Rising_to_the_challenge FINAL

Alison Body
and Beth Breeze
Centre for Philanthropy
at the University of Kent
A
study of
philanthropic
support for
‘unpopular’ causes
Rising to
the challenge

About Migrant Help
Migrant Help is one of the largest charities
delivering vital support and advice services
to migrants in the UK today. The charity has
for more than 50 years provided individuals
with the resources and support they need
to find safety, access appropriate services
and information and develop greater
independence. Migrant Help provides a wide
range of services across the UK working,
in particular, with asylum claimants and
refugees, victims of modern day slavery
(human trafficking), EU nationals, foreign
national prisoners and detainees.
www.migranthelp.org
About the Authors
Alison Body is a Research Associate with the
Centre for Philanthropy at the University of
Kent. She has worked in senior management
positions across the voluntary sector,
including positions of fundraising, business
management, commissioning and strategic
development. She is currently conducting
research into the impact of political and
economic changes on charities working
with children.
Beth Breeze is director of the Centre for
Philanthropy at the University of Kent. She
worked as a fundraiser and charity manager
before completing a doctoral thesis on
contemporary philanthropy in the UK. She
has conducted research on major donors,
charitable decision-making, family business
philanthropy, giving circles, corporate
philanthropy and the personal skills of
fundraisers. She teaches undergraduate
and postgraduate courses on philanthropy,
fundraising and volunteering and also
supervises PhD students on a range of
topics related to philanthropy.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Migrant Help Trading for
financial resources, and in particular to
Iain McArthur for his encouragement to
explore this topic and to his colleagues at
Migrant Help for insight into the reality of
fundraising for an ‘unpopular cause’.
Cover image
© Tronin Andrei/Shutterstock

Foreword
In this time of public sector funding cuts and increased expectation
of charitable support for the most vulnerable in society, the need to
understand and maximise philanthropic giving is critical. There is a growing
body of research and data on who gives, but there is far less information
about why people choose one particular cause over another, and what
charities can do to increase their chance of being chosen by potential
donors – especially amongst causes that are thought to be less favoured
by the public. This study begins to unpick this, exploring what is meant
by ‘popular’ and ‘unpopular’ causes, and challenging the assumption of a
hierarchy of popularity in charitable giving.
Founded in 1963 by Helen Ellis MBE, Migrant Help was established to
support the most vulnerable migrants who set foot in the Port of Dover,
Kent. Today we are a national charity and a leading provider of support
services to asylum seekers, victims of human trafficking and other
migrants across the UK. We owe our beginnings to the generosity of
individuals and philanthropy, which remained our main source of income
well into the 1980s. As we grew so did our reliance on government funding,
and in recent years our voluntary income dropped to less than 0.1% of our
overall income. With continued public sector funding cuts, we, like many
others, face testing times in redressing this balance in our income.
Breaking down any barriers to giving, especially perceptions that donors
might have about the worthiness of causes is therefore a key issue, and
a daunting task, for us and many charities. This is why we commissioned
this research. As a charity we are committed to using research-based
evidence to improve and enhance our work and the work of others. We
have experienced first-hand what it feels like to be an ‘unpopular cause’
and how engaging donors’ sympathies can feel like an uphill battle.
However, as this report highlights, there are few charities that find
fundraising easy, and whilst some causes more easily attract public
sympathy, all are likely to experience some of the ‘barriers to asking’
highlighted in chapter 5. Yet these barriers can be overcome, as the ten
case studies demonstrate, creating useful lessons for all charities that
wish to increase their voluntary income.
We believe this report makes a useful contribution to our shared
understanding of fundraising and philanthropy. We hope it will be read
widely by people involved with all types of causes, and that it helps
many charities to maximise their philanthropic income.
Rob McCea
Chief Executive,
Migrant Help
A study of philanthropic support for ‘unpopular’ causes 01

Contents
03 Executive Summary
05 Introduction
07 Chapter 1:
The distribution of donated income to different types of
charitable beneficiary in the UK
14 Chapter 2:
Understanding donor behaviour: a review of existing research
19 Chapter 3:
Making sense of the idea of ‘popular’ and ‘unpopular’ causes
22 Chapter 4:
Case Studies
33 Chapter 5:
The Barriers to Asking
38 Conclusions and Implications for Practice
44 Appendix A:
A tool to depict philanthropic reach
02 Rising to the challenge

Many recent efforts to grow and strengthen the culture of philanthropy in the UK have focused
on two dimensions:
❥❥ Increasing the total amount of money donated to good causes
❥❥ Increasing the effectiveness of philanthropic spending
Whilst these are both admirable aims, they leave untouched a third, more controversial issue:
the destination and distribution of donations.
This is not an accidental omission. A defining characteristic of charitable giving is that it occurs
on a voluntary basis, so most people – especially politicians and policy makers – are wary of
promoting one cause above another or implying that any beneficiary group is more or less
‘worthy’ than any other. However, the absence of much comment on, or significant research into,
the destination of donations does not alter the situation that some groups succeed in attracting
significant philanthropic funds whilst others struggle to secure any – or many – donations.
This paper makes a contribution to understanding the distribution of philanthropic support,
alongside whether and how it can be altered in favour of causes that are perceived to be less
popular. The introduction sets the scene by describing the current distribution of voluntary
income to different charitable beneficiaries in the UK. This is followed by a review of insights from
research into charitable giving and how it helps us to better understand the distributional pattern
of donations. Chapters 4 and 5 identify barriers that affect the positioning of causes and their
ability to attract voluntary donations, with ten case studies illustrating how they have succeeded
in surmounting those barriers and countered prevailing trends. The final section summarises
what can be done to increase the flow of donated funds to charities that feel themselves to be
‘unpopular causes’, and the report ends with a useful tool to help charities understand which
barriers may be preventing them from maximising their philanthropic income.
We begin by noting that Britain is a generous country, but that generosity is not equally spread
amongst all the tens of thousands of good causes seeking donated income. For example:
❥❥ There are 9 cancer charities in the top 100 most popular fundraising causes with a
collective voluntary income of £656.5 million, but only 13 responding to all other types
of health issues with a collective voluntary income of over £613 million
❥❥ There are 10 animal charities in the top 100 with a collective voluntary income of
£534 million, but only 1 organisation responding to mental health issues, with a voluntary
income of £16.7 million
❥❥ Whilst there are 10 arts charities in the top 100, with a collective voluntary income of
£124 million, there is not a single charity supporting addiction issues, ex-offenders or
refugees and asylum seekers in the top 250 charities by fundraising income
Executive Summary

