The charity and fundraising foughts of Ian Atkinson


Monday 22 February 2010

Puppy love



My phone rang, showing a number it didn’t know.

“I hear you’re interested in having one of our puppies,” said a female voice.

“Err… no,” I replied. “I don’t know anything about that. I think you must have the wrong number.”

“Well, this is the number I’ve been given,” she replied in uppity tones.

It was difficult to know what to say.

I got the feeling she was expecting me to answer, “Oh, in that case I’d better take the dog then.”

And I was left feeling rather discombobulated for the rest of the day.

Because her ‘stop wasting my time you silly little man’ tone was rather at odds with the content of our conversation.

I’ve started getting a few fundraising communications like that.

Where the tone is at odds with the message. From some little-known American charities that seem to have been targeting innocent old Blighty recently.

The content is that of... well, a good cause.

But the tone, oh my life. The most awful, exploitative stuff you’ll ever come across: copy that gives emotional blackmail a bad name.

Allied to stacks of tacky incentives (badly illustrated greetings cards, key rings, blankets, umbrellas etc) which are positioned almost as goods you need to pay for.

But the worst thing about some of these ‘charities’ is how much money they spend on admin charges.

In the UK, reputable charities typically spend less than 15% on admin charges – a very modest amount.

Yet the worst I’ve heard of from these unknown, underhand US mass-mailers was a charity from Tennessee called ‘Youth Development Fund’. Where apparently – wait for it – 91% of all money raised went on ‘fundraising and administrative expenses’.

And that’s more shocking than anything they write in any of their appeals.

PS If you're interested in adopting a puppy (not in any way house-trained), let me know.

No comments:

Post a Comment