What's wrong with listening to people who are passionate about fundraising and have evidence of giving patterns based on numerous appeals, across many causes using cutting edge analysis techniques?

Believing every word is clearly foolish, but I suppose you would rather fundraisers "think outside the box" and risk not raising the funds their organisations work.

CM

So the older generation, who are rapidly dying out, need a sob story whereas baby boomers are all looking for a well thought out, reasoned case for support..... There's a danger in uncritically absorbing everything you're fed by consultants who 'must know what they're talking about' because they're on twice your salary.

I think there's a grain of truth in this analysis of people's giving motivations, but sometimes you have to be a little different to create genuinely enaging fundraising copy. Think outside the box; don't just climb in for safety and then close the lid behind you ;-)

Don't shoot the messenger

Hi Adam,

I agree with you that some charities "pull on the heartstrings" but often they are asking an older profile of donor who give because they have an emotional link to the cause and tha case studies they are shown.

Many large charities are now focussing on the baby boomers in society who are looking for a more reasoned ask, showing the bigger picture with less emotional content. Maybe you are receiving the former rather than the latter.

With regard to the Oxfam marketing that I have seen so far, it seems fairly awareness raising rather than fundraising at this stage. I would be interested to see if you feel that the actual asks are still positive.

Catman

Hi Catman,

You may be right about this. But having been exposed to most big-charity fundraising drives over the past few years, I've never come across anything which is so resoundingly positive as Oxfam's efforts here, which is why it struck me as so refreshing.

So yes, 'first time in history' might have been a bit of an overstatement. But positive fundraising campaigns are exceptionally rare, to say the least.

Wouldn't you agree?

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Hey Adam,

 So you have read every piece of direct mail that has been sent out by charities this year have you? What about last year? Or the previous 10 years before that? Of course you haven't, yet you still feel the need to make sweeping statments like "Hooray! Oxfam may be the first big charity in history not to guilt-trip its supporters into giving".

Making statements like these makes me worry about the credibility of your research.

Catman

Hi Ginsters,

I take your point: posters aren't the place to get into the details of international-development policy. My concern, though, was that Oxfam's ads might give the impression that ending poverty is easy. I think that would be misleading - but I also think that, if Oxfam's website is up to the job, then this shouldn't be a big issue. (In other words, I agree with Martin.)

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Yes, the advertising is good. Short, can make people think, and don't try and recreate their entire website onto a poster.

I particularly love the one with three names that made a huge difference. Gandhi, Mandella ........
If you haven't seen it, I won't give the third name. But made me smile. :)

Martin

I totally concur with almost everything you've written Adam, Simplifying your message and keeping it fresh is absoultely essential........... But I can't see the sense in criticising Oxfam for not fully explaining 'the complex reality of poverty-reduction work" (albeit that your cristcism is qualified), that's not what they're trying to do with their posters and adverts. Can't something be a 100% success - you know, like your own Annual Report ;-)

Don't shoot the messenger