Also, I'm not saying that charities will ever be made redundant, as Charity Girl seems to think I am. All I'm saying is that charities will have to work harder to justify their existence, when they're challenged by 'alternative' forms of giving.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Right, so, my comment about spending too much on marketing does seem to conflict with my point about how charities don't communicate effectively over the web with their supporters. But this conflict is more imagined than real. To explain...

1. Charities which shell out squillions on what I call 'horrific brand-development strategies' are, in my view, very likely spending money on something donors don't like. Speaking as a donor myself, I wouldn't want any of my gift to a charity to go towards this sort of expensive-consultant-driven exercise. 
2. Yet criticizing this sort of branding exercise is not the same as criticizing charities' desire to communicate. If charities spent more time (and money) getting to grips with technology, they would be able to communicate much more effectively with their supporters. Piles of research show that supporters actually liked to be engaged and talked to. The web enables this.

In other words, what I'm against is Bad Marketing. And I'm in favour of Good Communication - in other words, marketing which engages properly with supporters' views. This not only keeps supporters happy. It also leads to greater transparency and accountability. Which is something, I hope, we can all be happy about.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

"What if we could help people directly? If we could do that, would there any need for charities at all?" As well as bringing up a massively pertinent point (“Also re; marketing - on the one hand you are saying that charities are useless at websites and on the other decrying expenditure on marketing!!!”), charity girl just answers these daft questions. Do we need charities, well, yes they are the only way we tend to find out about much of the need in the world.

But let’s ignore that, let’s pretend that everyone in need had the ability to put their need onto a single website so “we could help people directly”.  Firstly, how would we know their need was genuine? But secondly, and even more importantly, if we could help people directly, would we?People rarely give unless asked, and the point of charities and fundraisers is to ask.  Most Brits don’t like talking about money, but I am PROUD to ask people for their money, their cash, their filthy lucre, or whatever they want to call it, because I’m not asking for me (I couldn’t ask for me), but because I’m asking for other people who can’t do it.  The people we care for, the people we help, the people we give life to, none of them can ask.  So I’m here, I ask for them. We need charities.

Damn right we do. My charity supports hundreds of people who are elderly, vulnerable and in poverty. A huge amount of our time is spent in telephone 'counseling' and support - these people often have no-one else to talk to. This is an integral part of what we do and helps to give people dignity. The majority of people do not want to ask for 'charity' and find it demeaning - a friendly voice takes a lot of the sting out of it. How could Mr. X aged 89 living in Lincs. on the breadline possibly be found by a donor without the 'middle man' as you dub us? Grrrrrr. Also re; marketing - on the one hand you are saying that charities are useless at websites and on the other decrying expenditure on marketing!!!

Surely the trouble with this model of giving is that it presupposes a recipient who is organised enough to seek this kind of help; doesn't have a problem that can't wait and is honest enough not to ask for help that's not needed.

It wouldn't easily cover (for example) a confused elderly man whose dog has massive infected growths and needs to be put to sleep right away or someone who needs to be told kindly, but firmly, that they should expect to pay at least <i>something</i> towards their pet's treatment. To manage that you need some kind of infrastructure (not necessarily charitable - it could be done by social enterprises; but then you need to be able to explain why that would be an improvement).

To me, the question isn't so much "do we really need charities," but more "how do we most effectively support the best solutions to societal problems?" At GlobalGiving, we're taking a grassroots approach to philanthropy - helping great ideas to flourish through an open marketplace and connecting individuals directly to causes they care about. The Internet has made this grassroots strategy possible and sustainable over the long term - and we believe that if donors know what their money is being used for and are kept informed along they way of its impact (again, which the Internet facilitates), they will be willing to support the operational costs that are necessary to provide services. And - features like our donation guarantee are designed to ameliorate risk to the donor.

Thanks for including GlobalGiving in your post.

PS. GlobalGiving UK will be opening its doors this fall!

Adam,

Charities do have wider remits than doling out cash to the underpriveledged. Is giving aid to the victims of the Burmese cyclone or the hungry in Zimbabwe going to change the society they live? These are two massive issues and charities have role to play in bringing resolution, something that direct giving isn't going to be able to tackle?

catman

I have no problem with my gifts being used for marketing. You'll find that many charities use part of the gifts they receive for what was it now? Oh yes - thank you letters and transparency.
Or is anyone suggesting that donations should never be used for keeping in touch with people (printing and postage cost money) or showing transparency in what the organisation does?
Remember, all costs money - money that someone has to give to enable this non-work for end users to be carried out.

Ask someone donating if you can use their £100 to leverage £5000 additional money for the cause, pretty sure many people would be Ok with this.
Even though the initial £100 isn't being spent on the people in need.

Direct giving has its place - just ask anyone begging on the streets.
It isn't however always the most cost-effective use of money or sorts out the problems that exist.

Give to a homeless charity providing food, clothing and beds for people and you'll help someone be fed, clothed and have a bed.
Give direct to the person needing help and they can choose to pay for clothes, pay for food, pay for a bed for the night - usually at higher prices than a charity can get them for. Or spend it on booze, ladies of negotiable affection and drugs if they so wish.

Martin

As Martin makes clear, it would be pretty silly of me to dislike marketing strategies per se. However, even if such strategies work, they're not something most donors would want their gift to be spent on. I appreciate that in large organizations they are necessary - but I think some donors will jump at the chance to avoid paying those costs. And direct giving provides the opportunity to do just that.

David: I think you're right.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

The mistake is thinking of charities only as large national or international organisations. The vast majority of charities in the UK are tiny organisations, usually supporting communities defined one way or another - by geography, by where they originate etc... Giving to small charities is extremely effective, as the proportional effect of any donation has a direct impact on the work these organisations do, and the people they work with. Unfortunately, people give mostly to large charities, and smaller charities have to rely on grants from large trusts, the lottery, local councils etc. Whilst there is nothing wrong with giving to large charities (I donate to more than one), it is an effective alternative to give to s,aller charities - the only problem is YOU have to do the work to find them, as they do not have the resources to spend on marketing. Mind you putting in time and effort in thinking about what you would like to support is not necessarily a bad thing.

Sorry? Exactly what is wrong with swish marketing and brand development strategies?
Should charities, regardless of size, just depend on someone doodling on the back of an envelope, copying it at the library and giving the postie a tenner to drop the copy in each letterbox they go to?

Last I looked, charities are also businesses. They try and keep going in order to carry on their work.
Has any marketing or brand development totally failed to achieve any result? Or have the charities achieved something that will help them get results over time?

Adam, has IG spent money on swish advertising (even a swish website?) or developing a brand-name?
Or has it all been done by your own volunteers and hosted for free?

Martin