A recent experience in my firm set me thinking about how most people may approach charity making decisions. The event was choosing of two nominated charities who would then benefit over the next year from all firm wide charity raising, matched funding etc such sponsorship brings. From a long list of initial nominations, 8 charities were put forward for each of two categories “health & medical” and “welfare”.
The total choice of 16 covered large to small with a spread of the well known and unknown and under “welfare” both UK and global. The winners based on electronic votes by over 50% of our total workforce ended up being Cancer Research (the largest by income) under health and NSPCC (the largest UK only by income) under welfare. The winners easily reflected the greatest number of votes and in a few informal conversation afterwards, many indicated to me that the wide experience of friends and relatives dying of cancer and the UK focus on child abuse issues versus well funded international e.g. Oxfam, had led to these choices.
What is the potential impact if we assume this result is not too unrepresentative and accepting my data is not empirical?
1. Major charities will be the key beneficiaries under the trend of major firms to annually select charities for sponsorship.
2. Small charities will as a consequence find it hard to break into this lucrative fund raising sector (but ironically they may find it easier to get sponsorship and support at a smaller level – my children’s schools and local church being good examples of such micro charity sponsorship).
3. The national trend may just reflect that the endless international disaster appeals that people respond to do have an indirect impact on future giving.
4. My personal aim to support smaller charities with focus and simple aims plus proven efficient delivery in their use of funds donated is in my mind anyway reaffirmed – the other end of the extreme I accept but from other bloggers on this site I suspect I am not unique in this approach!
Very cool…
Very cool…