The categorisation of popular/unpopular causes is more complex than those who bemoan the
enduring popularity of ‘cancer, kids and kittens’ may realise. For example, within the category
of the UK’s favoured cause, cancer research (which has been the top destination for public
donations year on year), different types of cancer attract more and less voluntary donations:
whilst there are 2 breast cancer charities in the top 150 fundraising charities, there is no charity
dedicated to bowel cancer amongst that top 150.
An extensive review of research into the motivations behind charitable giving reveals
that, despite a commonly held view that beneficiary need is the prime driver of donations,
philanthropy is in fact driven by a combination of donor preferences and the ‘ask effect’.
This means that people are more likely to give to causes as a result of:
❥❥ Being aware of the need and convinced of its importance
❥❥ Feeling connected to the cause and personally motivated to respond
❥❥ Being asked, ideally in a polite and compelling way by someone they know and respect
❥❥ Feeling appreciated by the charity, and gaining personal benefits that reinforce their decision
to donate
❥❥ Having confidence that their contribution will make a difference to a cause they care about
This report therefore concludes by advising against a ‘counsel of despair’ for any charity,
however difficult their ‘ask’ may appear, and suggests instead ten ‘top tips’ to uplift voluntary
income for charities that have struggled to attract significant voluntary support:
❥❥ Actively ask donors for support
❥❥ Take a holistic approach to fundraising by embedding it throughout the charities activities
❥❥ Invest in fundraising
❥❥ Re-frame the cause to engage donors’ emotions
❥❥ Empower cheerleaders and friends to fundraise on your behalf
❥❥ Seize opportunities to raise your charities profile
❥❥ Make donating an easy process for donors
❥❥ Thank existing donors and supporters promptly and sincerely
❥❥ Demonstrate and evidence impact
❥❥ Make donors feel part of something special
Executive Summary
Continued

‘Unpopular causes’, ‘unfashionable causes’, ‘neglected causes’ and ‘Cinderella causes’ – these
terms are widely used and understood but lack official definition. This report seeks to explore the
concept of ‘unpopularity’ in the charity sector, especially in relation to its impact on fundraising.
In the following pages we unpack what these loaded phrases mean, identify barriers faced by
those seeking support and share ten ‘best practice’ case studies of charities that have overcome
perceived unpopularity to achieve fundraising success. We suggest that by re-framing the
cause, and focusing on the ‘ask’, no charity need assume it is their destiny to languish at the
bottom of the fundraising league tables.
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 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 we begin by noting
that popularity, of 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 the toughest to fundraise for because
not enough people care about the beneficiary or ‘get’ what they do. We therefore suggest that it
is more useful to seek 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.
Introduction
“ It’s not easy for any small charity to
obtain funding, but add to the mix
an unfashionable cause that some
people might find immoral and
there are even more difficulties.”
Alex Bryce, CEO, National Ugly Mugs Charity
Winners of the Small Charity, Big Achiever Award,
Third Sector Awards 2014

Structure of this report
This research looks at the fundraising successes of causes that have commonly been defined
in the media as unpopular, to explore how charities representing these causes have managed to
overcome barriers, and to make that learning available to the wider charity sector.
Chapter 1 presents data on the income across and within types of cause. As the concept of
‘popularity’ is largely a proxy for the success – or otherwise – in attracting donated income
we begin by presenting data on the unequal distribution of donations across causes. Medical
research, international development, children and animal causes tend to dominate league tables
of fundraising success, but within these more popular types of causes there exist more and less
popular organisations. For example, whilst Cancer Research UK is consistently the most popular
fundraising charity in the UK, there are many other types of diseases and medical conditions that
struggle to attract voluntary income. We also note disparities in levels of support across income
groups such that some causes succeed in attracting larger numbers of small donations from the
general public, whilst other causes are preferred by the smaller number of wealthier donors able
to make larger donations; thus ‘popularity’ is also related to donor identity and demographics.
Chapter 2 briefly reviews what is known about donor behaviour and how this relates to charitable
giving decisions. We show that most donors do not make comparative decisions about the
‘worthiness’ or otherwise of any particular cause or beneficiary group, but rather their giving is
prompted by personal experiences and preferences, and by serendipitous connections, thus
most donations are ‘taste-based’ rather than ‘needs-based’.
Chapter 3 presents three theoretical approaches to making sense of the notion of ‘popularity’
within the charitable sphere: the ‘crowding out effect’, the construction of sympathy and
labelling theory.
Chapter 4 presents original research that identifies the ten areas of charitable activity most
likely to be viewed as unpopular in the UK media. It contains ten case studies, representing each
of these areas, to show how charities have achieved fundraising success despite working on
issues, or with beneficiary groups, that are commonly viewed as challenging.
Chapter 5 builds on the case studies to identify eight barriers facing charities that perceive
themselves to be unpopular. These barriers exist at three levels: within the individual charities,
such as investing in fundraising; within the potential donor pool, such as lack of connectivity to
the beneficiaries; and within wider society, such as awareness and visibility of the cause.
The concluding chapter summarises the report and presents implications for practice. These
draw on the report’s central theme of questioning the assumption that certain causes are
incompatible with attracting significant voluntary support. This final section also includes a tool
that charities can use with their board, staff and volunteers to map out the relative significance
of the issues faced. Finally, we conclude that barriers to asking can be overcome by drawing
on ten ‘top tips’, which focus on asking, developing a culture of philanthropy and framing the
cause effectively.
Introduction
Continued

This chapter presents data on the income across and within types of cause, with a particular
focus on giving to three cause areas: medical research, international development and animals.
It ends by comparing giving patterns amongst ‘mass’ and ‘elite’ donors.
The Top 100 Charities by Fundraising Income
Individual donors are consistently more likely to donate to medical research above any other
cause, followed by overseas aid, hospital and hospices and animal welfare. The most recent
available data1
names the top ten most popular fundraising causes as:
1 C. Pharoah (2011) Charity Market Monitor 2011. London, UK: Caritas Data
Rank Name of Charity Total donated income (£M)
1 Cancer Research UK 378.8
2 British Heart Foundation 195.7
3 Oxfam 182.3
4 Royal National Lifeboat Institution 145.6
5 NSPCC 123.7
6 Macmillan Cancer Support 117.9
7 British Red Cross Society 116.4
8 RSPCA 115.9
9 Salvation Army Trust 109.8
10 Sightsavers International 97.2
Table 1: The Top 10 fundraising charities in the UK, adapted from Charity Market Monitor 2011
Chapter 1
The distribution of donated
income to different types of
charitable beneficiary in the UK

