I don't like the secrecy, but some people complain when charities spend money raising money, and other cmplain when they decide to stop doing something unprofitable.  The only solution is by telling people what you're doing and why...  (and hoping they listen)

I can't say I'm surprised by these howlers myself-Action For Children is closing down ALL retail outlets(and for some reason best known to themselves are trying their hardest not to reveal this fact to anyone) the official website doe'snt mention it,and when the Barrow shop tried to mention what's going on the Head Office merely said that the retail outlets are'nt making enough money(perhaps this is where the money for the rebrand is coming from?) you can substantiate my comments(but you'll have to talk to a volunteer or retail staff member) as the people at Highbury are suspiciously reluctant to discuss the incident,much less support the people who are affected by the decision..

Simon K, you're right, I hadn't read the Sun for a while (1989 as it happens). Stung by your comments I thought I should check how things are these days and now realise that I must apologise to any Sun-readers for comparing the quality of the output of this blog with the quality of their daily read - if you look hard the Sun clearly has some quality commentary in its' pages (although, having taken a look purely for research purposes, I won't be heading there again).

If you think that that was "Sun-like" then I think it's been a while since you read the Sun! Anyone who follows this blog knows that I'm no uncritical supporter of Adam's views, but on this occasion he's got it spot on. There's a fundamental mismatch between how Action for Children say they are going to communicate and how their chief exec actually does so, and that's a big problem.

... and others I suspect. When your well-constructed response to such a low quality piece of 'journalism'(?) gets the response of "Ooo err" followed by more 'Sun-like' diatribe, then surely you know that whatever hopes there may have been all those months ago for a genuine forum for quality debate have sadly passed us by...

Charity Chris: I am really sorry you think my argument here is ill-conceived. However, I think you've misunderstood what I'm trying to say. I think government funders deserve just as much transparency as individual donors. I think all charities should be accountable to their paymasters - whether they be corporate or personal in nature. Likewise, I probably agree with most of Tickell's analysis in her article. Concerning the urgency of constructing positive relationships with government funders, I think she's spot on.

But this is all irrelevant to my point. Most of my argument in this blog has nothing to do with whether Tickell's views are right or wrong. It concerns whether Tickell's views line up with the 'values' espoused in the Brand Guidelines. To my mind, she shows an abject lack of engagement with the exercise she spent a whole load of money - I guess - overseeing. This strikes me as a tremendous waste of resources, and demonstrates that the re-brand simply did not work.

Re your assertion that the blog entry is factually incorrect, since Tickell's article does mention children: I argue again that you've missed the point. I didn't say that Tickell never mentions children. I said that the article provides no real evidence of Tickell placing children at the centre of the charity's work. I stand by this.

Finally, you ask who I think charities should place as their primary stakeholders: donors or beneficiaries. I have no hesitation in saying that all charities must place beneficiaries at the centre of all their work, all the time, and that they must never, ever forget this.

Treating donors well is important. But serving beneficaries' needs is what charities are for. Where I do disagree with Tickell's argument is on these grounds: a charity which says donors are "paramount" smells to me like a charity which has lost its way.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Defined as : "the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect".

Adam, are you touting for a job as a tabloid journalist? This article is a masterpiece of a number of the classics of the genre.

 I'm struggling to see, other than not owning up to the costs of the rebrand, what they have done wrong. If a Chief Executive feels that understanding their operating environment and trying to play their part in responding to and shaping that environment is crucial to a charity's survival, then whether they are right or wrong in making that call, they would be negligent if they didn't take a proactive approach. The survival bit, by the way, isn't linked to the section about ensuring that the charity engages with its funders.

I'm also intrigued as to why, when a charity generates income from government, it has 'paymasters' whereas if it fundraises from the public, it has 'donors', and I would also be interested in your explanation as to why you think public donors are somehow more deserving of transparency and engagement from a charity than government funders. 

It is a personal view, and whilst their are challenges to charities' independence in engaging with the public sector, there are immense benefits potentially available to the most important people in the debate; the beneficiaries. Government using the experience and knowledge of charities to reach vulnerable people in society I feel is potentially an extremely positive thing, rather than decrying that making the public sector 'paymasters'.

You say that this is an 'astonishing' admission, but I put the question to you: if a charity said that 'our third theme concerns our donors: I've already implied that they are of paramount importance to us', what would your response to that be? You will not that I have simply replaced 'statutory partners' with 'donors'.

As the article states 'A second major theme concerns our beneficiaries directly', then your statement that the article doesn't refer to children is factually incorrect; not the first time in recent weeks that IG have been guilty of this.

I used to see IG as a potential force for positive change in the sector, but I fear that idea is over. The most important thing about what charities do is how they impact their beneficiaries. Yes, they have to be good in other areas as well, including their PR, but PR does not come before effectiveness and the difference that they make with their charitable work.

 Why bother writing considered, well-researched, intelligent articles, when you can simply write this reactionary trash?

I make you right on that. I had a horrible feeling that his post was going to be one of those tiresome branding = evil corporate waste type arguments. Those who think like that are usually completely ignorant of the operational realties of a modern charity and lost in a make believe, romantic world where everything always turns out fine just so long as you're a nice person.

However I wholeheartedly share your misgivings about Claire Tickell's article. It's not as if she was doorstepped by a journalist and forced to think on her feet...... She had time to cobble this stuff together! Oh dear.

Don't shoot the messenger