Description
Pick one of the articles included in the corresponding Module. The intention is to develop critical thinking by looking into the two sides of an issue in Non-Profit Marketing. So, you will have to search on your own for an additional source to cite, and in 200 words, no less, answer the following questions:What is (or are) the main message(s)? Be thorough and professional.How does he/she/they support his/her/their arguments?Pinpoint facts, stats, references, cite, if possibleWhat are the opposing views?Cite and analyzeWhat are your views on the matter?Balance the two positions.In your own words, discuss the applicability of the piece.I included the article in the corresponding Module. You can choose one from them.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 21: pp 57–70 (2016)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.1547
What are ‘unpopular causes’ and how can
they achieve fundraising success?
Alison Body* and Beth Breeze
Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent, UK
•
Recent efforts to grow and strengthen the culture of philanthropy in the UK have largely focused on
two dimensions: the total amount of money donated and the effectiveness of philanthropic spending.
This paper explores a third dimension: the destination and distribution of donations. A defining
characteristic of charitable giving is that it is voluntary rather than coerced, and the resulting respect for donor autonomy makes people wary of promoting one cause above another or implying
that any beneficiary group is more or less ‘worthy’ of support. However, the absence of much comment on, or significant research into, the destination of donations does not alter the fact that some
groups succeed in attracting significant philanthropic funds whilst others struggle to secure many—
or any—donations. This paper explores the concept of ‘unpopularity’ in the charity sector, especially
in relation to its impact on fundraising. We unpack what this loaded phrase means, identify good
practice by those seeking support and present case studies of charities that have overcome perceived
unpopularity to achieve success in raising voluntary income. We suggest that by investing
organisational resources and effort in fundraising, by framing the cause to maximise the arousal
of sympathy and minimise concerns about beneficiary culpability and by avoiding the unintended
negative consequences of self-labelling as ‘unpopular’ no charity need assume it is their destiny to
languish at the bottom of the fundraising league tables.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Feeling unpopular is not the preserve of the smallest
and most niche charities. In 2012 the UK’s Institute
of Fundraising held a session during their national
convention entitled ‘Fundraising for Unpopular
Causes’. Through the door came people working
*Correspondence to: Alison Body, Centre for Philanthropy,
University of Kent, UK.
E-mail: amb76@kent.ac.uk
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
in a surprising array of organisations, including Shelter and NSPCC, which are both large and successful
charities arguably leading their respective fields of
homelessness and children’s causes. Therefore popularity, or the lack of it, is to a large extent ‘in the eye
of the beholder’. It is a common complaint heard
from many charities that their cause is ‘neglected’,
‘a Cinderella cause’ and particularly difficult to
fundraise for. Given this widespread belief amongst
charities that not enough people care about their
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2016
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
beneficiaries or ‘get’ what they do, we suggest that
it is useful to try to understand why some causes appear to more easily attract widespread support
whilst others struggle to raise any significant donated income, in order to help all charities maximise their philanthropic reach.
To start, it is important to note that whilst Britain
is a generous country, that generosity is not equally
spread amongst all the tens of thousands of good
causes seeking donated income.1 Charitable giving
varies widely between both causes and individual
charities. For example, there is a disproportionate
representation of cancer charities, which constitute
nine of the top 100 most popular causes (Pharoah,
2011). And some causes do not feature at all in the
top 100—there is not a single charity supporting addiction issues, ex-offenders or refugees and asylum
seekers. Whilst data on private financial support
for different types of causes in the UK shows that
some cause areas dominate, further analysis shows
that not every charity working in the same area
achieves similar fundraising success. In March
2015 there were over 1000 registered charities in
England and Wales with the word ‘cancer’ in their
name but only nine amongst the 100 most successful fundraising charities, indicating that ‘cause area’
is not the sole relevant variable for attracting voluntary support. The freedom to donate to whichever
causes are deemed most worthy of support and
which best meet personal preferences, is an important factor in encouraging giving amongst donors
(Frumkin, 2006) and in the continuation of a liberal
society (Titmuss, 1970). Yet normative conceptions
of ‘worthiness’ and cultural factors aligning certain
causes with elite preferences, creates an ‘unequal
playing field’ for fund-seeking charities that fall—
or believe themselves to fall—outside the charmed
circle of causes that are popular with potential
donors.
