New on our blog |
Adam Rothwell
- Friday, July 18, 2008
How well do charities understand the internet? Frankly, I think their general level of comprehension is pretty poor. Other commentators are more optimistic. And some charity people think that all this chat about Web 2.0 is a bit premature.It would be nice if this confusion could be cleared up; if we could get some idea of how web-savvy charities really are. Now, hopefully we can – at least a bit. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be blogging with Mike Naidu (head of donor marketing at Mencap and Professional Fundraiser of the Year) to try to find out. Mike will try to engage with some of our favourite (and not so favourite) charities, by giving them a donation through their websites. We’ll then track how the charities respond to the gift, and see how keen they are on talking to Mike and spreading the word about what they do. We’ll assess how the charities use the web to talk about themselves, and we’ll examine the quality of their responses. We’ve got our fingers crossed that we’ll get at least some form of electronic feedback or engagement from all of them – but that’s not guaranteed. We won’t reveal who the donations are going to just yet (we don’t want to alert the charities in question to the fact we’re tracking them), but we will do in the end. But – I hope – we should find out some pretty revealing stuff about how seriously charities really do take the web. Mike, if a charity can't afford "decent accounts" then it can't afford to be operating at all. If you're really struck by the cause then the chances are that there are better run charities opertating in the same field for you to give your money to. ..... And yes, charity accounts can be totally misleading (I've just read one set that would knock your socks off)! I'm not suggesting that decent accounts = good charity, but ropey accounts are still a cause for concern.
Don't shoot the messenger Ginsters, if you do place the financial health of a charity high on your list of reasons to give then great, go and give a gift to some charities that are financially healthy. However, any organisation that can afford decent accounts/auditors can play smoke and mirrors with the accounts to show you a healthy picture (anyone heard of Enron?). Umpire, don't hold your breath. Mike
It appears on the face of it that Mike is expecting to receive a précis of how his money is spent. If he doesn’t get a reply, surely that would mean the Charity in question was lets say, not transparent or lacks the information form its own resources to account for how it will be spent and if at all, the money will make a difference. If that is the case, then surely Ginsters Dragon has a point, why would any body give to a Charity who wasn’t transparent. Mike, if you are willing to set up a direct debit, donate to me, I’ll write and tell you how your money will make a difference to my expense account or towards my already over inflated CEO wage. Except that I do consider 'financial health' to be rather important. I wouldn't give money to an organisation that's hopelessly mismanaged (as that could well be indicative of the way that it delivers its services) and similarly if a charity appears to be rolling in it I'd wonder if they really need my modest donation. Incidentally I'm aware of one charity that's really gone to town on the spin in order to appear 'financially healthy' in their latest Annual Report. They've managed to achieve growth by arbitarily merging their UK accounts with a sister overseas charity. The UK charity itself isn't doing too well (I understand, although it's impossible to tell from published figures), but their partner's moved on in leaps and bounds so they're taking the credit for that. Odd given that they have seperate constitutions with separate boards. Misleading one might say, but it certainly goes to show how much importance some charities attach to appearing to be financially healthy. Don't shoot the messenger Yes, I do look for a level of transparency Ginsters Dragon, in that I want to know how my donation will make a differency. However, I won't be reviewing the annual report for comment on financial health, disclosure of trustee remuneration or disclosure of relationships with other parties as Adam does of an evening for light reading! Mike "I want to know how a charity will use my donation on a local and national level and how practically this will help people in their everyday lives." Isn't providing the proof of that one measure of transparency? It sounds to me as though you do place the issue rather high on your agenda when deciding where to donate your hard-earned.
Don't shoot the messenger Hello everyone,As Adam mentioned, I will be making some online donations and reviewing how the recipient charities communicate with me.Unlike Adam, I don't place an organisations transparency high on my agenda when deciding who to support. I want to know how a charity will use my donation on a local and national level and how practically this will help people in their everyday lives. Many charities do this well through direct mail and on the telephone, but I'm not sure how well charities do this over the web. Mostly because, I don't give through the web (apart from sponsoring friends via justgiving).So this is a voyage of discovery for me and I can’t promise not to "borrow" any good examples of online fundraising to use at Mencap.IG has selected 4 charities covering disability, international development and homelessness who I will donate £10 to. I will then review the communications they send to me over 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks. The ones who ask me in the right way will get a direct debit. The ones who don't will get an e-mail asking to block me from any future communications.To clarify one point, I am the Head of Donor Marketing at Mencap and not the Head of Fundraising Mike Post new comment |
Recent comments
3 days 35 min ago
3 days 1 hour ago
3 days 14 hours ago
3 days 19 hours ago
3 days 20 hours ago
3 days 21 hours ago
3 days 22 hours ago
4 days 21 min ago
4 days 11 hours ago
6 days 1 hour ago