WHEN I READ that Oxfam – one of the most successful charities in history – had wheeled in the PR people to ‘rebrand’ it, I was perplexed. Annoyed, even. Everyone knows what Oxfam does and everyone knows it’s a good cause. Rebranding seemed pointless and expensive.

Or so I thought. After seeing the posters, watching the advert, and visiting the website, I’ve been converted. Here are my three cheers for Oxfam:

1. The posters say that giving to Oxfam will make you happy – and they are probably right. Hooray! Oxfam may be the first big charity in history not to guilt-trip its supporters into giving – a big step forward from most charities’ depressing fundraising appeals.
2. Oxfam is taking its supporters’ views seriously. A new page on the Oxfam website lets you post your views on the rebranding, even if they’re negative. Again, this sounds to me like a UK first – and it’s a really positive step.
3. The posters are written in normal English. Most charity appeals are written by people who speak a special dialect of guilt-inducing fundraiser-speak. As Donor Power Blog points out, this is counterproductive, so it’s good to see Oxfam escaping from its constraints.

My only concern is that, in being so accessible and positive, the posters hide the complex reality of poverty-reduction work. But I don't think that’s a big problem, so long as more in-depth information is available elsewhere.

So why can’t more charities follow Oxfam’s happy, positive approach?

Login or register to comment

THE INTELLIGENT GIVING Blog is changing – for a few weeks, at least. Over the coming days, we’re going to experiment with shorter, more frequent entries, and I’m going to take over writing all of them.

I’d like this blog to be somewhere where both charity nerds and ordinary people can come to unravel the mysteries of the charity universe. I’m going write about the issues facing charities and fundraisers, and I’m going to talk more about what’s happening on other voluntary-sector blogs and news sites.

This means that Intelligent Giving’s advice on how to give – for example, in response to the Burmese cyclone – will no longer be posted here. Instead, it will find a home in our Articles section. As a result, I hope that this blog will become more useful: more focused, and more frequently updated.

I’d really like to hear your thoughts on this change. Good blogs start conversations – so please do post comments or questions, and I’ll do my best to respond.

Login or register to comment

THE BEST WAY to help the victims of Cyclone Nargis is to support the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal (see profile) appeal. Do not shell out for your favourite charity. Here’s why the DEC is by far the best option:

1. A good reputation. The DEC will distribute your cash to those of its 13 member charities which are best able to respond to the crisis. All of these charities have rock-solid reputations and a proven track record of helping people in emergencies.
2. Smart distribution. The member charities thrash out between themselves who will get how much money, and for what purposes, and these decisions are based upon each one’s experience, location and abilities. It’s difficult to know whether it always comes to the right conclusions, but it’s a good start - especially when getting access to the cyclone's victims is so fraught.
3. Very low fundraising costs. No charity can match the DEC for the astonishing amount of free publicity it gets when an emergency appeal is declared. Most charities have to pay for their advertising – and that payment has to come from donations.
4. Low admin costs. The DEC has low overheads – meaning that, financially, it is often as effective as giving to individual charities.
5. Your money will be protected. In common with most disaster appeals, your donation to the DEC will be ring-fenced: it won't be spent on anything other than relieving the suffering of the cyclone's victims. This is guaranteed by law.

The DEC's member charities World Vision TearFund Save the Children Oxfam Merlin Care Islamic Relief Concern Christian Aid CAFOD British Red Cross ActionAid Help the Aged NB: Your donation to the DEC will be spilt amongst these charities - but not all of the charities will necessarily benefit

For the latest information on the situation in Burma, try the Burma Campaign UK page on the Cyclone, or take a look at Google's comprehensive news round-up.

Login or register to comment

CHARITIES COULD BE throwing away £750 million a year through laziness, according to a report out last week (PDF) from the Institute for Philanthropy.

The problem lies with charities’ investments, which last year were worth a staggering £54 billion. According to the Institute, charities are earning paltry returns – as little as 5 per cent a year in some cases – which could easily be boosted if they took investment management seriously.

It’s hard to disagree with the Institute’s conclusions. But the report got us thinking about a bigger question. What are charities doing with that £54 billion in the first place?

The usual answer is that they are using it as security. Almost all big charities keep the equivalent of a few months’ running costs in reserve, in case donations suddenly dry up. For some charities, that sum can equal many millions of pounds. We wanted to know what they were doing with it.

But finding answers is tricky. Take, for example, the National Trust (see profile). This mega-charity is sitting on almost £1 billion of investments, mostly in the form of shares. Last year, it earned a return of 11.2 per cent on this capital, of which it used £30 million to help with the upkeep of its stately homes and gardens.

"Much of the time, it's our money charities are looking after"

If you’re a member of the Trust, your subs may well end up in the charity’s investment pool. So you’d be justified in asking where your cash would be invested, and you’d be right to be question whether the Trust was using your cash to the best possible effect.

But if you wanted to find answers to these questions, you’d be hard pressed. In its annual report, the Trust doesn’t give anything beyond the most basic details of where and how it invests its cash; and there’s no word on how its investment strategy might change in future. What you could find out, though, was that the 11.2 per cent return it earned last year was disappointing – which is hardly a relief.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The Wellcome Trust, the biggest charity in Britain with assets of £15.6 billion (yes, really), does a sterling job of explaining its investments, and its investment strategy, in painstaking detail. It even includes some graphs and easy-to-understand questions for non-accountants like us.

All charities with big investments should provide this sort of info. After all, much of the time it’s our money they are looking after. Charities should explain what they are doing with it.

Login or register to comment

IF YOU SUPPORT A CHARITY, there's a good chance that you are a bit annoyed with it. If you're like most people, you'll worry that it spends too much on administration and wastes your cash sending out fundraising mailshots.

Such doubts are usually misplaced. The majority of charities spend very little on admin and fundraising.

But most people either do not know - or do not believe - the figures. As a result, charities are finding it increasingly hard to keep to donors' trust, and there are signs that levels of giving are going down.

What's to be done? If you are a charity supporter, there's probably a simple solution. If you suspect your favourite charity of waste, give them a ring and ask them to explain how they make their spending decisions. Charities are legally required only to spend money on things that will make the world a better place - so if you think they're doing something else, ask them about it. Usually, the charity will be happy to explain.

But from the charities' perspective, things look more gloomy. Regaining the trust of the nation is tricky. But talking to supporters - and putting right their misconceptions - would be a good start. And thanks to the internet, this does not have to be hard. It can even be free.

"This is a wasted opportunity of astonishing proportions"

Free and easy communication comes in the form of the blog. Yet British do-gooder sare appallingly bad bloggers. With the only two exceptions - Shelter's Adam Sampson and acevo's Stephen Bubb - not a single UK charity bigwig has taken to the medium.

This is a wasted opportunity of astonishing proportions. Charity bosses don't need a pay-rise to knock out the odd hundred-word blog entry; and there's a variety of free blogging tools out there, which anyone can use.

It's a simple equation: people are annoyed about charities, and that annoyance stems from a lack of understanding. So charities should correct those misconceptions in the cheapest and easiest way possible. And that means they should be writing blogs.

Login or register to comment