1
As at March 2015, there are c.164 000 charities registered with
the Charity Commission for England and Wales, c.23 500 registered with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and up
to 12 000 charities in the process of being added to the new register in Northern Ireland.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Alison Body and Beth Breeze
This paper explores the assumption that being
viewed as ‘unpopular’ necessarily affects the philanthropic reach of charitable organisations and their
concomitant ability to maximise fundraised income.
Using fundraised income as a proxy for popularity of
the cause, it begins by reviewing what is known
about charitable decision-making and suggests three
theoretical approaches that help unpack the reality
and implications of the idea of popular/unpopular
causes. We then present original research into understanding what the term ‘unpopular’ means in
practice and discuss ten case studies that exemplify
good practice in fundraising by charities working in
cause areas that are perceived as particularly unattractive to private donors.
Research context
Philanthropic activity and charitable decisionmaking have received increasing attention over recent years. With a majority of the UK population
regularly donating to charity (NCVO & CAF, 2012)
there is a substantial amount of research exploring
why donors give, including altruism, religious belief,
various forms of self-interest, beliefs about social justice and conformity to social norms (as summarised
in Sargeant & Jay, 2014:70–75). However, within this
broad picture of a nation of givers, there exists
much internal variation. Demographic factors affect
both propensity to give and the size of donations
such that, for example, older people, especially
older women, are more likely to give (Carpenter,
Connolly & Myers, 2008) and to give larger amounts
(Smith, 2012). The multiple drivers of donors’
decisions are usefully explored by Bekkers and
Wiepking (2011) in their meta-review of over 500
studies of philanthropic activity, which identifies
eight core mechanisms: awareness of need, being
asked, the costs and benefits of giving, altruism, personal reputation, psychological benefits, personal
values and efficacy. Mohan and Bulloch (2012)
reveal a ‘geography of giving’ related to social and
economic variations; their study found that whilst
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2016
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
1479103x, 2016, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nvsm.1547 by Rutgers University Libraries, Wiley Online Library on [22/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
58
only 15% of the population engage in no philanthropic activity, the contribution of the other 85%
is unevenly distributed with around a third of the
population providing over 80% of donations and an
even smaller ‘civic core’ representing the 9% of the
population who are the most philanthropically active, accounting for 40% of charitable giving. These
individuals tend to be highly educated, likely to be
actively practicing religion, in professional and
managerial roles, middle aged, living in the least
deprived parts of the country and well settled in a
neighbourhood (ibid). Other studies show that the
type of donors is of less salience than ‘being asked’
which is described as the ‘iron law’ behind giving
(Andreoni 2006). The emphasis on demand over
supply is, confirmed by Wiepking and Maas (2009)
that being asked more often, rather than having
certain personal characteristics, is the leading
reason behind certain individuals donating more.
Feelings of financial security have also been found
to outweigh actual spending power as a driver of
giving (Wiepking & Breeze, 2012). The recent proliferation of research into why people give has helped
strengthen our collective understanding of participation in philanthropic behaviour but has left relatively untouched the question of how donors
choose what causes to support.
The few studies that attend to the question of
philanthropic distribution conclude that giving decisions is highly reliant on donor taste and preferences. Breeze (2013) identifies four non-needs
based factors: donor tastes, personal experiences,
perceptions of charities competence and desire for
personal impact. This accords with Payton and
Moody’s (2008) proposal that donors draw on their
‘philanthropic autobiographies’ to give to causes
they feel some connection to, or affinity with, as a
result of experiences and incidents that occur in
their personal and professional lives.
A further factor behind giving decisions is the
desire for donations to make an identifiable impact
that is not ‘drowned out’ by support from other
sources (Duncan, 2004). Donors are particularly
keen to avoid their donations becoming a substitute
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
59
for government spending (Breeze, 2012). Concerns
about ‘additionality’ are especially relevant in the
areas of spending on human welfare, as studies show
that very high proportions of the public believe that
meeting social need is primarily the job of government rather than philanthropy (Taylor-Gooby, 1993).
