I'm not so sure ads need to shock. They need to get attention, that I will agree with. Shock does generate attention - but so do other things.

Think of some of the memorable tv or poster adverts over the past decades. Ones that caught your attention.
Not all shocked.

Humour, visual effect, bold wording, even controversy gets attention.
Think of newspaper headlines, not all of them shock.

Its good to show something thats not ordinary. Until such time as ordinary becomes attention getting in itself for its novelty.

Even with these blogs, Adam tends to get attention to posts without using shock. Controversy, even humour - but can't recall any time he's used shock to get my attention.

Martin

A lot of ads need to shock audiences to get their points across. Viewers often times are numb to notice ordinary advertisements but have cat quick reflexes when it comes to noticing those out of the ordinary.

So Adam
you are responsible for this then are you;
http://www.intelligentgiving.com/about_us/how_to_help_us/support_intelli...

Bet when you wrote those little examples of what a donation could do there wasn't a dry eye in the house. I was moved at the thought that just £30 could pay for a blog entry. But what really pushed me to donate was the excitement of paying for a lead researcher - and such a snip!

Seriously though I wish you the best with it but hope that it does prove this is a tough business. It is extremely difficult to please everyone all of the time, but to cast such condemnation over something that by all accounts is as good as this sector is likely to produce really does serve no purpose other than to inflame the people who work hard to grow their cause. Save it for when it is really deserved; if its a quiet week in the third sector, leave things be and think of some more examples for your donations page...

Catman: I meant, of course, that I have had no financial transactions with the NSPCC for some years. But I have, of course, kept an eye on their fundraising materials, especially their ads. And I've taken a close interest in their conception of impact reporting. Hope that makes things clearer.

And didn't you find my posts about the Freemasons and about hospital charities (for example) constructive? I'll be sad if not.

Finally, I work as a fundraiser right now. Sort of. A big part of my job is raising sufficient cash so IG can keep going and expand. From that experience, I know how extremely tough fundraising can be. But I - of course - accept I can always learn more!

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Hey Adam,

I think that you should take  a career break from your role at IG and spend a year working as a fundraiser. Maybe then you would stop trotting out this garbage.

You say that the NSPCC have a poor record of communicating with their donors and you then admit you have had nothing to do with them since you were in short trousers (and a snazzy blazer and cap I imagine). Can you not see how blatantly foolish, arrogant and misinformed you sound?

Still waiting for that constructive post you promised. Tick tock....

catman 

Mikemuses: I should clarify what I mean about charities setting themselves lofty visions, like pledging to end cruelty to children. In itself, I don't think there's anything wrong with any charity aiming high. For instance, Cancer Research UK says it will "beat cancer." I don't think there's anything wrong with that, since it's entirely possible (so far as I know) that cancer will one day be beaten. However, I cannot think of any possible way in which cruelty to children could be eradicated. It's common sense, to me at least, to say that there will always be people who commit crimes such as abuse. And the NSPCC has never actually shown how it plans to stop all of them from commiting any crime. Why? Well, I think it's because it can't be done. And if a vision/mission can never be achieved, I don't think charities should pretend otherwise.

Linked to this is the issue surrounding communications. It's fascinating to hear your travails with trying to set up a direct debit to different charities, and pretty gobsmacking to find out that one organization even failed to process your bank details correctly. But my problem comes with the nature of the NSPCC's communications, rather than their effectiveness in retaining donors. The NSPCC has a poor record when it comes to measuring its impact and efficiency - and its comms (so far as I'm aware) rarely stray into the territory of demonstrating either of these things. And for such an influential charity, I think that's a shame.

ChrisA: Again, I find myself agreeing with you. Most people, as you say, give because they're asked, or because they feel guilty. But some people do take a more considered approach to giving - which is why lots of non-charity types come and look at our charity profiles. You're right to say that most discussion on this blog comes from within the sector, but that doesn't mean our only visitors are curious fundraisers.

On the NSPCC, I agree again that the nature of any TV ad is constrained. So my question then would be, Should the NSPCC be spending money on this sort of advertising? I've already said what I think the charity could do to communicate better, so perhaps it should just ditch the telly if the format doesn't fit? Most charities, after all - including those which raise more cash than the NSPCC - rarely, if ever, release TV spots.

