News

Intelligent Giving accuses nfpSynergy of 'sexing up' survey results 4

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 19 Nov 2008

Intelligent Giving's director has accused nfpSynergy of "sexing up" its research findings in a way that could damage public perceptions of the sector.

nfpSynergy's latest research results, released today, are headlined: ‘Public put off more by how a charity spends its money than how it raises it'.

Among the key findings highlighted in the press release are: ‘Top public charitable gripes: amount actually going to causes, and amount spent on admin', and ‘"Sector must reassure public that income reaches causes and that costs are relatively low and necessary," vies Saxton'.

‘Overspun nonsense'

But Adam Rothwell, director of donor information website Intelligent Giving, described the release as "another example of nfpSynergy's sexed-up, overspun nonsense that has the potential to mislead the public and damage the sector".

Rothwell told Charity News Alert: "They claim that people are more put off by how a charity spends its money than how it raises it, but they never actually asked that question.

"Instead they asked some kind of slightly related questions, such as ‘what do you think is particularly annoying - direct mail, administration costs, face-to-face etc'. But those questions don't tally up with the big screaming headline.

"They have no idea how concerned people really are, because these questions are all prompted."

Rothwell added that the press release ignored some other, truly informative findings in the study, such as that 45 per cent of people are put off or irritated by charities phoning them at home.

"I'm not saying their research is wrong, but I don't think they get to grips with the real issues in the way they present it," Rothwell said.

"The issues underlying most research are far too complex to be presented in the simplistic way that nfpSynergy often does."

‘Pot calling refrigerator black'

nfpSynergy's driver of ideas Joe Saxton (pictured) hit back by saying Intelligent Giving's criticism was a case of "the pot calling the refrigerator black".

"Look at their track record - it's based on minimum data and maximum subjectiveness," Saxton said.

"Our job is to take the data we collect and draw interpretations from it. The conclusion we have drawn in this case is very reasonable - the top two things that people were concerned about were not, in fact, to do with fundraising, as the media seems to obsess about, but rather how charities spend money.

"How charities raise their money is an issue too, but this research shows that they are more worried about how it is spent."

The research was carried out as part of Charity Awareness Monitor, nfpSynergy's ongoing survey of a representative sample of more than 1,000 people aged 16 and over.

Tweet

Directory: Intelligent Giving | nfpSynergy
Who's Who: Tania Mason