The research context establishes that philanthropic behaviour is complex and motivated by a
multiplicity of factors, and that donors choose
causes that resonate with their personal experiences
and values. Research also confirms that asking for donations is a critical factor in fundraising. However
there is a surprising lack of confidence amongst charities about asking people for donations (Thelkelsen,
2011). Charities often rely on their work to ‘speak
for itself’ rather than directly ‘making the ask’. As a
large proportion of charitable giving is limited to
the rather narrow social demographic of people
comprising the ‘civic core’, charities that resonate
most strongly with those people are most likely to
benefit from donations. Charities dealing with
causes outside of the social experiences of these
groups may therefore find it harder to attract funds.
Three theoretical approaches to
understanding ‘popularity’ of causes
To date the idea of ‘popular’ and ‘unpopular’ causes
has attracted little academic interest. However there
is a larger body of work exploring the organisational
behaviours of charities and their relationships with
donors. This section draws on that literature to present three theoretical approaches which may be
helpful in making sense of the meaning of popular
and unpopular causes: crowding out theory; the social construction of sympathy and labelling theory.
Crowding out theory
According to Payne (1998) ‘crowding out’ occurs
when new income from one source leads to a reduction in income from another source. Andreoni and
Payne suggest that another version of crowding out
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2016
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
1479103x, 2016, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nvsm.1547 by Rutgers University Libraries, Wiley Online Library on [22/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
What are ‘unpopular causes’ and how can they achieve fundraising success?
occurs within organisations when charities reduce
their own fundraising efforts as a result of new income success (2011); this presents a plausible hypothesis for why some causes may be more
‘popular’ (as measured by success in fundraising)
than others. It is possible that efforts to generate income from other sources such as different parts of
the state (whether local, central or European government) ‘crowd out’ efforts within the charity to
fundraise from private individuals and institutions.
Certain causes receive more statutory support than
others, for example charities providing services for
the rehabilitation of ex-offenders receive more taxfunded support than do charities rehoming dogs.
Therefore charities representing ex-offenders may focus their efforts on state funding opportunities rather
than on fundraising from private individuals and institutions. Meanwhile charities rehoming dogs, being
entirely reliant on voluntary income from private donors, focus a great deal of efforts on donor fundraising
activities. There are other possibilities to explain the
internal ‘crowding out effect’ including Weisbrod
(1988) suggestion that charities do not set out to maximise their income, but rather aim to raise enough
money to meet identified needs or to address a particular issue; once this target has been met they do not
continue fundraising efforts even if it were possible
to raise more money from other sources. The result
in this scenario is also a reduction in fundraising efforts as a result of securing ‘sufficient’ funds elsewhere. As the popularity of a cause is related to the
amount of voluntary income it attracts, the ‘crowding
out effect’ can create circumstances within which a
seemingly successful cause in terms of delivery and
income is perceived as unpopular with donors.
The social construction of sympathy
A second theoretical approach that is useful in understanding the topic in question draws on Clark’s
(1997) notion of the construction of sympathy, or
the ‘socioemotional economy’. This concept understands sympathy as something the donor subjectively and socially constructs based upon their own
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Alison Body and Beth Breeze
experiences and the social world they live in,
thereby suggesting that the popularity of any cause
is governed by the level of sympathy it can attract
at any given time. Although sympathy may be considered a natural, reflexive reaction, people are not
born knowing how and when to distribute it appropriately. Individuals use external guides to modify
their thoughts and behaviours by learning elaborate
rules for the expression of sympathy that are considered appropriate to the time and social context. Donations to charity can therefore be understood in
terms of distribution of sympathy through economic
resources, though how the perception of ‘neediness’
is translated by donors into giving decisions is not a
simple process (Flores, 2013). The social construction of sympathy suggests that individuals and social
groups will, for the most part, only readily give sympathy under certain conditions which can be
governed by external factors such as the time, context and social situation within which the ‘need’
arises. In past centuries, popular objects of sympathy
and charity in the UK included helping poor maids to
marry, institutionalising ‘fallen women’, rescuing
captives from pirates and paying off the debts of
imprisoned debtors, none of which attract significant support from 21st century donors. Understanding the changing and socially constructed nature of
sympathy is useful in explaining how donor choice
relates to social norms regarding ‘deserving’ and
‘underserving’ beneficiaries in any particular time
and place. For example the recent rise in negative
media attention concerning asylum seekers and immigrants (Thomas, 2012) may make it more challenging for charities seeking donations for this cause to
fundraise. This leads us to question whether the concept of popular and unpopular causes really exists
beyond that of the individual donors’ sympathetic
preferences and the context at any given time.
