Rumours

I get bemused when I see this quote on the internet by Abraham Lincoln -it has also been attributed to  Albert Einstein regarding aspects of social media or the net. They were visionary men but not that visionary! Humans are good at spreading rumours and misinformation - the net allows us to do it faster.

I got a lot of shtick last week for a blog article of mine that was discussed at a meeting. People were very angry about some of my comments suggesting that volunteer centres should be de funded or something similar.

I was somewhat perplexed because I have never actually said this. In fact, blog readers will know I advocate for the opposite. For example:

• Bluntly, I am not a big fan of the strategy. One of the reasons, I flagged in my comments on the strategy, was that I had real concerns at the lack of volunteer centre support"21 March 2012 

• The Australian government needs to better resource volunteerism infrastructure. This includes money for Volunteer Centres across all tiers on a contract basis of 3 years or more. This would mean that centres are not scrounging for resources. The amounts of money being played with for the sector are nonsensical when we consider its supposed size and scope.  If we say its economic impact is as large as the construction centre, should it not be funded better? 21 March 2012 

• This is becoming   recurrent theme of mine. How about  decent funding for volunteering peak bodies and resource centres 22 Jan, 2012

• Theres still not enough money to support volunteering infrastructure - or volunteer centres 22 Feb, 2012

What has annoyed me is that no one can find the offending article but everyone was upset by it. If anyone can find it for me,I would be grateful.

It is actually very easy to verify the authenticity of something on the internet. It is called Google. Type in phrase and search. Fakes can be uncovered and real opinions checked on. You can even search through my blog!

Finally, this blog has the option for comments. The idea is that I leave room for discussion and dialogue. If you are unhappy with a post or if you like it, please respond to it. I even let you make comments anonymously! I, of course, exercise the right to remove offensive comments. I will advise when I remove those comments.

So guys next time you are upset by something someone is purported to have said:
1. Check the authenticity -Google it
2. Check the context  -what were the comments/posts before this post? Is the quote in full or has only part of it been used?
3. Check the credibility - is the organisation/person that is passing on the "rumour" reliable?
4. Check the track record of the writer -what else have they said on this issue?

Thanks

Friday Facts: Aussies and Charities

A brilliant report came out last week from Millward Brown, a research company who specialise in research about advertising, marketing and brands. Australian Charity Perceptions Report 2012 gives not only some very solid information but also demonstrates that fund raising in the Australian market is different to other markets.

Too Many Charities
There are approximately 200 000 charities registered on the Australian tax system. Of those about 25 000 have DGR status which means they can collect tax deductible donations. Of those, Millward Brown found that Australians remember Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of Australians are loyal to a select few charities. People over 50 are liable to be much more loyal to a small number of charities. A very important finding is that only 13 percent of Australians do not think there are too many charities. 57 percent think there are too many and 30 percent neutral. In the state of NSW 66 percent think there are too many.

What do Aussies want to donate for?
The  most important types of charities for Australians were:

• Disaster relief 64%
• Health 61%
• Poverty prevention/relief 52%
• Human rights 37%
• Animal welfare 37%

Which Charities are the best known?
Who has the pubic consciousness? Unaided, the first charity mentioned by the sample was The Salvation Army (19 per cent). Fully half the people talked about the Sallies. Red Cross came next (41percent mentioned- 17 percent first charity mentioned). St Vincent de Paul came next but only had six percent of first mentions (28 percent of respondents talked about them).  In order the most commonly mentioned charities were:

Fred Hollows (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

1. Salvation Army                                                                                                                              
2. Red Cross
3. Saint Vincent de Paul                                                                                                                         
4. RSPCA                                                                                                                        
5. Cancer Council                                                                                                 
6. Heart Foundation                                                                                                             
7. Oxfam                                                                                                                        
8. Smith Family                                                                                                                 
9. Guide Dogs Australia                                                                                                               
10. Unicef                                                                                                                       
11. WWF                                                                                                                          
12. Fred Hollow Foundation                                                                                                           
13. World Vision                                                                                                                 
14. Greenpeace                              

Of those charities, The Salvation Army Red Cross and Cancer Council were the most trusted which suggests Red Cross (who I volunteer for) have shaken off the bad publicity from misleading communications after the Bali Bombings.

With the exception of Fred Hollows, Greenpeace and Oxfam Australia, the above charities are very old long standing institutions. I was interested Reach Foundation, Starlight, Alannah & Madeline Foundation (who sacked one of their patrons Grant Hackett in May), Cystic Fibrosis (65 Roses), White Ribbon who have some fairly high profile events didn't appear at all. 

Don't ask us to give

Another key learning is that only 15 percent of Australians are okay with being asked for donations. 60 percent are tired of being asked for donations - almost a quarter are sick of being asked. This has some important consequences for the next few months and years. For me, there seems to be a key Australian psych that occurs in day to day life. Many of us are happy to help people (family, friends, strangers) but Aussies hate whingers/complainers. Don't ask for help and don't keep on asking. Charities need to remember this. 

Charity Efficiencies

While only 56 per cent believed charities should be run like a business,  87 percent of people want to know more about how their money is being spent.

Ways of Support
While 61per cent of people were interested in donating, 31per cent were interested in volunteering. Fully half of people would buy charity merchandise and almost half would buy a product where money went to the charity as a donation. (Take note charities). I would be interested in the overlap eg how many people would both volunteer and donate.  How man would buy merchandise instead of volunteering.

Celebrities, life and Charities

When I worked at UNICEF, there was a real warmth and affection from donors and supporters for Audery Hepburn which I have never seen at any other charity since.  I did not see any other UNICEF celebrity have the same kudos as Hepburn.

I was fascinated to read The UK Public Opinion Monitor (UK-POM) 12th survey of the UK Public Opinion Monitor undertaken  in April 2012 with  2,842  valid responses on famous people, celebrities and their work in the public domain.


The work was undertaken by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Sussex in the UK and
the University of Guelph in Canada.  The panel was broadly representative of the UK population, with sample weights  used to correct for any remaining instances of over or under-representation.

It seems, having a celebrity promote your cause or charity may not be of benefit in the UK. In a comprehensive analysis of the impact of celebrities om UK life, 83 per cent of respondents look at news about celebrities.

Yet, around 50 per cent of respondents indicated that they take no notice of a charity's message when a celebrity is involved.
14 per cent indicated, more extremely, that they are put off the message.
Conversely, 33 per cent indicated that they become more aware of the problem and/or charity or organisation when it is promoted by a celebrity.

In most cases, people could not identify which charities had celebrities.

I would be fascinated to see if the results are different for a more celebrity obsessed country like the USA or Australia.

The question for charities needs to be does the celebrity's involvement give us any more money? any more volunteers? If there are any costs involved (for travel etc, most celebs give their time pro bono), is the return worth it.