New on our blog
Email this page
Adam Rothwell
- Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Cancer Research UK (CRUK) has a problem. Unlike its peers in international aid or donkey-welfare, it can’t use either cute animals or dodgy ‘send-a-goat’ type schemes to raise cash. So in the quest to acquire funds, it has to think a little harder. As a result, it’s just launched a splendid new website.It’s called MyProjects, and it’s currently in a test phase (which is why, even if you’re an avid reader of Charity News Alert, you’ve probably never heard of it). MyProjects takes the idea of so-called ‘project giving’ – pioneered by that other great website, GlobalGiving – and applies it to cancer research. And the results are unexpectedly exciting.
With project giving, the idea is that you fund a charity’s work directly, rather than supporting the general running-costs of the charity itself. So on MyProjects, you can choose to fund research into one of six different types of cancer, or you can put your cash towards purchasing research equipment.
Giving donors more power to choose where their cash ends up is almost always a good thing. But MyProjects has more to recommend it than this. Each project on its website is illustrated by a video with the scientist leading the work, and interviews with people who might be affected by it. And donors have the chance to leave messages on the site, explaining why they’ve chosen one project over another.
This sort of interactivity is part of what makes websites like Justgiving so popular – so it’s great to see CRUK adopting a similar approach. But for me, what makes MyProjects really valuable are the videos with scientists. These give a remarkable insight into the work CRUK funds, and educate potential donors about the work they could support.
Not only does MyProjects look like an innovative fundraising tool. It also offers the chance for donors to find out more about cancer, and become more knowledgeable about the cause they support. By cutting out the fundraisers’ spin, donors get a better idea of what they’re giving to. And that’s a brilliant illustration of what online fundraising should be about.
Charities often are the first to try new ways of doing things.
Some work. A few work very well. And some fail.
Sometimes there are factors that aren't considered very well. Sometimes its just that people are people, not statistics or tickboxes.
I've no problem personally if a project fails. So long as lessons are learnt.
I daresay researchers into cancer have come up with many thousands of ways of not doing something. And some successful treatments, ideas, ways of testing and how to help support people.
I'd expect a lot more failed projects with something like cancer than I would for a charity running projects to provide meals for old people.
Charities should take risks. Who else would be daft enough, idealistic enough or confident enough to do it?
The government? We'd complain of wasting taxpayers money.
The banks? Been there, done that, seen what risks do.....
Martin
Your question about whether "failed" projects will put off donors from giving in future is a really interesting one - and it's one that initiatives like MyProjects will I hope (eventually) answer. If donors are put off by projects that don't work, then I think that may well be a good incentive for charities to improve their work in future. Perhaps.
Adam, Intelligent Giving
Looks good, I wonder should they have a donate/support button on the initial project page, not everyone will want to find out more and may want to just donate straight away, not having a donate button there adds an additional step into the process.
I like the site, and its aims. But it is perhaps naive to say it's 'cutting out fundraising spin'. It is simply a new fundraising idea, selecting some of the most appealing areas to attract interest and new leads. The specific funds raised are less important. After all, "If a project meets its expiry date but hasn’t met its fundraising target, Cancer Research UK will still fund the project through other means".
And the leads this generates will, I'm sure, be approached to upgrade in the future (and quite right too, as relying on short term project funding will lead to a long term failure). CRUK relies on unrestricted funding to plan and respond to the future.
One question: if the research funded fails to produce a positive result (e.g. the new drug doesn't work, as some of them won't) will that deter donors from giving more in the future?
Good point, Martin. Let's hope CRUK takes your comments on board when it finishes the test phase of the project.
Adam, Intelligent Giving
Ah, sounds like modernisation of the old 'buy a gift' catalogues where you can pay for specific items rather than just charity itself. Like you have said, 'dodgy send a goat type'.
Or like sponsoring a child.
Glad they are using the web so much for it. Now all you need is a larger portion of the population being able to afford and wanting web access.
Don't forget, not everyone has any internet connection. Probably a majority of the working age population, but how many retirees will be able to access the information?
Web use is great, but it doesn't communicate to every supporter or potential supporter.
Come to think of it, do these videos have a subtitle or BSL option? I've no idea what these people are saying.
Missing out on a chunk of the population. Good communication? Not quite there yet.
Martin
Adam said: If donors are put off by projects that don't work, then I think that may well be a good incentive for charities to improve their work in future.
If by 'improve their work' you mean reduce the failure rate of previously untested drugs, then the funding mechanism is immaterial. I fear it's more likely to promote a limited range of treatments with proven outcomes, rather than encourage innovation and the higher risk of failure that goes with it. Or suppression of results that are likely to reduce funding. Ideally they would explain to donors the possibility of failure in advance, and why the experimental process is necessary as a whole. But it's natural to expect that donors want to be associated with success, rather than failure.