Perhaps fundamentally, however, my point is this. You say that the ads will raise money, which means they're OK. I disagree. Charities, I think, should aim higher than that: they should show why they're needed, and give evidence of the impact they make. Because if they don't do those things, there's little to distinguish their marketing from that of any business. And when that happens, I think it's sad.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

"But all of this is to miss the point. The very problem with the ad is that it is 'perfect' from an ad-man's point of view. It sells the NSPCC as superficially as any other product - and that is precisely why it is a failure".

It's a short TV Adam - it can't get all your misgivings across in 30 seconds and fundraise as well otherwise it would be a long list of apologies to Adam for their past mistakes in comms planning. What else could it be or do other than try and be as 'perfect' as possible from a technical perspective? Maybe they should have developed a new departure that dismisses all the rules of good advertising, pleased you, and risked being accused of wasting donors money? There is often little room for anything other than the superficial in this form of advertising where reach and emotional pull has to come before most other factors. The Make it Stick book (can't remember the author) puts it most succinctly - "accessibility should come before accuracy" (in relation to getting the essence of what you need to get across in the space available).

the link sent through to the NSPCC on this thread demonstrates that they have listened to past errors by the look of it and they look to have developed a very open, easy to understand demonstration of the point of this campaign. Surely that is enough to satisfy your previous points?

Anyway Adam I suspect your prediction that it is a failure could well leave you with egg on your face over the course of the campaign. Hope you'll be equally energetic in declaring yourself wrong as you are in your opinions written here.

And going back to Intelligent Giving. Have a look at the research over the last twenty years; most giving is done when people are emotionally moved towards a cause - not presented with the facts. I.e. giving hasn't been and never will gravitate towards a rational or wholey intelligent decision-making process. It is an irrational decision. Further evidence of that is here on this site; the public don't seem all that interested in the notion hence why its only got industry bods from the charity sector disagreeing with most things you say.

The charity has achieved eradicating child abuse. Thousands of times.
Not eradicating it from the world. But eradicating it in each child helped - surely thats what matters for that child.

I know from my own past experiences that child abuse keeps happening. And I've met survivors of child abuse who have had it eradicated from their life thanks to charities getting involved. The NSPCC do some good work - which of course costs money.

DO the NSPCC have a bad record of communicating with their donors?  18 months ago, I tried an experiment, I tracked the ease (or difficulty) of setting up an online monthly gift to a handful of charities, to see what they did to look after me, and tell me how this money has helped.

One charity sent a slow formal letter - nothing in it to inspire me, almost only the legal requirement for Direct debits, and nothing else until Christmas, when they sent a christmas catalogue with no covering letter.

One charity sent me a good thank you letter a factsheet, and some relevant comms since, along with a host of appeals, and despite being told twice, they still have my name wrong.

The NSPCC sent me a very nice little pack, very relevant and appealing, not too high cost though. They also called me to find out more about me(and possibly to upgrade me), but after my phone died, they seemed to assume I didn't want much contact. I still get occasional updates, but they have the kind of content I'm looking for.

One charity failed to set up the direct debit.  Now of course, this is not representative - it's hardly scientific, but it's interesting, as from my experiences NSPCC are higher up the list of having a good record.

Now I quite like this ad - it's not perfect as a potential supporter, but it has something to it, here's the key point.  It's a fundraising ad, so as we don't work for the NSPCC and the ad is brand new, can we really tell how good it is?  RESULTS, that's how we'll know, so let's give it time, find out and then judge.

The child's voice appeal is focussing on the childline side of things, so it needs a different style to the previous messages - it has a different message.

Finally, if NSPCC will never eradicate child poverty, then should it stop now?  Should only charities that have a very strong chance of putting themselves out of business exist?  Charities tend to exist to put themselves out of business, but saying that the NSPCC's goals are too lofty or unattainable - can't we argue the aame about all charities? About IG?  Yuo'll never get everyone to think before they give. People will still give inefficiently, give to charities that are inefificient, and give to charities that aren't charities at all.

Perhaps you should also shut up shop now.

I agree with you on almost everything. I am sure, as you say, that the campaign will be a great success. I am convinced, as you argue, that the ad 'works' on many technical levels - e.g. that the voiceover comes in at the right time. And I agree that it is 'uncluttered.'

But all of this is to miss the point. The very problem with the ad is that it is 'perfect' from an ad-man's point of view. It sells the NSPCC as superficially as any other product - and that is precisely why it is a failure. 

Secondly, I should disclose my personal history with the NSPCC. When I was at primary school, I collected money for them on no-uniform days. I have had no further contact with them since. I just happen to think their comms/fundraising strategy has been up the spout for some considerable time - which is a big shame, since the NSPCC's fundraising techniques are highly influential in the fundraising world.