Labelling theory
A third useful theoretical approach highlights the
consequences of charities describing their own
organisation or cause area as ‘unpopular’. Labelling
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2016
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
1479103x, 2016, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nvsm.1547 by Rutgers University Libraries, Wiley Online Library on [22/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
60
theory, first explicated by Becker (1963), argues that
labels are the creation of observers rather than a reflection of innate characteristics. The social force of
being labelled (whether negatively or positively) affects the self-identity and behaviour of individuals
and groups, which is reinforced by the ongoing ‘labelling language’ used by other people. Charities
that often refer to their cause as ‘unpopular’,
‘neglected’ or ‘challenging’, rather than using more
positive terminology, may unintentionally deter donors who accept and then act on the negative label
being attached to that cause. Negative labelling of a
charity can impact on fundraising success in at least
two ways: First by labelling itself as unpopular and
likely to be overlooked by donors the charity may alter its own behaviour by not making substantive efforts to seek support and therefore hamper the
likelihood of receiving voluntary income. With similar logic to the crowding out effect, if a charity decides the cause it represents is too unpopular to
receive donated income and does not ask, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Second, the opportunity to take advantage of donors’ networks may
be adversely affected by a negative label. Giving behaviour is influenced by donors’ social networks
and peers, such that social ties are better predictors
of charitable giving than personal values and attitudes (Sokolowski, 1996), and the rising power of
social media has underscored the importance of
the ‘personal ask’ (Payne, Scharf & Smith, 2014). Labelling a cause as ‘unpopular’ may decrease the
number and quality of fundraising requests that
come from within personal networks as people
may prefer to signpost to charities they perceive as
more popular.
Research question
The process of reviewing the literature and relevant
theoretical approaches generated three questions:
(1) how can we define what is meant by ‘unpopular’ causes?;
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
61
(2) are there examples of ‘good practice’ by charities that have overcome perceived unpopularity
to achieve fundraising success?;
(3) what steps can charities that perceive themselves as unpopular take in order to maximise
their philanthropic reach?
Methodology: defining ‘unpopular causes’
and identifying case studies
Despite widespread usage of the concept of ‘unpopular’ charitable causes in both mass media and academic literature, no agreed definition underpins
this concept. Although used relatively frequently to
refer to certain groups of charities the phrase relies
on a widespread—but unelaborated—acknowledgement of what it means. In the absence of any shared
definition, we have used the media as a proxy for
public opinion and viewed popularity or lack thereof
through the lens of the public press. Furedi notes
that, ‘most people gain their information through
the media, rather than through direct experience’
(1997:52), and Couldry argues that the media can
be considered an adequate proxy for public opinion:
‘It is generally taken for granted that the media…
have a particular authority to speak on behalf of
society as a whole. The media have the power to
speak ‘for us all’—indeed to define the social ‘reality’ that we all share’ (2000:273).
We initially reviewed high profile newspaper articles discussing ‘unpopular causes’ to gain a sense
of terms that were used to describe this concept.
We identified four terms that were commonly used;
‘unpopular’, ‘unworthy’, ‘challenging’ and ‘Cinderella’.
Using the Google internet search engine and Nexis, a
searchable online database of UK newspapers, the
four terms were all inserted, each alternating with
the terms ‘charity’ and then ‘cause’. The first hundred
responses from the Google search engine were
reviewed for appropriate references. Because of the
large quantity of results, the Nexis analysis was
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2016
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
1479103x, 2016, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nvsm.1547 by Rutgers University Libraries, Wiley Online Library on [22/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
What are ‘unpopular causes’ and how can they achieve fundraising success?
Alison Body and Beth Breeze
confined to pairing the four terms with ‘charity’. The
search was limited to UK based sources and within
the last 20 years (1994–2014). Successful results were
defined as those that mentioned unpopular charities
(or any of the aforementioned appropriate derivatives) and gave named examples of types of causes
or specific charities. Whilst 152 sources referred to
unpopular charitable causes, less than one fifth of
these gave examples, underscoring the view that it
is a self-evident concept. A total of 27 successful
results were identified, generating 56 references to
particular causes or charities considered to be ‘unpopular’. These references were listed by themes
and ranked in order of frequency; this resulted in
the top ten ‘unpopular’ causes, as shown in Table 1.