Disparity between charitable causes
Within the top 100 fundraising charities the disparity between types of causes is clear. Whilst
their collective fundraised income was just over £4 billion, the distribution of this income across
causes is unequal as shown in figure 1.1 below.
Figure 1.1
Fundraised income by cause for Top 100 Charities 2009/10
£m
Cancer 711.6
Overseas 686.1
Health 627.6
Animal 534.5
Religion 420.9
Children 352.2
Emergency Response Services 159.4
Ex-service men and women 115.8
Art 89.4
Heritage 86.1
Homelessness 57.5
Other 242.3
Note: Other causes includes disabilities, the elderly, mental health, hospices, young people and sports)
Chapter 1
The distribution of donated income to different types
of charitable beneficiary in the UK
Continued

Medical Charities
Almost a quarter of the top 100 fundraising charities are focused on cancer and other health-
related charities; these 22 organisations generated £1.4 billion of donations which equates to a
disproportionate 33% share of the total income of the top 100 charities.
Despite the domination of this cause, different types of medical charities attract different levels
of support. For example, Cancer Research UK’s donated income of £379m in 2009/10 is more
than the total combined donated income of the top 3 charities representing other types of health
issues (which were: British Heart foundation, Sightsavers International and the Royal National
Institute of Blind People). There are 11 cancer charities in the top 100 most popular fundraising
causes with a collective voluntary income of £657 million, which means that only 15 other medical
charities in the top 100 are focused on all other types of health issues, and these enjoy a lower
collective voluntary income of £628 million as shown in figure 1.2.
Figure 1.2
Cancer charities vs other health charities – fundraised income in Top 100 Charities
£m
Cancer charities 711.6
All other types of health charities 627.6
Three further disparities within this cause area
are noteworthy:
Firstly, 99% of the £1.4 billion donated to medical
charities goes to those focused on physical
health leaving less than 1% going towards
mental health.
Secondly, there is no relation between the
number of people affected by a medical condition
and the voluntary income it attracts. The
infographic adjacent, created by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, highlights
this disparity between where we donate versus
diseases that kill us.
Thirdly, fundraising income is not related to the
costs associated with any particular medical
condition as the following numbers show:
Clic Sargent, a charity for children and young
people with cancer, attracts approximately
£13,275 per sufferer, the National Deaf Children’s
Society attracts £444.65 per beneficiary and
Breakthrough Breast Cancer attracts £359.49 per
sufferer. These all compare favourably with less
‘popular’ diseases such as Mental Health which
attracts £2.35 per sufferer and Irritable Bowel
Syndrome which attracts £0.02 per sufferer.2
2 A. Coopman, J. Saxton S. Eberhardt (2014) A Healthy Audience: does the number of people who have a medical
condition or a disability dictate the size of charities that support them? NFP Synergy

Overseas Charities
The extent of UK donors’ support for causes overseas is notable, especially in relation to the US
where international giving represents only 6% of total private giving. In the UK, 12% (12) of the top
100 fundraising charities work in this area, generating a combined total of £0.7 billion of voluntary
income which represents a disproportionate 17% of the total income of that top 100. These
charities mainly target areas of poverty, famine and disease, often responding to major disasters,
conflicts and providing emergency relief. Clearly the combined population living overseas is
massively larger than the UK population, but nonetheless there is a widespread sentiment that
‘charity begins at home’. However, comparison of the fundraised total of overseas charities
compared to charities in the UK tackling welfare issues reveals greater sympathies amongst
donors for geographically distanced beneficiaries, as figure 1.3 shows. Even when combined,
these UK based welfare-focusing charities achieve only three-quarters (78%) of the sum raised
for overseas.
Figure 1.3
Donations to overseas causes vs UK based welfare charities
£m
Overseas 686.1
Children’s welfare 352.2
Homelessness 57.5
Disabilities 48
Elderly 41.4
Young People’s welfare 20.4
Hospice 14.6
Note: Based on the top 100 charities by fundraising income 2009/10
Chapter 1
Continued

Animal Charities
Animals are well known as a distinctively UK charitable concern, and 10 of our top 100
fundraising charities focus on this cause area, receiving a combined voluntary income of £480m.
However differentiation between types of animals is also prevalent. The Donkey Sanctuary is
often cited3
as a curiously popular cause that attracts over £20m of donated income per year,
however in terms of animal charities it is a poor relation to Cats Protection which attracts nearly
£33m and The Dogs Trust which attracts over £55m. More generic animal charities such as the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA)
and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) all raise over £70 million a
year, with a combined donated income of £269m.
Whilst it may seem a selective example, and unfair given that many animal charities also provide
benefits to people – including people with a variety of health problems – we offer figure 1.4 as
an attempt to illustrate the disparity in popularity of causes. Comparing the figures of the top 5
animal charities to the top 5 mental health and addiction charities, by fundraising income, it is
clear that charities dealing with mental health and addiction issues struggle to secure the same
level of donations.
Figure 1.4
A comparison of donated income for ten diverse causes
£m
RSPCA 115.9
PDSA 79.0
RSPB 74.1
Dogs Trust 55.2
World Wildlife Fund UK 45.6
Mind 16.7
Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society 7.8
Samaritans 5.9
The Drinkaware Trust 3.2
The Mental Health Foundation 2.6
3 See for example this Guardian article in which Martin Brookes notes the disproportionate popularity of charities
helping donkeys over those tackling domestic violence http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/29/charity-
league-table-philanthropy-morality

Mass Support versus Million Pound Donors
Trends in giving are not homogeneous across all types of donor. In particular data shows that
major donors tend to prefer different causes to the mass of the population. Mass giving is
captured in the UK Giving Survey which uses a representative sampling method to capture
information on the distribution of charitable giving across different causes, as shown in figure 1.5.
Figure 1.5
Proportion of total amount donated in 2011/12 by cause
£m
Medical 16
Religious 13
Hospitals 13
Overseas 12
Children 12
Animals 5
Health 4
Homeless 4
Disabled 4
Environment 3
Schools 2
Elderly 2
Arts 1
Sports 1
Note: Adapted from NCVO/CAF UK Giving 2012
As with the Charity Market Monitor data discussed above, the UK Giving Survey, finds that a
small number of cause areas dominate giving in the UK, namely medical, hospitals, overseas aid,
children and animals as well as religious causes.
However some cause areas achieve fundraising success with a narrower base of support
because they succeed in raising large sums from a few major donation. This can enable them to
‘leapfrog over’ better known charities that attract mass support,
For example, arts charities do not tend to attract high volumes of donors, indeed the UK Giving
data in figure 1.5 above shows they only account for 1% of total amounts donated through mass
giving in 2011/12. However, there is a long-standing connection between arts organisations and
major donors, which historically took the form of patronage.
Chapter 1
Continued

