New on our blog
Email this page
Kit Patrick
- Saturday, June 20, 2009
Charity shops are the place to be this summer, with Mary Portas, Queen of Shops, overhauling one of Save the Children’s shops for TV. The Sun called it "the coolest shop in Britain". Visitors are also brimming with enthusiasm: "We both came here with the idea that we were going to spend while giving to charity. That encouraged us to come out and shop." reports one pair.
Ordinarily, that comment would be worrying. Using charity shops doesn’t generally add up to “giving to charities”. After all, most charity shops still spend most of their income on rent, salaries and the like, with only a small proportion going to good causes. Our brief survey of almost 60 large charities with shops in 2007 showed that for every £1 spent in a charity shop, only 18p goes to good causes. Other surveys put the figure a bit higher, but it's widely agreed that Charity Shops just aren't an efficient way to raise money for charity. Also, there’s better ways to get rid of your stuff for good causes (see our new charity shops and gift catalogues page for details.)
So buying or donating to a charity shop shouldn’t generally be thought of as equal to giving to the charity. But perhaps Mary Portas’ shop is an exception. During her reign, the shop’s income more than doubled. It's been so successful that Save the Children has already agreed to extend the Portas model to their other shops. But, as has been pointed out by others, Mary Portas' changes to the charity shop have hardly been revolutionary. There are other well-organised charity shops out there, run by equally determined and smart people. But the charity shop world is tough, and some of these still struggle to make much profit.
So I will wait and see how Save the Children’s shops are doing after all the media coverage has died down. Let’s hope they keep income up and expenses down, and become an efficient way to spend money on good causes. Until that's proved true, I'll keep shopping at charity shops for the recycling and the cheap, off-beat fashion. But I won't think of it as doing my bit for charity.
p.s. It’s worth adding that there’s a risk to adopting the Portas model: suppose charity shops manage to raise prices. They might only be able to do so only by raising the costs the shop has to pay (e.g. by hiring new professional staff), and then they wouldn’t necessarily be a more efficient way to raise money for charity. Even worse, charity shops would no longer be a good source of cheap goods for the needy in the local community.
Anon2, I think you make some excellent points about charity shops - which remind me why I (even after ages thinking about it) haven't made up my mind about whether they're on the whole worth charities' while to run.
Re our annual report, the Commission have (in their wisdom) decided not to upload it. But you can download it from this website, in the About Us section. And I'll be writing more about this soon.
Adam, Intelligent Giving
The giving to charity bit is the donation of stock, isn't it? And that's what Mary P was largely trying to change (so that you and I don't just give things to the charity shop becase it's nearer than the tip). The customers are largely bargain hunting.
So the inefficiency you highlight arises from the diffculty of turning a Random Assortment of Elderly Objects into cash using a Random Assortment of Elderly Volunteers as labour. It might be more efficient from the charity's pov for the donor to sell the RAoEO themselves and then give the cash to charity (hence ebay for charity, which currently has 0.3% of the items for sale on ebay.co.uk). Similarly the volunteers could get jobs and give the cash to the charity. Which would raise the efficiency and warm the cockles of Adam's heart. But would it increase the totalnet income (which is what matters isn't it)?. Or would the donors and volunteers keep the cash for themselves and spend it on food, travel & tickets to Wooden Spoon events, causing Adam to gnash his teeth?
The charities have to work with what they are given (stuff, cash, cheap premises, no business rates, peoples time) and turn it into good works. And while shops are generating cash, however little, I suspect they will keep doing it. Especially where they can't use resources directly for their beneficiaries (volunteers & shops in Orpington being of limited use to refugees in Rwanda).
OT I notice the Charity Commission website hasn't updated with your annual report.
I think that's an excellent point. Charity shops are faced with a conundrum: they're never the most effective means of fundraising - however much glamour Mary P brings to them - but improving them in the way you suggest also has its risks. If anyone knows what the long-term, sustainable, future is for charity shops, I'd love to know what it is.
Adam, Intelligent Giving
think that charities have an unfair advantage when it comes to retail.
Volunteers rather than paid workers is just one major saving for charities competing with retailers.
The move by a few charities to sell their own lines of new products rather than donated goods may well jeopardise all charity shops for all charities.
What a pity there isn't a website like ebay where proceeds go to a charity of the donor's choice - is there one? Charity shops seem to be run by elderly ladies who have no idea of the value of children's toys, for instance. Many people simply throw out childrens toys deemed to be outgrown, or when space is needed (often still loved by the children) such as duplo and brio. These toys cost a fortune, and if others can get them secondhand and cheaper some child would be so happy. Charity shops often throw out such toys into the rubbish, giving the impression that such donations are not wanted, so people just throw them out instead of giving them to the charity shop. A lot of us don't understand this system and just give up.