New on our blog
Email this page
Adam Rothwell
- Thursday, October 16, 2008
Pudsey Bear and I have not always got along well. Back in 2006, I celebrated my fourth week at Intelligent Giving by popping up in the tabloid press to denounce Children in Need as a “lazy and inefficient way of giving,” which it was, “90 per cent of the time, a bad idea” to support.I still think I was right to direct the media’s gaze to Pudsey’s failings. In fact, as a result of the unwelcome attention, CiN has changed dramatically for the better. Now, Pudsey and I get along swimmingly.
This is why I’ve changed my views.
- Pudsey used to mislead his supporters. Now he doesn’t. Back in 2006, CiN used to say that “every penny” given to them went straight to the cause. That simply wasn’t true. And, after a bit of pressure (not just from us) they’ve now dropped the slogan. That’s fantastic news.
- Pudsey used to report extremely badly. Now he doesn’t. Something that made me particularly cross a couple of years ago was the slapdash attitude CiN had towards its public reporting. Memorably, supporters reading an official summary of the charity’s work would have been seriously misled about the charity’s finances. But now, the charity’s annual report is promoted all over the Pudsey website, and it gets an admirable 76 per cent Quality of Reporting score from us.
- Pudsey has overhauled his website, and now it’s really useful. The ‘about us’ section now makes sense, and even contains biographies of the charity’s trustees – the people who are ultimately responsible for how CiN is run. That’s rare – and impressive.
But, for the majority of people who don't have the time, or who can’t be bothered with this, Pudsey looks like a pretty good choice. And I like their trailers/adverts, too.
Via Conor Byrne
Dear Sir,
I agree with you 100%, the big organizations have big publicity and so what ever they say are ony trueths. But small organizatuion liek ours which is still strugglin to get noticed do good job. But no supporters. There are many organizations where the people on top dont know much things. They have theuir name like the brand name. So people will give. Take for example of India--gospel work. For long time people are supporting big banners, but even today we have not crossed 2%, if you support with that same amount mnay small charities, you actually diversify the funds channels, so it gets utilized for the purpose. Please give it a thought.
with regards,
daniel
I agree with the point you make about the lack of control (or knowledge) about where your donation goes. That has always been a barrier for me when I've ever considered giving to CiN.
I was talking to a friend about this the other day. We hypothesised that CiN probably appeals to a large number of people that wouldn't usually support charity otherwise - which is good. I don't know how engaged it's possible to be in your support, if you give in this way, or whether it's the most effective model in terms of ROI.
Whether or not you agree with CiN, there are a lot of unpaid people giving up their time to work for a charity they believe makes a difference for somebody. An aweful lot of their time is involved in seeking funding and not all avenues are succesful which must be hugely disappointing for their causes. As a Parish Cllr I am only too aware that our Council has a small budget of public money to award to applicants which requires effort on the charities behalf and the results often hit of miss. If CiN offers another avenue to acquire charity/project funding it has to be succesful irrespective of any perceived shortcomings. I also believe the monetary amount of giving to CiN would probably not happen if reliance was placed with individuals to support local or national charities.