The five Arts charities that feature in the top 100 (Tate, National Museum Liverpool,
Royal Opera House, Victoria and Albert Museum and Royal Academy of Arts), collectively
raised £89.4 million. They typify what has been called ‘high-value, low volume’ fundraising,
in contrast to the ‘low-value, high-volume’ fundraising of those charities that succeed in
attracting mass support. Research on donations worth £1m or more finds that the Arts is
regularly amongst the top 4 cause areas preferred by these biggest donors. Figure 1.6 shows
that the other favoured causes of the UK’s biggest donors, (aside from setting up their own
charitable trusts and foundations which will then support a range of causes), are Higher
Education, which receives minimal mass support, and International Development, which is
popular with the general population as well as with major donors.
Figure 1.6
Proportion of total donations by million pound donors by cause 2013/14
%
Higher Education 42
Foundations 23
International Development 8.7
Arts, culture and humanities 6.7
Health 5.8
Human Services 4.1
Overseas 3.6
Education (Not HEIs) 3.2
Religious 1.6
Public and Societal Benefit 1.4
Environment 1.2
Source: B. Breeze (2014) The Coutts Million Pound Donor Report.
http://philanthropy.coutts.com/en/reports/2014/united-kingdom/findings.html
Conclusion
This chapter has sketched out general trends in private financial support for different types of
causes in the UK. It has shown that whilst some cause areas dominate, not every charity working
in the same area achieves the same level of fundraising success. It also shows that some causes
are more and less successful at attracting mass and elite support. We can conclude that there
is nothing inevitable about any particular cause or charity proving attractive to donors. The next
chapter explores what is known about charitable decision-making and how that might shed light
on the experience of more and less ‘popular’ causes.

This chapter reviews research into charitable giving decisions, and how it helps us to better
understand the distributional pattern of donations. We look at:
❥❥ Who gives
❥❥ Why do they give
❥❥ How donors choose charities
Who gives?
In short: most people give. The annual UK Giving research, regularly finds that over 50% of the
population make a donation to charity in the preceding 4 weeks.
Figure 2.1
Percentage of UK adults giving to charity 2004–2013
%
2004/05 57.2
2005/06 57.6
2006/07 54
2007/08 56
2008/09 54
2009/10 56
2010/11 58
2011/12 55
2012/13 57
Despite this broad picture of a nation of givers, there is much internal variation. Research shows
that a range of demographic factors affect both propensity to give and the size of donations.
For example, older people, especially older women, are more likely to give, and give larger
amounts4
, This may be explained by common sense reasoning, such that women live longer
and that donations from widows, including many significant legacies, might more accurately be
characterised as jointly given, since they derive from both their own and their husband’s wealth.
Individuals professing a particular faith are not only more likely to give, they are more likely to
donate higher amounts than the average donor. However the picture of religiosity as a factor
for giving is more complex than it first seems. Individuals motivated by religion are in turn more
likely to give to that religion than other causes. When we remove the factor of giving to a religious
cause, individuals professing a faith are no more likely to donate to other causes than the
average donor.
However other demographic factors appear more counterintuitive. For example, parents might
be assumed to have more financial pressures, yet households containing children have a greater
propensity to give – this is likely explained by the increased chance of being in social situations
that involve fundraising asks, such as nurseries, schools and other community activities.
4 Sarah Smith (2012) Mind the Gap: the growing generational divide in charitable giving. London: Charities Aid
Foundation, p.9 and UK Giving 2012, p.12
Chapter 2
Understanding Donor Behaviour:
a review of existing research

Other demographic factors are proxies for income. For example, the more educated an individual
is, the more likely they are both to give and give above the average donation. Those with A-level
qualifications are 5% more likely to give and the donation is on average 38% more than those
without any qualifications, whereas college and university qualifications mean an individual is
11% more likely to give and likely to donate 80% more in amount.5
Demographic factors can reveal trends in giving, however care must be taken not to form a
stereotypical view of the ideal donor as an older, middle class, women as the most likely person
to donate to a charity, sometimes caricatured as ‘Dorothy Donor’. We know the main reason
most people give is because they are asked, and should beware confusing correlation with
causation. If the older age group of women give more and more often, this could be either
because this group are more responsive to requests for donations, or because they are on the
receiving end of compelling requests for help more frequently.
We also know that there is a ‘geography of giving’ related to social and economic variations.
Only 15% of the population engage in no philanthropic activity at all, leaving the remaining 85%
participating in one form or another, though this philanthropic activity is unevenly distributed.
Around a third of the population provide nearly 90% of volunteer hours, over 80% of donations
to charity and nearly 80% of participation in civic associations.6
An even smaller ‘civic core’
represents the 9% of the population who are the most philanthropically active, accounting
for half of all volunteering, 40% of charitable giving and 25% of civic participation. 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.
Why do donors give?
A review7
of over 500 studies into philanthropic activity, identifies eight mechanisms that drive
donors decisions to give:
Awareness of Need
People need to be aware of a need to be able to support it. This awareness is reliant on
beneficiaries coming forward and asking for help, and/or charities communicating the needs
of beneficiaries and how donors can help. Donors are also more likely to give when they know a
beneficiary or a potential beneficiary and can personalise the cause.
Asking
Asking donors to donate is the single biggest factor affecting giving. According to Bekkers and
Wiepking’s study over 80% of donations are solicited, showing that asking is crucial, it is after all
called fund-raising not ‘fund-catching’.
5 A. Sargeant A E. Jay (2014) Fundraising Management: Analysis, Planning and Practice, 3rd Edition. London: Routledge
6 J. Mohan S. Bulloch (2012) The idea of a ‘civic core’: what are the overlaps between charitable giving, volunteering, and
civic participation in England and Wales? Working Paper 73. Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham
7 R. Bekkers P. Wiepking (2007) Generosity and Philanthropy: A Literature Review. Amsterdam: Vrije University/
Science of Generosity, http://generosityresearch.nd.edu/assets/17632/generosity_and_philanthropy_final.pdf

