Beware the fervour of your devoted fans

Beware the fervour of your devoted fans

Beware the fervour of your devoted fans

Fundraising | Celina Ribeiro | 30 Sep 2009

You can never trust a mob to be consistent.

Vegemite, the thick, black Australian spread as salty as it is iconic, asked its most devout supporters for their help in creating a name for a new product. In a display of typical Antipodean ingenuity, the new snack combines the traditional yeast-spread and cream cheese in the one jar – thus relieving the consumer of the arduous task of first spreading cream cheese and then spreading Vegemite on a piece of toast. And you thought Australians could only invent cochlear ear implants.

Such is the devotion to Vegemite, more than 48,000 people submitted entries.

The result of this collective creative effort: iSnack2.0. Ta da.

The bombing of the name has now been well-documented in the international press. Newspaper articles, TV news stories, talk back radio, blogs, forums, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube all bemoaned the (admittedly horrific) iSnack2.0. So spectacularly bad was the choice that Vegemite has today announced it will scrap iSnack -  but not before selling the half a million jars already in production.

Charities are forever banging on about engaging their supporters more intensely in the organisation, but what if the genius of crowds turns out to not to be so much genius as much as a father of two from Western Australia with slightly too much time on his hands?

Vegemite has brought upon itself mass mockery and outrage, but I expect it will take the taunts in its stride as it tallies up the value of the global publicity it has received as a result of the blunder.

But while a company can afford this kind of passionate outrage at a product, charities do not have the luxury of being able to incite horror at anything other than the raison d’etre.

When it comes to supporter engagement, it could well be a case of icon be ware.

John B.
9 Oct 2009

Hi Celina

Long time reader, first time contributor... Kraft's problem was not with the consumers of their product, it was solely within their own marketing department. Over 48,000 people suggested a name which is a great result. Of course many of those would be lame, some cliched, some obscene and hopefully a couple would be brilliant. But out of all those suggestions, it was Kraft that picked the lamest of the lame and therein the responsibility lies. Not with the consumers, but with Kraft who could have picked any of the other 47,999.

What does this mean for us? It means you should engage involve donors in meaningful interaction with your organisation. You'll probably get some great ideas as well as rubbish. But remember, you might 'outsource' idea generation, but you can never outsource responsibility for the outcome.


Michelle Kurly
8 Oct 2009

I have to say, there is an issue here. Aren't we supposed to be STEWARDING our supporters? Doesn't that mean that sometimes you listen and sometimes you don't. The point is really, that your supporters aren't always right.

What if they want you to send them tons of paper contrary to your environmental obligations. You have to involve and pay attention to them, but don't let them dictate your brand's future.

5 Oct 2009

There is a huge amount of creative energy and enthusiasm in the ranks of any charities supporters. Many of them have been around around longer than the staff members and have greater knowledge of what works and hasn't worked. Foolish is the professional who underestimates volunteers, without whom of course the charity probably wouldn't exist. Involving supporters and transparency is essential to the life-blood of any charity, please don't try to suggest otherwise. What was good in the Vegemite example was an attempt at partnership, what it lacked was someone bold enough in the organisation to say that it wasn't going to work.

Conor Byrne
1 Oct 2009

Yes its an awful name...and deserves the backlash. But I don't think your "what if" argument may put charities off trying something that could just work for them.


[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The 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


  • 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.

Talking to donors: how often is too often?

2 Jul 2015

Plans to limit the number of communications from charities to donors won't work, says Richard Hill, founder...

Responsibility for good practice lies with trustees, not with fundraising professionals

30 Jun 2015

Isn't it the role of trustees to be the guardian of values, asks Rodney Buse, chair of the commission...

The long and unhappy saga of the Local Sustainability Fund

29 Jun 2015

Last week the government announced a £20m pot of funding for charities. This sounds like good news, says...

The long and unhappy saga of the Local Sustainability Fund

29 Jun 2015

Last week the government announced a £20m pot of funding for charities. This sounds like good news, says...

Government can't ask charities to compete for contracts while savaging council spending

15 Jun 2015

The government cannot tell charities they must compete for contracts in a market while slashing the spending...

'Northern Powerhouse'? Almost as clearly defined as the big society

4 Jun 2015

Ian Allsop talks tomatoes and why charities should look north for income growth opportunities under the...

Subscribe to Fundraising magazine

Join the discussion

Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn