Celina Ribeiro reflects on 2013 and its implications for fundraisers.
2013. What a year for brand charity. Let’s hope that 2014 brings better news stories.
Sitting at my desk on a mild and grey morning, it’s hard not to reflect on the year that has been for fundraisers.
In many respects, 2013 was a good year. The grins on Westminster’s front bench could only mean one thing. No triple dip recession. Growth! Hark the herald, there was growth. Euro crises were remarkably absent, confidence felt higher, and for many fundraisers, 2013 was just that little bit less difficult than the few years before.
But it’s not all been bunting and tea cakes. Because overshadowing all that big picture stuff is the fact that ‘brand charity’ took a hit last year. Publications from the Daily Mail to the Financial Times ran pieces decrying the lack of scruples in the charity sector which, on occasion, pays high salaries to top staff. Tory MPs in particular took to the floor and Daily Telegraph with regular zeal to bemoan everything from government contracts to direct mail. Even the sacred cow Comic Relief fell in the firing line of BBC’s Panorama, which took offence at the charity’s investment portfolio which included investments, via pooled funds, in some less than salubrious companies.
It was not a great year for brand charity.
A lot of this coverage and comment was driven by political motivations and could not be stopped even if charities tried.
But there’s more charities could and should do in future to counter these attacks. Yes, it is a valid and reasonable argument that CEOs must be paid a competitive wage in a high-executive-wage economy. It’s perfectly reasonable for charities to engage firms to invest their endowments. But these are not arguments that win public hearts and minds.
What has been largely absent from the charity end of this debate has been the most important thing. Impact. Impact as a word already feels a bit old school and cringey. A bit like something forced upon charities by donors. But impact is the charity world’s USP. Charities need to address criticisms head on, but need to change the parameters of the debate: Impact first, cost second. To the question of ‘how much does it cost?’, charities need to start making the riposte ‘do you want to scrimp on changing the world?’. And then, they need to change it. And show it.