Costs and Benefits
It costs money to make a charitable donation, but the cost can be reduced by tax breaks and
matched funding schemes. Being a donor also involves other non-monetary costs, such as
time and effort in researching potential recipient as well as transaction costs, therefore making
donating as easy as possible also reduces these costs.
Costs for donating can be balanced out to some extent by perceived benefits. Charitable donors
have always received benefits – whether it is their name on a building, invitations to special
occasions or just a warm glow from ‘doing the right thing’. Donors may also be encouraged to
give for indirect benefits in terms of services they may access at some point in the future. For
example the popularity of medical research charities may be explained by donors anticipating
their own future health needs, or a donation to a local charity to help drug users may in part be
motivated by wishing to improve the community and area the donor resides in.
Altruism
Altruism is present as a driver when people give because they feel compassion for the
beneficiaries and care about what the organisation does. Whilst many people believe all giving
should involve pure altruism, in reality mixed motives is the norm, such that donors are driven by
a combination of compassion and by some or all of the other drivers described here.
Reputation
Being seen as charitable can be an important factor for donors. Giving decisions are influenced
by friends, family and social connections, especially when these decisions are visible and are
likely to be met with approval. Both the desire for this approval and the wish to fulfil social norms
can drive up giving, meaning that individuals are more likely to donate if others around them are
also visibly donating. This can also impact the size of gifts when an increase in donation amount
encourages others to conform and ‘anchor’ their donations to the higher sum.
Psychological Benefits
Often termed as the ‘warm glow’ effect or the ‘joy of giving’, psychological benefits are wrapped
up in donors’ perceptions of their self-image as an altruistic, empathetic, socially responsible,
agreeable or influential person. The motivation to ‘feel good’ by giving can be an emotional
response to a situation which alleviates guilt and shows the donor to be a moral person.
Donors may also be motivated to give as a way of enhancing their self-esteem. Giving itself can
increase a positive self-image, as can the social effects of recognition of charitable activity by
others. Likewise celebrities and well known individuals can increase donations if individuals
choose to emulate prominent figures.
Values
Values are an important driver of charitable giving. Values associated with ‘making the world a
better place’ and pro-social values are more likely to stimulate giving. People are more likely to
give if they value materialistic things less than others, are spiritual and care about social justice.
Philanthropy itself is an expression of a donor’s value system, but the nature of the values being
enacted differs from person to person. Donors may seek to distribute wealth more equally to
tackle poverty, to empower marginalised groups, to protect animals and so on. Supporting a
cause to change something in the world is a powerful motive, and thus people are more likely to
give when the values of the charity match their own values.
Chapter 2
Understanding Donor Behaviour: a review of existing research
Continued

Efficacy
Donors want to make a difference to the cause they are supporting, so achieving impact is a
crucial factor, especially for major giving. But assessing which charities are more impactful is not
easy. Few donors closely scrutinise charity accounts and annual reports. Many use heuristics
(rules of thumb) such as looking for ‘big name’ supporters as a useful proxy for assessing a
charity’s calibre. Known as the ‘leadership effect’, famous and well regarded philanthropists and
celebrities can send powerful messages about the worthiness and legitimacy of a cause.
The confidence a donor has in the efficacy of their donation is also important. For example if
donors feel charities are using money on unnecessary overheads, they are less likely to give, but
when donors believe that most of their contribution will go directly into service provision their
likelihood of giving increases.
How do donors choose which charities to support?
Despite widespread assumptions that donors are primarily motivated to meet the perceived
needs of beneficiaries, research8
shows that giving decisions are highly reliant on donors’
personal tastes and preferences and based on four non-needs based factors:
Donor tastes
Personal taste is a key factor in the selection of charitable beneficiaries. Donors state that they
typically support ‘things that happen to appeal to me’, causes that are ‘close to my heart’, things
that ‘touch a chord’ and charities ‘that I admire’ and ‘am comfortable giving to’.
This approach is collectively termed ‘taste-based giving’, as opposed to ‘needs-based giving’,
and is exemplified by donors who say they prefer to support one sort of animal over another,
those who support causes aligned with their hobbies (such as participating in sports or visiting
historic buildings) or those who give financial support to charities they are heavily involved with
as volunteers, such as a scout group or their local theatre.
Research shows that taste and personal preferences are a factor in giving decisions, even when
donors perceive themselves as motivated by needs.
Personal experiences
Tastes develop as a result of the individual’s socialisation, which includes their upbringing,
education, personal and professional experiences. People draw on their own life experiences
to create what have been called ‘philanthropic autobiographies’9
which affects their choice of
charitable recipients as they 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.
This is exemplified by donors who support sea-rescue charities because they grew up near the
sea, donors who sponsor a child abroad after having their own children and donors whose close
personal experience of an illness motivates them to donate to research into that condition.
8 B. Breeze (2010) How Donors Choose Charities. London: Centre for Giving and Philanthropy
9 R. Payton M. Moody (2008) Understanding Philanthropy: Its meaning and mission. Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press, p.21

Perceptions of charities’ competence
The third non-needs-based criteria evident in giving decisions concerns donors’ judgements
regarding the competence of recipient organisations, such that charities are selected for
support on the basis of being ‘well-run’ and ‘efficient’, or ‘charities that don’t pay their staff
too much’ and ‘charities that have low overheads’. There is a general consensus that charity
competence, as demonstrated in the efficient use of money, is highly attractive and likely to
prompt greater donations
A desire for personal impact.
The fourth non-needs based criteria for giving is a desire for donations to make an impact that
is not ‘drowned out’ by support from other donors or the government.10
Donors are particularly keen to avoid their donations becoming a substitute for government
spending. Concerns about ‘additionality’ are widespread, such that donors are keen to ensure
that their contribution enhances, rather than replaces, the funding available for a particular
cause. This is 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.11
Conclusion
The research summarised in this chapter shows that donors are more likely to give to causes
that resonate with their personal experiences and values. As currently a large proportion of
charitable giving is limited to a rather narrow social demographic of people, typically those that
comprise the ‘civic core’ as described on page 15, 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.
10 This point is also made in B. Duncan (2004), ‘A theory of impact philanthropy’. Journal of Public Economics vol 88,
pp.2159-2180.
11 P. Taylor-Gooby (1993) The Future of Giving: Evidence from the British Social Attitudes Survey. RSU Occasional
Paper 4. Tonbridge: Charities Aid Foundation.
Chapter 2
Understanding Donor Behaviour: a review of existing research
Continued

