Tuesday 23 August 2011

Why I'm blogging

I started this blog last autumn because I wanted to write about things that interest me and I wondered if I'd be any good at it. I also wondered if anyone might read it, and let's face it, there's not much point if no-one does.

I posted now and then, and one or two people have had a look - a few of you were even kind enough to share your thoughts.

But I know that if I want a blog - REALLY want to do this - then I've got to take it seriously. So here it is. My pledge to this, my blog, and any readers kind enough to visit: I'm going to love this blog, and I hope you do too.  There, I've posted it.

Sunday 14 August 2011

Beware the promise of your brand

When you're responsible for the way an organisation is presented to the public, you probably focus on what it does best rather than the weak points, right? Absolutely. But when the distance between best and weakest is significant, that's a dangerous thing to do as I've just experienced.

It made me think again about how it's not just operational failure that can lead to reputational damage. Your positive promotion can do that too. Here's a tale of how easy it is to fall foul of both.

I've just spent the weekend at a theme park, feeling disappointed, let down, and cross. You might wonder why - our family of four had two days' entry to the park and a night in a hotel on site for £131. From the hotel terrace, we could see zebra and emus grazing on the grass, there was a kids film club, swimming pool AND we got to go into the park before the public on day two so we could snaffle a go on the most popular rides before the queues got going. That's fantastic value, right?

Yes, so what's my problem?  It's simple: their marketing inflates expectations beyond their ability to deliver. Instead of raving about the deal, we felt let down.

Have a look at their website, where they describe the accommodation:

We’ve got 150 very comfortable guest rooms where you can relax in style with snug beds, cosy duvets, safari-themed décor and a beautifully appointed bathroom. Kids will just love our family rooms with a separate sleeping ‘den’ and their own TV*.
Note the '*' well, dear reader.  Scroll down to the small print, and look!

* Family rooms with separate sleeping area and TV are subject to availability and can not be guaranteed. Family accommodation can also consist of a double room with extra beds or one double sofa bed.

There might not be a separate sleeping 'den'.  You might find yourself trying to put two toddlers to sleep together on a sofa next to your bed. Which makes babysitting very, very dull unless lying in a dark room from 7pm is your idea of a terrific Saturday night. It's not mine.

Staff on reception told us that they only have a few 'den' rooms and they allocated on the day, though they couldn't tell me how. It was the first we'd heard of it. Booking a long time in advance (we booked in February with another family) doesn't help.

It wasn't just the rooms. Service in the hotel was dreadful - inevitably, assets and irritations are inversely proportionate. So the longer you wait for food and drinks (oh, how we waited), the less impressed with the zebras we got.

Our early entrance to the park was great - until ride after ride was not ready, or experiencing technical difficulties, or had been substituted with a ride the young children couldn't go on. Again, a promise broken.

And so it went.  I won't count the ways - you get the idea. It was funny, really, that the one thing I hoped to go on all weekend was the log flume. Just as we were approaching the 'WHOOSH', it ground to a halt and after a nerve-wracking 15 minutes floating above the park, we were evacuated.

So, two lessons here:
  1. It's understandable that  marketing teams want to polish the pearl. But if the reality doesn't match up, it's dangerous. If they'd been clearer about the deal we were buying into in February, we would have had expectations to match. (Though I would expect a company marketing to families to have designed their offering from their customers' perspective.) 
  2. Things don't always work. But organisations should do their level best to make sure they can deliver the services they offer. Think carefully about what you do for the people you let down when you can't.
This matters because most people don't complain, they just tell their friends - your potential customers. And we know it's far more expensive to get new customers than to keep existing ones. Over-promising might give your monthly figures a short term buzz - like whizzing down the log flume. But once the gap between your promise and reality are exposed, your reputation will be left high and dry.

Monday 8 August 2011

Is a charity 'fake' if it accepts State funding?

Harry Cole, writing here in the Guardian a few days ago, is one of a number of people who think that there is something fake about charities that accept contracts from the state to deliver services. His view is that we should be wholly or mostly funded by donations. Harry says:


"If a group can depend on the constant supply of gold from upstairs, then they don't need to bother putting their full efforts into fundraising and therefore lose out on the accountability and trust that comes from loyal donors, willing to withdraw their support if unhappy with results."
I'd like to make three points:

1. If charities can't properly demonstrate the impact and value of what we do, then no-one is going to give us the money to do it - no-matter how persuasively we ask. Any charity with state contracts can tell you that there is precious little gold, and we are held rigorously accountable - and rightly so - for every penny we earn. We are equally accountable to our beneficiaries and our donors.

2. The British public is generous, but it does not have the money, the will and the vision to fund all the vital services that charities deliver so well for their beneficiaries. Those of us working in stigmatised areas will tell you how precious our donors are to us because they are rare. I work for an HIV and sexual health charity and we're patient zero for the condition where "you've only yourself to blame".

So it's not easy raising money for an unpopular cause, and believe me, we raise as much  as we can. But some charities can't exist effectively if they rely solely on the popularity contest of public donations to fund their vital work. State funding is usually granted only on the basis of population need without the filter of personal interest.

3. Life for many of our beneficiaries is getting harder day by day as the recession bites into their personal finances and the services they rely on are being cut from under their feet. The cuts are limiting our ability to help, and levels of fundraised income are coming down, not filling the gap.

Have a look at this list of UK donors' most popular charities, just published by Third Sector. Excellent organisations, all of them, but this could be the limit of the voluntary sector without national or local state funding. And what a grim prosepct that would be for some of the most marginalised people in our society. Animals, bless them, would continue to do quite nicely.

 The top 20 fundraising charities, 2009/10

CHARITYRANK 09/10    RANK 08/09    FUNDRAISED INCOME £(M)
Cancer Research UK11378.756
British Heart Foundation23195.671
Oxfam32182.300
Royal National Lifeboat Institution44145.600
NSPCC55123.719
Macmillan Cancer Support66117.963
British Red Cross Society78116.428
RSPCA810115.993
Salvation Army Trust97109.843
Sightsavers International101197.227
PDSA (People's Dispensary
for Sick Animals)
111579.023
Marie Curie Cancer Care121377.372
Save the Children (UK)13977.203
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds   141674.059
Royal National Institute of Blind People152068.302
National Trust161267.699
Christian Aid171767.623
Royal British Legion181962.504
Dogs Trust192655.241
Guide Dogs for the Blind Association201854.457