This list was then used to identify ten case studies
of charities to highlight and analyse good practice in
fundraising for unpopular causes. The criteria for selection was three-fold: (1) to be working in one of the
cause areas identified as ‘unpopular’ in the first stage
of the research; (2) to have demonstrated success in
attracting private philanthropic income either by
achieving a substantial percentage of their income
from philanthropic sources or by showing a marked
increase in their philanthropic reach; and (3) to have
Table 1. ‘Unpopular’ causes as defined in UK media coverage
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Cause
Mental health (including
suicide and eating disorders)
Refugees and asylum seekers
Offenders/ex-offenders
Children with behavioural
problems (inc young
offenders)
Travellers/gypsies
AIDS/HIV
Domestic violence and child
abuse
Prostitution
Homosexuality
Drug and alcohol addiction
Case study of this
cause area
MIND
Refugee Support
Network
Storybook Dads
YoungMinds
Ormiston Families
Terrence Higgins
Trust
Lucy Faithful
Foundation
Beyond the Streets
Stonewall
Addaction
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
sufficient information about the charity and examples of their fundraising communications in the public domain. Whilst the ten case studies represent
each of the ten ‘unpopular’ causes areas, they constitute a purposive rather than a representative sample
as they are chosen for their suitability in illustrating
strategies to overcome barriers to fundraising that
may be faced by all types of causes. Once selected,
each case study was examined utilising charity commission data and publically available information, including their online presence and media reports.
Findings
We identified the ten cause areas listed in Table 1 as
those most often defined in practice as ‘unpopular’,
the ranking refers to the frequency with which the
cause attracted this label, with ‘1’ being ‘most often’. Column 3 of Table 1 lists the specific charity
chosen as a case study within each cause area.
Table 2 summarises the key features of the ten
case studies, noting their relative size and a summary of why they were chosen as an example of
good practice, which is expanded on in the ‘Discussion’ section below.
Discussion
Drawing on the literature review, theoretical approaches and case studies we suggest five types of
‘good practice in asking’ that are relevant to all types
of charities, wherever they perceive themselves to be
on the ‘popularity spectrum’. Good practice in asking
has an impact at three different levels of the
fundraising process: (1) the organisational level of the
charity; (2) the interaction between the donor and
the cause; and (3) wider societal norms and values.
Good practice at the organisational level
Establishing a culture of philanthropy
Each of the case studies had taken steps to ensure
that fundraising and philanthropy were understood
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2016
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
1479103x, 2016, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nvsm.1547 by Rutgers University Libraries, Wiley Online Library on [22/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
62
63
Table 2. Case study summaries
Case study
Size of charitya
MIND ‘for better mental health’
Major
Refugee Support Network
‘Education for a hopeful future’
Medium
Storybook Dads
Medium
YoungMinds ‘The voice for
young people’s mental health
and wellbeing’
Large
Ormiston Families ‘Young Lives
Matter’
Large
Terrence Higgins Trust ‘Together
we stop HIV in its tracks’
Major
Lucy Faithful Foundation ‘Working
to protect children’
Large
Beyond the Streets ‘Say no to
exploitation’
Small
Stonewall ‘Some People and Gay.
Get over it’
Large
Summary of good practiceb
Voluntary income has doubled since 2009 as a result of placing
fundraising at the heart of the communications strategy, working
with all staff and supporters, telling compelling stories of individuals
who have been helped and building substantial celebrity support.
The charity has, through collaboration with partners, been behind
some major national campaigns including Time to Change, launched
in 2007, to challenge stigma and discrimination.
The annual fundraised sum has more than doubled from £40 000
in the first year of operation (2010). The charity’s website makes
good use of film and personal testimony from both volunteers and
beneficiaries to explain what it does, to share stories of individuals
helped and promote awareness of the cause.
Fundraised income from individuals has tripled from 2008 to
2013 as result of raising awareness of the need to keep children
connected to in-prison parents, imaginative campaigns such as
inviting people to tweet comical RSVPs to a non-event and a
strong programme for thanking supporters. Celebrity supporters,
including the Chair Terry Waite and ‘national treasure’ Joanna
Lumley, help raise the profile.
Donations increased by 25% from 2013 to 2014. Fundraising is
strongly promoted online, with a range of examples of what can
be achieved with different size donations. The charity’s impact is
clearly communicated with over 50 online case studies to illustrate
the work and help connect donors to beneficiaries.