To date the idea of popular and unpopular causes has attracted little academic interest.
However there is a greater body of work exploring the organisational behaviours of charities
and their relationships with donors. This chapter draws on that literature to present three
theoretical approaches which may be helpful in making sense of the meaning of ‘popular’ and
‘unpopular’ causes.
The Crowding Out Effect
‘Crowding out’ occurs when new income from one source leads to a reduction in income from
another source. For example, when charities receive significant new government funding or
attract a well-publicised major donation, the crowding out theory would suggest that other
individual donors would not feel the need to provide the same level of support as they had in
the past, and would withdraw or reduce their gift to that charity.
A 2011 study12
suggests that another version of crowding out occurs when charities themselves
reduce their fundraising efforts as a result of new income success, in some cases this was up
to 75%. This suggests 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 different parts of the state (e.g. from local, central or European government) ‘crowds out’
efforts 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 tax-funded support than charities re-homing 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 re-homing dogs
are entirely reliant on voluntary income from private donors and so focus a great deal of their
efforts on donor fundraising activities.
There are other possibilities to explain the ‘crowding out effect’ including the idea 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.13
The result
in this scenario is also a reduction in fundraising efforts as a result of securing ‘sufficient’ funds
elsewhere.
With popularity of a cause seemingly going hand-in-hand with the amount of voluntary income
a charity attracts, the ‘crowding out effect’ can create circumstances within which a successful
cause in terms of delivery and income is perceived as unpopular with donors.
12 J. Andreoni A. PayneIs (2011) ‘Is crowding out due entirely to fundraising? Evidence from a panel of charities’.
Journal of Public Economics vol 95, pp.334–343
13 B. Weisbrod (1988) The Nonprofit Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Chapter 3
Making sense of the idea of
popular and unpopular causes

The Construction of Sympathy
The second theoretical approach that is useful in understanding the concept of popular and
unpopular causes focuses on Candace Clark’s notion of the construction of sympathy, or
the ‘socioemotional economy’14
as Clark terms it. This concept is based upon understanding
sympathy as something the donor subjectively and socially constructs based upon their own
experiences and the social world they live in. This suggests that the popularity of any given
cause is governed by the level of sympathy it can attract at any given time.
Although sympathy may be considered to be 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 behaviour by learning elaborate rules for the expression of sympathy that are
considered appropriate to the time and social context. We normalise our behaviours and our
understanding of when it is appropriate to be sympathetic by the behaviours of those around us.
Donations to charity can therefore be understood in terms of distribution of sympathy through
economic resources.
This 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. For example
our concept of need and sympathy changes over time – in past centuries, common objects of
sympathy and charity included helping poor maids to marry, ‘fallen women’, rescuing captives
from pirates and debtors from prison.
This understanding of sympathy is useful in understanding why some people will support certain
causes over others, as a result of relying on social norms as a guide to distinguish worthiness
between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ recipients of charity. For example the rise in negative
media attention concerning asylum seekers and immigrants, 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.
14 C. Clark (1997) Misery and Company: Sympathy in Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Chapter 3
Making sense of the idea of popular and unpopular causes
Continued

Labelling Theory
A third useful theoretical approach looks at the self-labelling of causes, and the charities
that represent them, as ‘unpopular’. Labelling occurs when the self-identity and behaviour of
individuals and groups is influenced by the language used by other people. Charities that often
refer to their cause as unpopular, neglected or challenging – rather than using more positive
terminology to encourage giving – may unintentionally be deterring donors who accept the
negative label being attached to that cause.
Negative labelling of a charity could impact on the amount of voluntary donations it receives in
two ways: Firstly by labelling themselves as unpopular or neglected by donors the charity may
alter their behaviour by not asking donors for support and therefore excluding themselves from
receiving voluntary income. Similar 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.
Secondly, we know that donors’ giving behaviour is influenced by their social networks and
peers. Indeed, some research15
shows that social ties are better predictors of charitable giving
than personal values and attitudes, and more recent research16
on the impact of social media has
underscored the importance of the ‘personal ask’: people respond more positively to fundraising
requests that come from within their personal networks. To receive maximum reputational
benefit and social recognition for their giving, donors may be attracted to support charities they
perceive as more popular. However, this perception of popularity may be driven by both the
charity and by external influences, such as the media and social media outlets.
This chapter has identified and discussed three theoretical approaches which may be helpful
in making sense of the concept of ‘popular’ and ‘unpopular’ causes. The next chapter contains
original research identifying what types of causes are most widely deemed to be ‘unpopular’
and presents ten case studies of charitable causes that work in these areas but are nonetheless
enjoying fundraising success.
15 S. Sokolowski (1998) ‘Show me the way to the next worthy deed: towards a microstructural theory of volunteering
and giving’. Voluntas vol 7(3), pp.259-278
16 A. Payne, K. Scharf S. Smith (2014) Online Fundraising: the Perfect Ask? Centre for Competitive Advantage in the
Global Economy working paper no.194, http://is.gd/eUQbQ5

Methodology for Identifying Case Studies
No definition of what constitutes an ‘unpopular’ charitable cause exists in the literature or media
sources. Though used relatively frequently to refer to certain groups of charities the phrase relies
on a widespread – but unelaborated – acknowledgement of what it means. Therefore to understand
what causes are considered to be ‘unpopular’ we analysed how the term is used in practice.
Using the Google internet search engine and Nexis, a searchable online database of UK
newspapers, the four terms ‘unpopular’, ‘unworthy’, ‘challenging’ and ‘Cinderella’ were all inserted,
each alternating with the terms ‘charity’ and then ‘cause’. The first 100 responses from the
Google search engine were reviewed for appropriate references. Due to the large quantity of
results, the Nexis analysis was 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
hits were considered as those which mentioned unpopular charities, or any of the relevant
derivatives, and gave examples of what causes or charities may be considered as such. 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 hits were identified, listing 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 listed in table 2 which have been used
to inform the selection of the case studies.
Case Study Cause Example Charity
1 Mental health (including suicide and eating disorders) Mind
2 Refugees and Asylum Seekers Refugee Support Network
3 Offenders/ Ex-Offenders Storybook Dads
4
Improving the mental health and emotional
resilience of children
YoungMinds
5 Support for travellers/ gypsies Ormiston Families
6 AIDS/ HIV Terrence Higgins Trust
7 Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Lucy Faithful Foundation
8 Prostitution Beyond the Streets
9 Homophobia Lesbian and Gay Foundation
10 Drug and Alcohol Addiction Addaction
Table 2 – ‘Unpopular’ causes as defined in UK media coverage
Chapter 4
Case Studies

Brief history
Established in 1946 when three major
UK-based mental health organisations
merged, Mind, previously known as National
Association for Mental Health, has an
established history of achievements over
the past 65 years in terms of campaigning,
influencing decision makers and delivering
services to people experiencing mental health
problems. The charity has, with partners,
been behind some major national campaigns
including the Mind campaign in the 1970s
raising awareness of mental health problems
and Time to Change, launched in 2009, to
challenge stigma and discrimination.
Goals and outcomes
In 2010, concerned that the general public
were unclear about the core work of the
charity and struggling to recruit new donors,
Mind ‘s fundraising strategy shifted from
highlighting policy successes and the
importance of correct diagnosis to focusing
on the impact of real-life experiences of
mental health.
Mind’s annual voluntary income has averaged
around £7m between 2009-2013 with a
relatively stable percentage of almost half
(just over £3m) coming from philanthropic
donations. Though legacy giving has
fluctuated over this period of time, the charity
has experienced increased support from
corporate donations and has almost doubled
its income through ‘challenge events’ to a high
of £1.8m in 2013, evidencing an increased
participation and engagement of donors in
fundraising for the cause.
Mind has worked hard to help support
the ongoing reduction of the stigma and
discrimination associated with mental health
problems which is likely to have contributed to
its fundraising success.
Framing the message
Mind focus on clearly conveying a simple
message evident through their website
homepage with the statement: “We’re Mind,
the mental health charity. We’re here to make
sure no one has to face a mental health
problem alone”.
The charity recognises the complexity and
range of issues it deals with. To help donors
and beneficiaries navigate the wide array of
issues each topic is clearly laid out in terms of
causes, research, help and support, and useful
contacts. Each topic is then accompanied
by a number of accounts and experiences of
individuals helped by Mind.
Illustrating the message
The website reflects the focus on individual
experiences with images depicting individuals
either in a counselling or supportive
setting and photographs of happy people
accompanied by their individual experiences,
including a whole section on ‘your stories’ and
links to individuals blogs. The website utilises
a range of tools to bring to life the personal
stories including videos, voice recordings and
first person written accounts.
Fundraising good practice
The charity purposefully placed fundraising at
the heart of the organisation’s communication
strategy and worked with all staff and
supporters to embed it as a key strategy
across the organisation.
The focus on telling compelling stories is a
key objective shared by the charity leadership.
In an article about fundraising the CEO, Paul
Farmer, stated “Making people care about your
cause means making them care about the
people it affects, and helping them understand
how your work makes a difference.”
Mind boasts a wide range of celebrity
supporters and ambassadors who
promote the work of charity and encourage
philanthropic support. The writer, actor and
comedian Stephen Fry is their President
and ambassadors include former political
aide Alastair Campbell, triple jump champion
Phillips Idowu, comedian Ruby Wax and pop
star Frankie Sandford, amongst many others
capable of having a ‘leadership effect’ on
potential donors.
Case Study 1
Mind
www.mind.org.uk

Brief history
Refugee Support Network (RSN) was founded
in 2009 by members of Community Church
Harlesden. It works with and supports asylum
seekers, refugees and other vulnerable
migrants. In five years it has grown rapidly
and provides a range of educational and
mentoring services primarily aimed at young
asylum seekers.
Goals and outcomes
The initial aims of the charity were to
raise funds to meet a primary objective of
developing education work with young asylum
seekers and refugees. In 2010 fundraising was
the sole preserve of volunteer fundraisers who
raised just £602, accounting for 1.5% of the
young charity’s overall income. By 2013 the
accounts show an increase in donated income
to £14,577 accounting for almost 20% of the
charity’s income.
Framing the message
The charity repeats versions of the following
statement throughout their website and
communications: “We work with young
people affected by displacement and crisis,
enabling them to access, remain and progress
in education at multiple stages in the
migration journey.”
The framing of beneficiaries as deserving
of support is clear in the following description:
“They often experience isolation, loneliness,
and difficulties communicating. Some have
been brought into the UK by human traffickers
and can experience on-going exploitation
and abuse.”
The charity recognises the need to assist
their beneficiaries through educational
opportunities as a meaningful response
to the difficulties they face: “In the midst
of uncertainty, we believe that investing in
education sends a clear message that these
young people have a future that is worth
preparing for.”
The imagery used primarily focuses on
happy young people from a range of ethnic
backgrounds positively engaging with one
another and their local community, reiterating
the message that education is a progressive
way forwards.
The charity makes good use of films
throughout their website and social media
pages to promote individuals’ stories and
experiences. Furthermore the charity has
engaged over 100 volunteers who act as
mentors and help champion the cause, raise
awareness and support.
Case Study 2
Refugee Support Network
www.refugeesupportnetwork.org

Brief history
Established in 2003 as a result of the founder,
Sharon Berry’s, personal experience of
working with prisoners, Storybook Dads works
with imprisoned parents. At first, prisoners
recorded CDs of themselves reading stories
for their children to listen to at home. As this
initiative proved successful, both in promoting
family bonds and in giving the prisoners
meaningful activity which enhanced their skills
and post-release prospects, the charity also
set up an editing suite that enabled prisoners
to film DVDs of their storytelling.
Goals and outcomes
In the past 5 years, fundraised income has
tripled from £7,134 in 2008 to £23,581 in
2013, and donations now account for 11.3%
of the charity’s income, though a peak
fundraising year occurred in 2012 when
£42,956 was raised, accounting for 21.1% of
overall income. The charity attracts corporate
donations, support from groups such as
church groups, schools, Women’s Institutes
and individual donations.
The 2013 annual report notes a significant
increase in fundraising for the charity by
members of the general public, and mentions
the positive role that social media has played
in this development.
Framing the message
The framing of the beneficiaries as primarily
the innocent children of imprisoned parents
is evident in the statement: “The stories bring
comfort to the children and mean they can
hear their parents voice whenever they need
to”. However the charity also recognises that
assisting prisoners to undertake meaningful
activity that may help them upon release, is
also a good fundraising message: “Most of
the work is done by trained prisoners who
gain useful skills and experience of working in
a busy, dynamic environment which can help
with resettlement upon release”
The imagery used to illustrate the message
is primarily of happy children listening to
their storybook or reconnecting with family.
Reiterating the child-focused approach, the
whole feel of the website reflects this with a
range of drawings and doodles, giving the
impression that children have helped design
the site and are directly asking the donor
for support.
The charity has made good use of celebrity
patrons: Terry Waite, the organisation’s current
patron, features prominently on the website
and Princess Anne opened the charity’s new
office in 2007. The charity has won 12 awards,
all proudly listed on their website, and their
founder was made an OBE in 2010.
Highlighted campaigns such as the ‘No-Ball
Ball Invitation’ which encourages donors to
create silly reasons as why not to attend the
imaginary event and donate money instead,
accompanied with the message: ‘It’s only
purpose is to get you to give us a donation
so that we can continue to help thousands
of socially excluded families every year’ have
been successful in raising the charities profile.
These campaigns have been shared widely
via social media and supported by celebrities
such as Joanna Lumley, patron Terry Waite
and author Jonathan Emmett ‘tweeting’ their
comical RSVP’s.
In each of the annual reports the charity
gives warm thanks to the donors who have
supported them that year, listing them by their
by individual name or the name of their group.
Case Study 3
Storybook Dads
www.storybookdads.org.uk

