TV advertising for charities

AngieJ01

That's interesting, thank you. I didn't realise it generated that much.

My son works for a charity and he said they don't use chuggers as it's not cost effective. Apparently quite a few people sign up and then cancel shortly afterwards.

Probably because the chuggers are really aggressive.

Are raffles for charity unethical? I think so as it encourages the idea of giving to hopefully receive more.

Yes, I feel the same as you Angie. I don't understand the Marie Curie advert where people win cars and look pleased with themselves, surely everything should go to the cause.

BlueBelle

What does annoy me more than the adverts themselves is the suggested donation you ‘should’ be giving.
£19.99 will get blah blah blah I know it adds or what you can afford in ‘small letters’ but the expectation really annoys me and makes me feel that they wouldn’t be happy with my £5 gift

I strongly believe that when charities started asking for specific amounts it did more harm than good.

That's interesting, thank you. I didn't realise it generated that much.

My son works for a charity and he said they don't use chuggers as it's not cost effective. Apparently quite a few people sign up and then cancel shortly afterwards.

Charleygirl5

I volunteer for one charity because I have the specific disease they aere researching. Most of us are retired and I fell asking specifically for £120 is a tad OTT when there is no mention of what it is used for. I am sure a lot goes on salaries and the remainder on research.

How then do you quantify the salary of the person who designs the research programme, of the person who carries out the research and of the person who analyses the research?

The new idea is to ask for a donation as you pay for something at a till or self service checkout.

I'm not sure about this as it makes people feel awkward if they don't donate.

I volunteer for one charity because I have the specific disease they aere researching. Most of us are retired and I fell asking specifically for £120 is a tad OTT when there is no mention of what it is used for. I am sure a lot goes on salaries and the remainder on research.

I agree with BlueBelle and dislike the suggestion of an amount to give. I like to give a little to several charities regularly and so tend to support the Red Cross as their “ minimum” donation is £5 . A larger amount suggested really puts me off.

BlueBelle

What does annoy me more than the adverts themselves is the suggested donation you ‘should’ be giving.
£19.99 will get blah blah blah I know it adds or what you can afford in ‘small letters’ but the expectation really annoys me and makes me feel that they wouldn’t be happy with my £5 gift

I do understand what you're saying BlueBelle - and that's a slightly tricky one. A lot of donors do like to know what their money is funding - giving a certain figure is a sort of tangible worth for a donor to consider.

At this time of year many large charity websites will list what your money will fund -

£5 will pay for xx
£10 will pay for xxx

etc.

Donations tend to increase if you can show what people are getting for their money.

But charities who advertise in this way are not silly - if they pitch that, for example, £23.45 will pay for xxxx - then donors who had intended to give £20 are frequently then motivated to give £25.

I don't really mind money being spent on TV adverts. I'd like to know how many people then go on to donate regularly and how long they keep doing so.

I had more of a problem with those charity fundraisers on the street. Sometimes I was approached several times while out shopping. Once I'd only just said no when the next one came along.

What does annoy me more than the adverts themselves is the suggested donation you ‘should’ be giving.
£19.99 will get blah blah blah I know it adds or what you can afford in ‘small letters’ but the expectation really annoys me and makes me feel that they wouldn’t be happy with my £5 gift

We rarely see "chuggers" on the streets now. It was quite an experimental project to test the outcome of stopping people in the street, or on their way out of shops and persuading them to sign up to regular giving.

It was arguably poorly thought through. It mostly used students who received minimal training and were incentivised via bonus payments for the number of people they signed up - leading to pressurised selling techniques. There was little thought given to where and when the chuggers operated so you could be stopped multiple times on one shopping trip.

It was not only unpopular with the public, including of course, donors, but the cancellation rate after someone had signed up was quite high. Some research showed that it had actively put some people off donating to a particular cause.

The cost of running chugging campaigns together with the high cancellation rates made it non viable and it all eventually pretty much fizzled out.

ferry23 says it far better.
It always seems ‘wasteful’ to me but it’s obviously a money spinner, or they wouldn’t do it.

I worked in the voluntary sector for over 20 years and sat on a few Boards of Trustees.

Most charities work on a cost/benefit ratio of about 10%. So if a TV campaign costs say £60k, they will expect to raise £600k.

The management and the Governors/Trustees of large charities will be made up of highly professional, experienced and skilled people. If they hadn't thoroughly researched their methods or weren't confident in their cost/benefit ratio they wouldn't do it.

It's similar to the old chestnut of people being outraged because the management of charities are paid a market salary. Running a big charity is no different to running a big private company.

Remember the old saying - pay peanuts, get monkeys.

How else would we know about them?

I do agree with you Angie though the idea is that it raises more money than it costs. I don’t think I would have given a regular monthly donation to Water Aid unless I had seen the TV advertisement.