perhaps the artwork was driven by the sponsor?
In Paul’s post he remarks that the research shows one set of eyes has a higher response rate than more than one set of eyes (he also makes his point by using a great picture!). The research was carried out by Paul Slovic, of ‘Decision Research’. You can read Pauls post here and Paul Slovic report here
This is a great post on Understanding Charitable Lead Trusts from the onPhilanthropy Blog. Click here to read the article
I really wish we had a better system for this kind of thing over here.
I wrote earlier about the Sunday Times Rich list which is being printed this Sunday. Last weekend, they published an article called Out of the City, into Africa as rich list at last start giving, .
Similar to the ITV show it was very interesting, especially their commentary on the approach the rich are taking to giving. It stated that they are bypassing established charities and in some cases are giving directly to the governments in the countries they want to operate in.
These are very successful (understatement) business people so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they look on their giving as investments and they want to make sure they get the best return on their investments, (does it bring you back to my bad language post? maybe this is the place for that new language?)
I was fascinated to read about Christopher Hohn:
a City hedge fund manager, who has given £235.8m in humanitarian aid. The figure is more than twice his remaining fortune of £110m, giving him the highest ever Giving List score of 214%. (Source. The Sunday Times)
There was a quote that I really liked in the article from Andrew Carnegie, a 19th-century steel magnate, which states that a “man who dies rich dies disgraced”. It seems like this years Rich List are living by that motto.
So buy the Rich List this Sunday, but be warned if you think you can write your major gift hit list from it…perhaps you are picking it up for the wrong reason!
You can read the entire article here
Here is a link to the Sunday Times Rich List 2008
The Sunday Times Rich List is being published this weekend and in the past week, for the first time that I can recall, there has been a lot of talk about how the Rich List are giving.
During the week there was a show on ITV, hosted by Duncan Bannatyne, called Giving it Away, Britain’s Rich List, you can (until the end of May) watch the show here. In the show Bannatyne asks Britain’s super-rich (you need to be worth 80 million pounds to make the list, that’s 10million more than last year) if they are giving away as much as they could, or should. He explores not just what they give but also how they give.
“I believe that giving the money you make away is the best reason for making it in the first place and that we rich in Britain don’t do enough yet,” Duncan Bannatyne
During the show he meets a who’s who of Britain’s richest business people (they answer the phone to him!) and talks to them about their giving habits, is even brave enough to challenge them and tries to persuade them to give more. I found it interesting in the interview with John Madejski when he (Madejski) stated that he got 15-20 asks a day in the post.
Who is sending those letters!? Do they really expect a response or a massive cheque? I hope not, and not because I think Madejski is unlikely to give, but who is going to donate at this level from an unsolicited letter?
By the end of the show (don’t read this bit if you plan on watching it) Bannatyne declares that he intends to set up a foundation to give away his money. He states that
you know that means I’m not going to die the richest man in the graveyard
I disagree, I think it will make him the richest.
Sandra Sims wrote about Reuseable Bags in a post on the Step-by-step fundraising blog on Friday.
In March 2002 the Irish Government introduced a levy on plastic bags, they placed a charge of 15 cent, now 22 cent, for every single plastic bag used. Retailers were obliged to pass the charge on and collect the levy. Retailers then brought in a wide selection of re-usable bags at a range of prices. Tesco Ireland report that the number of regular plastic bags have been reduced by 93% since the levy has been introduced.
Its funny I actually take it for granted that you buy re-usable bags, and its great to see them forming part of retailers environmental policies.
I know Tesco put their charity of the year logo on their re-usable bags (in Ireland), but as far as I know the profit doesn’t go to the charity (I’m happy to be corrected if Im wrong here though)
I do wonder what the mark-up is on these for retailers. And if it’s significant then should they not be donating some of these proceeds to good causes.
Is this a case of retailers using the environment and environmental issues to look good and at the same time make money for themselves?
Read Sandras post here
P.S. why do they call them Bags for Life…when they really aren’t
I was reading an interesting post on the Whitewater blog from the start of April where the they were announcing that their client, the NSPCC, have decided to move away from asking for Legacy pledges from donors.
The new strategy will
no longer measure success by the number of legacy pledges but by the number and quality of legacy conversations across all media – both face to face and direct marketing.
According to Whitewaters Chairman Steve Andrews:
“The tail has been wagging the dog. Our need to measure has driven the whole sector’s obsession with pledging. But donors told us that our desire for a pledge put them off. We have come up with a new approach and way forward.”
Interesting approach. The NSPCC clearly do their research and the results show, and with Whitewater they seem to have a great agency (I’ve never worked with them but they seem to be pretty cutting edge). I wonder as Legacy Promotion Ireland are planning to launch their campaign My Legacy, have they taken this into consideration or what their research has told them?