Terrence Higgins Trust merges fundraising and comms to “strengthen voice” 5

Fundraising | Celina Ribeiro | 10 May 2011

Terrence Higgins Trust has combined its fundraising and communications departments in an effort to strengthen its voice and boost its fundraising capacity.

The merge, which followed a four-week process, sees the former director of communications and health improvement Genevieve Edwards (pictured) take on the new executive director of communications, fundraising and health improvement role. The director of fundraising position has been lost as a result of the merge. The Trust told Civil Society that no other jobs have gone or been created as part of the restructure.

The sexual health and HIV charity is hoping that the restructure will improve its relationship with supporters and enable it to raise more funds.

Sir Nick Partridge, chief executive of Terrence Higgins Trust, said: “We’ve implemented this new structure to help generate vital funds and provide a strengthened voice for our beneficiaries.”

Edwards said that the new department will enable the charity to treat supporters more holistically. “We know that people who support THT may also use our services, become members or campaigners, or see our health promotion campaigns, so it’s important that messages from THT make sense, whichever team they come from.

“This will really strengthen our voice and help align our messages, and we’re already seeing the benefits in how we work. We have a strong brand, but in this economic climate we’re going to have to be crystal clear about why we need support.”

Fundraising and communications co-operation low across the sector

The news at Terrence Higgins Trust comes ahead of a report, due out in June, which finds that just 14 per cent of fundraising and communication professionals felt that their departments worked towards common goals.

The survey of more than 100 professionals by CharityComms and Forster found that communications rarely took fundraising into account when developing their messages. Only a quarter of respondents felt that the brand was flexible enough to support their charity’s fundraising.

Place a comment

Adam
13 May 2011

The figures get even more depressing as you get deeper into the report - get a preview of what you can expect from the full report here http://www.forster.co.uk/news.48.html

[Reply]

Vicky Browning
Director
CharityComms
11 May 2011

I echo Peter Storey's praise for THT's initiative in recognising that close co-operation between comms and fundraising will increase support for your organisation.
Another finding from our survey was that only 12% of respondents felt that their organisation's structure encouraged integration of the functions, with 56% saying the were only able to integrate in some areas and 23% admitting that comms and fundraising worked in silos. It takes recognition by senior management of the issue and the need to resolve it to effect change, either through restructuring or by developing strategies for joint working.
CharityComms is holding a workshop in May to discuss the findings of the survey and look at ways in which charities can bridge the gap between comms and fundraising to engage supporters and achieve organisational goals. We'll be releasing the full report then, which has some interesting - and sobering - insights into the clashes of culture between the functions.
BTW, for total accuracy, I should point out that the 14% figure referred to in the story here is those respondents who felt that fundraising and comms departments ALWAYS worked towards shared goals.

[Reply]

Mulenga Nkole
Director
Mission of Hope
10 May 2011

The revelation that only 14% of fund-raising professionals felt that their respective departments were interdependent on each other a situation that is very unfortunate and needs urgent redress if at all things are to improve in the way these charities not only source, but utilise the donations that the benefactors provide for the well-being of the underprivileged in society.
This is the reason why there are very few people and organizations funding the various activities being undertaken by them.
In Africa people are denied funding because they are considered to be advocating for the same projects though this is far from being true, most people don't really get the much need support as a result.
ZAMBIA-Central Africa.

[Reply]

Barry Gower
10 May 2011

I must admit to being more than a little concerned to read that "just 14 per cent of fundraising and communication professionals felt that their departments worked towards common goals". Somehow this does not strike me as being a very 'professional' way of operating, both by the departments concerned and by the management responsible for these departments.

At the end of the day it is only the objectives of the charity as a whole that are of any concern and if the charities' directors and trustees cannot achieve this then they should ask themsleves what they are doing there.

[Reply]

Peter Storey
Director of Marketing
Kidney Research UK
10 May 2011

How depressing that only 14% of fundraising and communications professionals thought they worked to common goals. I wonder if such an ineffective approach would be entertained between sales and PR in a major commercial brand? How often do we hear how Communications and Fundraising are not on the same hymn sheet, or Campaigns and Fundraising are talking to the same audiences about different things?. Well done to the Terence Higgin Trust for bringing the functions together, a move clearly led from the top. Leadership in Charities is key to avoiding this sort of internal conflict and resultant cost.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.