A benchmarking survey conducted by a digital marketing firm has found the example statement provided by the NCVO working group led to ‘below average’ levels of donors opting in to receive charity communications.
In its benchmark survey, published as part of a wider guidance on consent, digital insight organisation fast.Map interviewed 749 “UK adults online in October” in order to ascertain how they felt about the example statement on consent issued by NCVO as part of the wider report its working group on opt-in fundraising published in late September.
The aggregate survey responses were assigned an index score of 71, with the index average being 100. According to its final findings, fast.Map’s research showed that the “NCVO example statement is likely to generate consent levels that are below average for a statement of this nature (i.e. opt-in)”.
According to the data, respondents found some of the wording of the example statement “confusing and disturbing”, and said it was packed with fundraising jargon – highlighting phrases such as ‘profiling’, ‘targeting’ and ‘authorised agents’.
Survey respondents were also critical of the example statement for using “generic, dry and uninspiring”. The survey found that while “technically, many donor’s concerns have been expressed, respondents are not reassured”, and while “words are used to explain and reassure, it is likely that the choice of technical language is putting them [donors] off”.
The research also showed that respondents remained “unsure regarding future contact” in the statement wording. Fast.Map were critical of the fact that NCVO’s statement did not explicitly refer to how often people are likely to be contacted in the future.
Charities will use example because it's 'easiest option'
Alongside the statement in the working group’s report, the guidelines state clearly that “examples are illustrative only, and should not be used as templates – it is for each charity to communicate in a way that reflects its values and its relationships with its donors”.
However David Cole, managing director of fast.Map, said that he was concerned that many charities would simply use NCVO’s example statement as a pro forma consent letter and that public trust and confidence in fundraising would be further damaged as a result.
Speaking to Civil Society News, Cole said: “I applaud attempts to articulate standards in a complex area, but I am deeply worried charities, large and small, will run with a standardised set of words simply because it’s the easiest option.
“The use of generic uninspiring language is a turn-off to donors and will not achieve the outcome charities want; namely consenting donors that are motivated to support. There are emerging leaders in this field that are embracing the marketing of consent.”
He said however that he intended for the survey to be “constructive rather than destructive”.
A guide to creating charity permission statements - the guide in which the benchmark survey is published – also features forewords by both Daniel Fluskey, head of policy and research at the Institute of Fundraising, and Gerald Oppenheim, interim head of policy and communications at the Fundraising Regulator.
NCVO response
A spokesman from NCVO said: "As we made clear in the guidance, the examples are for illustrative purposes and shouldn’t be used as templates. Their purpose is to show what elements a consent statement should include, not precisely how to word them.
"We said that each charity should implement them in a way that reflects their audience. We knew that fundraisers would be the experts at finding ways to provide the clarity that the best practice guidelines recommend in the most effective way for their donors.
‘While we clearly hadn’t intended the sample statement be used as a straw man in this way, we’re glad it’s helping to further the debate about securing informed consent. It’s crucial for the long term of fundraising that we maintain the public’s trust in how charities use their data."
Related Articles
