So I don't think I've endeared myself to a the contributors below with this blog post. Nonetheless, I'm still not convinced by their arguments: after all, this debate revolves around a subjective judgement, and nobody is ever going to 'prove' anyone right or wrong about it.

To that end, this is the last time I'm going to comment on this page. I hope we can agree to disagree about Guide Dogs' strategy. When we at IG get things wrong we apologize  - just search for our profile of the Unicorn Theatre to see what I mean - but I don't think an apology is necessary in this case.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Thanks to SimonK for that round up and I totally agree. Also, if you click on About Us towards the bottom of our home page (beneath that lovely picture of guide dog of the year 2007 Roz and her owner Gary) you can see our mission statement which clearly states:

Our vision The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association wants a world in which all people who are blind and partially-sighted enjoy the same rights, opportunities and responsibilities as everyone else. Our missionOur mission is to provide guide dogs, mobility and other rehabilitation services that meet the needs of blind and partially-sighted people. We also:·                       campaign for the rights of people who are blind and partially-sighted, ·                       educate the public about eye care

·                       invest millions of pounds in eye disease research

I think (as with the Workers Beer discussion) it should be pretty clear by now that Adam's view is fundamentally at odds with, frankly, everyone. I'm paraphrasing (a lot) but this my part of this discussion has basically gone as follows:

Adam Rothwell: Guide Dogs does more than just provide guide dogs, and that's sneaky.

SimonK: Cancer Research UK does more than just cancer research - isn't that equally sneaky?

AR: Ah, but CRUK makes it very clear on their website that they do so.

Someone Who Works: But there's a clear link on the Guide Dogs website to campaigns and social research.

AR: Yeah well... I'm still right, so there.

Adam, people will respect you a lot more if you admit that you were a little harsh (even if all you do is withdraw the word "sneaky") than if you just keep saying, "I'm right and you're all wrong).

Hello everyone

You Might Lose...: No, I'm still right. At the risk of repeating myself, I wish no ill-will to Guide Dogs. I'm sure they're great. But I still don't think their fundraising is clear enough. I can see little, bar a change in the charity's approach, which would convince me otherwise.

Anon: re Scope and our own name, I'd say in both cases it's fairly clear what we do. It says so in big letters on our homepage, and on Scope's homepage too.  That's what makes us different from the brightly suited Dogs.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

As Intelligent Giving is a snappy, appealing name for an organisation that provides advice rather than actually giving, should you look to your own situation first? HeresSomeInformationAboutCharities.com?

Adam - So how does SCOPE's name convey anything about what it does in it's name vs. Guide Dogs? Also, you have not commented on my previous slant. Does this mean that actually, I'm right...?

Typo on my part - it's the third box down....still really not hard to find though!

Just so everyone knows, if you go to the Guide Dogs home page www.gdba.org.uk the second box down on the left contains links to information about our campaigns, Heathly Eyes website and social research. Not hard to find at all.

SimonK: There's a difference. Guide Dogs doesn't talk about its non-dog work in as much detail on its website as CRUK does about its non-lab-based projects. One of the reasons why I admire CRUK's approach is because nobody taking even a cursory glance at its website could get the wrong idea about what it does. Guide Dogs is by no means an un-transparent charity -in fact, it's one of the highest-scoring organizations we've ever rated. It just makes it a bit harder to find some important information about its work.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

As with the Workers Beer discussion, the problem appears to me to be that you are making a general point (in this case, about charity's names reflecting what they do), but in focussing on one specific example - and by using highly emotive language - you are inevitably going to get people's backs up.

There are literally thousands of charities who have names every bit as specific as Guide Dogs, with actions every bit as wide. For example, you've written elsewhere about your admiration for the transparency of Cancer Research UK. But by the same logic you're using here, they really should be calling themselves "Cancer Research, Information, Campaigning and Lobbying UK". Or would you describe that charity also as "sneaky".