Finally, I disagree with you when you say that my problems with other aspects of the charity's comms strategy are nothing to do with my reaction to this ad. I would argue that the two are closely linked. As I mention in a previous comment, the NSPCC has a history of communicating poorly with its supporters. This is just another example of them doing the same. And the fact that the ad is technically 'perfect' - as you suggest - makes that all the more sad.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Adam,
You seem to be on a mission to post a string of articles on this website that do nothing to support the notion of intelligent giving in any way. By tabloiding the content of your articles so you sit back and count the responses, you damaging what little brand credibility this place has been able secure in the last few years and the irony of you commenting that the NSPCC aren't delivering according to their remit while you post this drivel under the name of Intelligent Giving is ludicrous. You've obviously got previous with the NSPCC - take them to task on those issues if they are of importance rather than trying to weave them into a completely separate point. If you are going to comment intelligently, try and give it prior thought and don't bias your judgement about the creative direction of an acquisition campaign around the NSPCC's communications with it current supporters or your 'decision' that child cruelty cannot be erradicated.

As an acquisition campaign this stands a good chance of success. It is modern in its style and approach - probably making it accesible to the wider charity giving public tired of the sectors approach in this and other media, it's engaging, the message is clear, it focuses on the benificiary and how the supporter can feel connected. It is uncluttered with the burden of giving too much detail, voice-over kicks in at about the right time for a part-DRTV/part-brand job, but the call-to-action means people will know where to look for the answers they might want. The fact you didn't get it the first time round is a very good thing in TV terms as you should know; this increases attention on subsequent viewings, provides talkability around it and allows it some longevity and finally it is broadly optimistic and doesn't use anticipatory guilt to the point where it turns people off but in an fairly appropriate dose.

Finally to say that the ad epitomises everything that is bad in charity advertising is utterly wrong. Beyond what I've said above surely the berating of their previous work by you in the first paragraph epitomised what you believe is wrong creatively. This being a departure makes them both terrible - but which works least for you? And there really are countless other campaigns far worse, particularly involving DM for instance in the last few years?

Good luck to them, this strikes me as another decent job to start their next campaign.

Adam - up your game or get someone else on the case to bring the standards up a notch.

Anon2 & SSE: I think you can boil my argument down to this. The NSPCC has a poor track-record when it comes to communicating openly with its supporters. Although it gets a good Quality of Reporting score from us, we don't think this reflects the true nature of its communications with donors (I must stress that these anomolies only arise occasionally!). In essence, the NSPCC rarely reveals how its measures its success, it habitually gives little clue whether supporters' cash is being well spent, and it tends to fundraise in a misleading way - for instance by saying that it would 'end child cruelty,' when there is simply no way it could ever do this.

This being the case, I found it particularly sad that this 'new departure' for the charity - in communications terms - perpetuated the errors the charity had made in the past: it's unclear what it will do with supporters' cash, and we're not given even the slightest clue that the problem even needs extra funding. Even the most bargain-basement charity ad will explain what the problem is that needs addressing. So why doesn't the NSPCC do this? To me, it looks arrogant - but, more importantly, it looks like another missed opportunity from one of the charity sector's biggest beasts.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

I haven't seen it yet (when will it be shown on DVD?) but to me it seems to have achieved a major marketing success.

It caught your attention.

If it sends you round the bend, you are at least remembering it.

Must keep an eye out for it - then I will decide to look at the webpage or not. :)

Martin

Surely, the point is in your last comment: the ad will rake in millions....and, frankly, I'm glad they've changed their approach (re. Full Stop campaign). If there was anything we didn't need to raise awareness of with a big campaign, it's child abuse, given its ubiquity in the tabloids.

And what could be a worse advert than one that tells you how it's going to measure success, or why funding is needed in this field? The equation has to be boiled down to something much simpler ina  mass medium: NSPCC listen to kids, NSPCC helps them, help us to help them.

When they give a pretty copious explanation of their aims & how donations will achieve them here:

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/childvoiceappeal/CVAhub_cvh60169.html

Spending the airtime going into this much detail would bore most potential donors and reduce income, so hitting benficiaries. Wouldn't it?

As a comparison, IG doesn't include all this information (indication of what donors’ cash will really be used for;explain how the charity will measure the success of its campaign; why there is a need for more funding in this field) on its homepage. But uou presumably try to make the homepage sufficiently attractive that users explore further.