Acevo seeks PR advice on defending charity practices6

Governance | Tania Mason | 14 Sep 2010

Acevo has secured pro bono advice from the world’s biggest PR agency to help the sector mount a robust defence against negative media coverage of issues like fundraising costs or CEOs’ salaries.

A representative from Ogilvy & Mather will help the ImpACT Coalition, now part of Acevo, devise guidance on strategies that charities can use to rebut stories like the recent BBC Newsnight investigation into remuneration of face-to-face fundraisers.

Acevo’s chief executive Stephen Bubb (pictured) said the fact that so many charities refused to appear on the programme to defend a key fundraising mechanism was highly worrying, and needed to be addressed.

Acevo and the ImpACT Coalition are planning to hold a meeting for members in late October or early November to progress work on formulating a ‘media response unit’ that will equip charities to better explain the realities of running a modern charity, and defend themselves against uninformed criticism.

“We have been talking to Ogilvy & Mather, the world’s biggest PR agency, about how to handle this,” said Bubb. “The global CEO is a mate of mine.”

He said the issue of defending charities’ practices was something that CEOs needed to be more closely involved in. He was encouraged by the response to the letter he sent to the top 50 fundraising charities after the Newsnight programme was aired, exhorting CEOs to take more responsibility for it.

“We have to get our act together on this because there are going to be more stories,” he said. “About things like spending x amount on admin costs or CEOs paid over £100,000. With all the political rhetoric about the growing role of charities, the press is going to be taking far more of an interest in what we do.

“The fact is that there is a very solid sensible defence to all these things, and just saying ‘bugger off, we’re not going to talk to you’ is not a good media strategy.”

Directory: Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO)
Who's Who: Sir Stephen Bubb

Place a comment

Peter Munro
Treasurer
Borders Family History Society
14 Sep 2010

I think it's distinctly odd talking about fundraising costs in the same article as CEO's salaries.

Clearly, charities need able people to lead and inspire, just as they need people to manage, motivate,and do other work - and people need to be paid appropriately.

It's important that the cost of raising funds is seen as an appropriate use of staff time and a reasonable cost, but that can't be done by hiding costs and methods under a blanket and producing an average for the charity as a whole.

Chugging may produce donations from new sources, but charities should be candid and explicit about the cost of chugging and the proportion of such donations taken by the chugging organisation/fundraiser.

Personally, I would like to see a statement on the direct debit form saying "I understand that the first £X of my donation each year will be paid by the charity to the chugging organisation".

[Reply]

Jonathan Evans
Individual Giving Manager
15 Sep 2010
Response to [Peter Munro]

> Personally, I would like to see a statement on the direct
> debit form saying "I understand that the first £X of my
> donation each year will be paid by the charity to the
> chugging organisation".

Except that's not true. The direct debit goes straight to the charity and is used as it thinks best. The charity will have paid the sign-up costs long before receipt of the first instalment. I understand what you're saying, but it's tantamount to arguing for a similar disclaimer to be applied to all forms of fundraising, e.g. "I understand that in making my direct mail gift of £20, the charity will pay this money to a private mailing house to cover charges totalling £12,000. Only after a sufficient number of people have donated to clear this debt will any money go towards the charity's work."

[Reply]

John R. Rankin
Caret Consulting
14 Sep 2010

Would not a pragmatic approach be to ascertain if there is any basis to the concerns noted by the press? If there is basis - are they isolated or sector wide? Or maybe it is just a matter of communication, but first let's determine that is the case. Only benefit can come from the charity sector taking a thorough and non-bias view of what always has been sensitive and at times non-mentionable topic - executive and fund raisers compensation.

[Reply]

Chester Mojay-Sinclare
CEO
AliveandGiving.com
14 Sep 2010

I think that it is clearly the case that the public simply needs to be properly informed. I can only hope that ACEVO is taking a long-term view on this issue, we need to be proactive in informing the public about the realities of running a charity; rather than trying to rebut stories once they have already surfaced. We have two options here, either we can properly inform the public about these issues and therefore ensure that reports such as the one featured on Newnight are no longer newsworthy or we can wait for yet another report to surface and loose thousands more potential donors to an abyss of mistrust. I will be campaigning for the former of these two approaches via my website and will be looking to enthuse generosity amongst the growing number of skeptical donors who are currently being undeserved.

[Reply]

Janice Peterson
14 Sep 2010

Have we not moved on from an era of Alastair Campbellesque media control to that of transparency? And should it not be our sector which upholds this ideal above all others?

In the issue of chugging people stand poles apart, and most likely always will - surely honesty on this point is the best policy, and perhaps greater control of the situation by ensuring that there are no troops of chuggers, only singles or pairs maximum.

[Reply]

Karen Drury
partner
fe3 consulting
14 Sep 2010

No, suggesting to the media that they take their story and shove it is not good media practice. But to bring in the spin doctors? Not sure - if it need professionals to defend the sector, then it looks like you HAVE something to hide. What's required, by the looks of it, is more understanding of the media among the third sector - not bringing in someone to provide a "buffer".

[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.