Yes Adam SCOPE may well make it clear in it's mission statement etc... that it's aim is to help people with CP but your original gripe was that the name Guide Dogs for the Blind didn't give people the full picture. So if you use the same argument against SCOPE how does their name convey any sense at all as to exactly what they spend your money on?

Catman and Doner: I think you make excellent points. There is clearly a limit to what a charity can say with its name, and changing a name can be shockingly expensive. I would retort, though, that while Scope makes clear that it helps people with cerebral palsy, Guide Dogs is less clear... but I don't want to get into an argument about 'acceptable levels of transparency' - because (from experience elsewhere) I don't think there's much chance of us agreeing...

Adam, Intelligent Giving

A more postitive slant could have been:

According to legend, Guide Dogs – formerly the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association – is rolling in cash. The money keeps pouring in, but the charity doesn’t really need it. Or so the story goes. Is that right?

What is true is that Guide Dogs does more than just provide guide dogs. Out of an annual spend of £65m, just under £40m actually goes towards training puppies and giving them to blind people. The other £25m goes towards ‘advocacy’, medical research and other projects designed to help the visually impaired.

On learning this, I was surprised. Guide Dogs has such a clear name, I’d expected it to be simply about providing the Guide Dogs. But it seems as if it spends your donated cash on valuable projects, research and rehabilitation services relating to Blind and partially sighted adults and children as well as campaigning for a fairer treatment of those affected. So it splashes out on other projects too.

This makes me pleased to know that there is so much more to the charity and it's work. Like any organisation, the name cannot always convey the complexity of the work it does over and above the names' sake. Of course, Guide Dogs’ other projects are all very worthy. But what typically springs to mind are the dogs and puppies with their jackets.

What we should learn from this is that charities have far more work that they do than their face value. Before you judge a book by it's cover, or a dog by it's harness, make sure you find out more about the work they do by visiting their website. Don't rely on blogs to be able to give you the full information, as I'm just opening a door for you to make sure you are aware that they do more than you would possibly imagine.

So, let's keep in mind that a name is just that - an indication of the role, not the full story.

Good Guide Dogs!

I know it is jargon to osme, but many charities debate the impact their brand has in the modern charity marketplace.

Many established charities (50 years operating plus) have considered or are considering how they bring their brands up to date. The issue that is always debated at senior management and trustee level is: if we change our name will our supporters know who we are and how much would we need to spend to ensure that they do understand the change?

Adam, would you be happy for Guidedogs to change their name and then spend £100k advertising that fact? If the answer is no then you should look at some other charities who have rebranded to modernise and ask, how much did it cost you and what effect has it had?

catman

So you'd prefer something like Guide Dogs for the Blind Plus or Guide Dogs for the Blind and Other Stuff? Come on Adam just because it doesn't say it in the name smacks to me of making up an article just for the sake of it. How many charity names give you the full picture of what they do? At the other extreme how many give you absolutely no idea! (i.e. SCOPE) Surely IG should strive to be better than that.

No, I won't be apologizing for this post. The post did nothing except question the accuracy of Guide Dogs' name, and suggest that the charity ought to be more forthcoming regarding the non-dog-related work it does. That's a pretty innocent suggestion, and, I point out, it's just an opinion. 

Where we get things wrong, I have no hesitation in apologizing. But there's nothing to be sorry for in this post. 

Grateful: Again, I point out that I believe you entirely when you talk about the wonderful work Guide Dogs does. I do not want to argue with you. By all accounts, Guide Dogs is a brilliant charity. That has never, in my mind, been in dispute.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

So is Adam willing to apologise for bringing Guide Dogs spending into question in such a way that makes the public question it? I doubt he has the sphericals!

I have read this string with great interest - not least because I am a Guide Dog owner. I, like all Guide Dog owners, am extremely grateful for my dog, my companion, my friend, without whom I would not only struggle to be able to go out safely, but without whom life would be very lonely.

Yes, Guide dogs invest in research, but only in RELEVANT research. Do they hide this information from the public? No, not at all. Take a look at Guide Dogs website, or at the annual report. Surely, if folk who are reading the posts and advice within this site feel they wish to know more about how their kindly donated money may be used, then they will carry out some research into the organisation? I know I do. There are a number (sadly) of perhaps questionable charities around, Guide Dogs is NOT one of them.

Thank you, Guide Dogs. If your investment in optical research finds a cure for some of the many forms of blindness, then I can only say one thing: THANK YOU. In the interim, my support is unwavering.

Isnt it hard enough raising funds for such essential work without having someone who has absolutely no knowledge of charities and how they work to spout out such rubbish. I think Guide Dogs have responded eliquently to the posting made by Adam Rothwell. No Adam you may not have said that Guide Dogs dont deliver a great Guide Dog service, but you were insinuating that they have too much money just because of the other essential and brilliant work they do to help blind and partially sighted people which has been pointed out is vital if their primary aim of providing guide dogs is to continue to work. In fact your comments it would seem aim to make the very difficult task of raising money to keep this essential service all the harder. This is very irresponsbile particularly when you consider that Guide Dogs make a lifetime commitment to their guide dogs and their owners and this means they need healthy resources to ensure this and plan the long term future of this vital service. And this is a charity that relys wholly upon public donations as I understands it receives no government help at all.
I would suggest that if you cannot say anything meaningful then you shouldnt say anything at all!

Reading some of the Guide Dogs material they say they would very much like to be put out of the business of needing to provide guide dogs, but until then they will provide the best possible service they can and that may mean more than just providing a guide dog

But only in the States so far, I think.

(click on the url for the "puppies in yellow jackets")
So is there an organisation called Guide Ponies then...

I thought your article sounded really good and fair to start with, but then descended into condescending slander and was in fact very unhelpful.
In this age of acronyms and succinctness and shortening of any word longer down to a single syllable, I think you're missing the point, and you seem to Dis the charity's good work by telling the world on very unfair terms that a lot of other work goes on behind the scenes. A name is important, and as we all know the primary function of The Guide Dogs for the Blind. In order to maintain the understanding of what we do, which is still our primary function, it was shortened to Guide Dogs (don't quote me on that as I'm not an expert in this field). I don't think that a name such as "Guide Dogs and Other Associated Research and Campaigning with Rehabilitation and Support" really trips off the tongue, or fits onto marketing items very easily.

Speaking of names, try DogsTrust and see where their "sneaky" spending of donations gets you...

I would like to see an apology, if only about the way that the article was written!

Well my charity name has one word in it that covers some of what we do, and two others that don't really mean much to anyone.  This means I spend a massive amount fo time telling anyone who#'ll listen, and anyone else for that matter, what we actually do.  And you know what, people still don't know.

Perhaps we should be booted out of the happy club too?  I've also been a teacher and the first thing I realised is that you can't teach anyone anything, I just had to provide the best way for the students to learn it.  Charities can spend forever trying to teach the public what they do, but if the public aren't receptive, they'll walk away with their preconceptions.

So I hear guide dogs, and I think dogs only, and a wee bit of extras, seems I missed part of the message.

You Might Lose Your Sight Too: I really must make abundantly clear that I am perfectly sure Guide Dogs does an excellent job. Nowhere in my blog posting did Icall Guide Dogs' work into question. They seem like an excellent charity, as you say. My only problem with them is that their name is not particularly descriptive. That really is all.

The point you make about Oxfam is particularly perceptive, however. As I recall, Oxfam got into big trouble with the Charity Commission a couple of decades ago for doing work not directly related to famine relief - and it only made a narrow escape from the Commission's regulatory clutches. Nowadays, however, I think - along with 99% of people in the charity world, I'm sure - that Oxfam has every right to pursue development work. The difference between Oxfam and Guide Dogs, however, is that Oxfam makes it admirably clear that it does such a variety of work. Guide Dogs is less forthcoming.

Chris Rink: ditto, really. Though I have no experience of its work, I have no reason to disbelieve you when you say its work is top-notch. So why hide such sterling work under a misleading name? If its research into sight conditions is world-leading, for example, then why doesn't Guide Dogs trumpet it by using a more accurate name?

Adam, Intelligent Giving

So does Adam think that Oxfam is a charity that should only have one Oxford office, and only work on famine projects instead of helping provide the affected communities with fresh clean drinking water, and forget the work done to provide the communities with the means by which to live, including helping providing basic medical help?

Perhaps what Adam should be doing is finding these charities which have a seemingly simple name, and by doing some research, highlighting the valuable work they do to enlighten the public as to what else their money goes on. Otherwise, I respectfully suggest that Adam gets a life, and stops wasting time writing libel or one day it will come back and bite him in the bum (unlike a well-trained, helpful guide dog).

Clearly Adam Rothwell has no understanding of the life changing work of guide dogs, i have been a supporter for sometime now and have had the good grace to meet puppy walkers, guide dog owners and many other parts of this very worth while cause.

although people will always think that a charity such as this has to much money infact all budgets across the country have been cut accept those relevent to guide dog training and guide dogs are keen to provide a value for money service without effecting the quality of the product they produce.

they provide forcasting to ensure that for a minimum of two year they can continue to provide thier service even in the most difficult of times a charity that truly supports it base client unlike many others.

So everyone knows, the comment below constitutes an official response from Guide Dogs.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Once the shock of being told you are losing your sight sets in, anxiety more often than not is followed by depression. While all of this is going on you need to start thinking about learning new skills if you're going to carry on living the life you want to live. Using a guide dog may well be one of those skills and we at Guide Dogs are obviously the experts here. However, the anxiety and depression mitigates against you wanting to learn or even wanting to go out to socialise with friends and family. In this position, you’re less likely to benefit from any of the services we can provide.

Because of this, one of the "other projects" Guide Dogs is currently working on involves looking at ways of giving people the emotional support they need at this crucial time, helping them feel less alone and increasing their confidence to learn what they need to move on with their lives. That may or may not include training with a guide dog but we want to be sure that no-one is prevented from taking up that opportunity because they've become depressed as a result of their diagnosis.

Feeling good about yourself and accepting your disability is one of the first steps towards being mobile again and a guide dog is in a class of its own when it comes to mobility aids, but they're only useful in environments where they can work safely and that's becoming more of a problem as town centres become more complex, crowded and riddled with obstacles. Our campaigning work is aimed at ensuring that, after we have spent thousands of pounds of generously donated cash on training a guide dog, the owner is able to use it. And it's not just physical obstacles we campaign to remove. You'd be surprised at the number of times guide dog owners are refused access to pubs, shops, restaurants and taxis, despite the fact that, since the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act, it's against the law.

Our research, too, is aimed at enabling blind or partially-sighted people to make the best of use of any remaining vision they may have. Only 4% of people who are registered can actually see nothing at all. Any residual vision can be immensely useful in enabling them to use a guide dog, or a long cane, to get around. The vast majority of the ophthalmic research projects we fund have been set up to investigate ways of preventing further sight loss.

We also provide essential rehabilitation training to blind and partially-sighted adults and children across the UK under contract to local authorities.

In fact, everything we do is aimed at helping people get to where they want to be, literally and metaphorically. Most of the people we work with are on the road towards becoming guide dog owners. It's not always a straight and easy road by any means, but we're with them every step of the way, and once they have a dog we make a commitment to providing them with one for the rest of their lives. We don't call that sneaky, but maybe we are guilty of hiding our light under a bushel. Perhaps we need to explain to the great British public, on whose support we are dependent, just what a complex business it is, getting around out there if you can't see and that, as an organisation, we have to respond to this complexity with intelligent, responsible and integrated strategies. Then it would be clear that, yes, we do spend money on activities other than the breeding, training and care of dogs - because it would be a dereliction of our duty not to.