A significant investment in fundraising in 2014 led to a 28%
increase in donated income. Strong emotive language is used,
as well as films and first-person accounts that enable beneficiaries
to communicate directly with donors.
The charity’s 30th anniversary in 2012 was used to focus efforts on
fundraising, leading to a rise in donated income of c.20% in 2013.
Use of positive imagery about living with AIDs is blended with
emotive language underlining the extent of need. The website is
interactive and can be personalised to the visitor’s gender,
ethnicity and sexual orientation which generates tailored fundraising
messages. High profile celebrity support from pop star Elton John,
TV presenter Graham Norton and businessman Richard Branson
helps attract major donors.
Donations tripled from £11 000 in 2012 to £37 000 in 2013 as a
result of an increased focus on fundraising by all staff, better
communication with supporters, an improved website, willingness to
participate in TV and radio interviews and good use of social media.
Being featured in a New Philanthropy capital report in 2010 helped
demonstrate the charity’s effectiveness in protecting children by
working with paedophiles.
Fundraised income doubled from 2009 to 2014. A change of name
in 2008 from ‘National Christian Alliance on Prostitution’ to ‘Beyond
the Streets’ shifted the focus from the organisation to its work and
beneficiaries. In 2009 an investment in fundraising helped the charity
survive the economic downturn.
The charity experienced a 22% rise in donations between 2012/13
and 2013/14, mainly through securing additional legacy and corporate
(Continues)
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2016
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
1479103x, 2016, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nvsm.1547 by Rutgers University Libraries, Wiley Online Library on [22/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
What are ‘unpopular causes’ and how can they achieve fundraising success?
Alison Body and Beth Breeze
Table 2. (Continued)
Case study
Addaction
Size of charitya
Major
Summary of good practiceb
donations. The media has been identified as a key way to
communicate their work, with a focus on both attracting corporate
support and increasing their profile through social media. In March
2014 the charity launched a successful social media anti-bullying
campaign #NoBystander with 13 800 pledging to support by
April 2015.
The charity launched a campaign to (in their words) ‘target head-on
the perception of drug and alcohol treatment as an unfashionable
and unpopular cause to support’. Fundraised income rose from
£75 000 in 2009 to £225 000 in 2014. Communications focus on
‘recovery’ rather than ‘addiction’ and use personal stories with images
of happy, healthy people to illustrate the impact of the charity’s work.
Size categorisation based upon NCVO definitions from turnover p/a (figures based on latest accounts as of April 2015); Micro <
£10 000, Small £10 001–£100 000, Medium £100 001—£1 m, Large £1 m—£10 m, Major > £10 m.
b
Further detail on the case studies are available in the full report—‘Rising to the Challenge: A study of philanthropic support for
‘unpopular’ causes’ available at http://www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/philanthropy/publications/index.html?tab=working-papers.
a
and encouraged at all levels of their organisation;
this was achieved by a number of strategies including staff training in fundraising skills, raising awareness of the role and impact of fundraising,
including the fundraising function in strategic planning and integrating fundraising in the charity’s core
values. Embedding a commitment to fundraising
throughout organisations creates a ‘culture of philanthropy’ that has a proven connection to successful fundraising (Belle & Cornelius, 2013). A charity is
said to have a ‘culture of philanthropy’ when,
‘Most people in the organisation (across positions)
act as ambassadors and engage in relationshipbuilding. Everyone promotes philanthropy and
can articulate a case for giving. Fundraising is
viewed and valued as a mission-aligned programme of the organisation. Organisational systems are established to support donors. The chief
executive/director is committed and personally involved in fundraising.’ (Belle & Cornelius, 2013:3)
For example, Beyond the Streets, a charity working
with people affected by prostitution invested in
fundraising training for the whole charity when faced
with the economic downturn in 2009. This resulted
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
in new fundraising materials and a strategic
fundraising plan that placed increased focus on
fundraising from charitable trusts and foundations as
well as engagement of individual donors. As a result,
by 2014, the charity more than doubled its
fundraising income. As a second example, the mental
health charity MIND purposefully placed fundraising
at the heart of the charity’s communications strategy
and has worked with all staff and supporters to ensure
fundraising is und