Brief history
YoungMinds was established in 1993 and
promotes itself as the UK’s leading charity
committed to improving the emotional
wellbeing and mental health of children and
young people. Drawing on more than 20 years
of consulting with young people and parents
about mental health, the charity places their
views at the heart of the organisation, with
an aim ‘to improve the lives and futures of
children and young people experiencing
mental distress’.
Goals and outcomes
The charity website has a strong focus
on fundraising, encouraging donors and
volunteers to get involved in a number of
different ways including through regular
donating, challenges and an A to Z of
fundraising ideas.
Between 2013 and 2014 Young Minds
increased the amount they received from
donations by 25% (£135,000). This equates
to 27% of their income for 2014, compared to
16% for 2013.
Framing the message
The charity offers a clearly framed message
about the work it does. Outlining ‘the problem’
the charity recognises that the young people
it supports are often ‘demonised by society’,
and breaks this down to the causes which are
more likely to solicit emotive responses, such
as isolation, unhappiness, eating disorders
and self-harm. The message clearly frames
the beneficiaries as the victim, by using
statements such as ‘Many are likely to become
victims of crime, grow up in dysfunctional
families, or left to cope with illness, drugs
and/or alcohol issues – not necessarily their
own’ and ‘disruptive, difficult, withdrawn and
disturbed kids need to be supported and not
just ignored or told off’.
The charity utilises imagery of children
and young people throughout its website,
focusing on individuals and their stories. The
page promoting donating and fundraising is
introduced through the voice of Oscar, age
11, who is a beneficiary of the charity and
promotes fundraising to support children
like him. Alongside this good use is made
of videos to illustrate their activities and
evidence-based research to underpin the
effectiveness of their work.
The website and marketing material of the
charity is clear and concise, succinctly
outlining the problem, solutions and impact
the charity has had. For example, with
messages such as ‘850,000 young people in
the UK are affected by mental health problems.
That’s three children in every classroom.
Children can be affected by depression,
anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm… very real
and scary problems. We are the UK’s leading
charity improving the mental health and
wellbeing of children and young people. Please
donate and help us continue our vital work.’
Donating is easy, and examples are given of
what certain amounts can support. The charity
also promotes certain causes in urgent need
of funding inviting donors to help them ‘save’
certain, vital services. They also facilitate a
number of other ways to give including ‘in
memory’ of a loved one, through donating
a car, clothes donations and establishing
corporate partnerships.
The focus on impact in their annual ‘Impact
Report’ highlights the differences made
to young people’s lives and the 50 plus
case studies on the website highlight the
effectiveness of the work and helps donors
connect with the beneficiaries
of the charity.
Case Study 4
YoungMinds
www.youngminds.org.uk

Brief history
A children’s charity based in East Anglia,
Ormiston Families offers support to children
and families affected by imprisonment,
works with families from Gypsy and Traveller
Communities, runs children’s centres and
offers a range of support to parents.
The charity was launched by the family of
Fiona Ormiston Murray, after she and her
new husband were killed in a car accident on
their honeymoon in 1969. The Murray Family
established the Ormiston Trust ‘to create a
living memorial to a woman who loved children
but was denied the chance to have her own’.
In 2014 the charity changed their name
from Ormiston Children’s and Families Trust,
to Ormiston Families and established four
programmes of work to reflect the aims of
the charity; the Nurture Programme, the
Engage Programme, the Unite Programme
and the Connect Programme.
Goals and outcomes
An investment in fundraising saw a rise in
voluntary income to £178,000 in 2013/14 from
£139,000 in 2012/13, an increase of 28%, this
income was from a combination of donations
and events.
Framing the message
The charity deals with a number of the causes
considered unpopular as defined by UK media,
including gypsies and travellers, offenders and
children of families with addiction problems.
However the framing of the cause focuses on
children and happy families. The values of the
charity are powerful and emotive, reflecting
wording often associated with family and close
communities; ‘we are brave’, ‘we are effective’
and ‘we are caring’.
Throughout the website the voice of
beneficiaries are represented in speech
bubbles. There are also a number of case
studies outlining emotive and powerful stories
of families in difficulties and how the charity
helped them overcome these.
The homepage of the website opens with large
images of happy children on a rolling screen,
with emotive captions such as, ‘Worries
soothed’, ‘Tears dried’ and ‘We gave her back
her smile’. These images continue throughout
the website, highlighting the plights of
individual children.
The charity uses short films to try and
challenge communities, for example one
project ‘Life Through a Lens – Our Voice’ gave
young people from the Cambridgeshire Gypsy
and Traveller communities the opportunity to
show their culture through their eye and their
voice, highlighting individual cases studies
that Ormiston has supported.
The charity selectively and effectively frames
their fundraising messages around supporting
all children and families, rather than any of
the specific groups they support. They invest
heavily in fundraising. The charity has a strong
focus on participation in fun events as part of
the fundraising activities, including ‘children’s
marathons’, ‘walk with a fork’, sky diving, baking
challenges and cycling events.
Donating is easy, with examples given about
what individual amounts will support.
Case Study 5
Ormiston Families
www.ormiston.org

Brief history
The Terrence Higgins Trust was set up in 1982
by friends of Terry Higgins, one of the first
people to die in the UK with AIDS. According to
the website ‘the charity’s roots were in the gay
community’, however they later expanded their
work to include all people affected by AIDS
and the provision of sexual health services,
working across the UK and Europe.
Goals and outcomes
The launch of the 30th anniversary of the
charity in June 2012 saw an increased
focus on fundraising activities. Unrestricted
voluntary income stood at £2,873,000 in 2012
rising by almost a fifth to £3,497,000 in 2013.
In 2013 the charity set a strategic aim of:
‘Working to increase the level of charitable
donations to HIV as a cause through
continuing to develop new approaches to our
fundraising work’.
Framing the message
The charity frames its message with the
following vision statement: ‘Our vision is a
world where people with HIV live healthy lives
free from prejudice and discrimination, and
good sexual health is a right and reality for all.’
The charity illustrates this mission with
statements and campaigns highlighting
how AIDS can affect anyone in society. The
charity makes good use of personal stories
and videos showing a range of individuals
from all backgrounds, ethnicities and
sexual orientation.
The charity’s website is focused on personal
stories, which are hard hitting and emotive
beginning with statements such as: ‘I first
met Beth after she tried to kill herself for
the second time.’ Illustrated with pictures of
individuals, and various emotive statements
highlighted in bold, the impact of AIDS on the
individual is evident.
The imagery throughout the website is largely
positive of individuals who are empowered or
being supported by others.
The website is interactive and can be
personalised around an individual’s sexual
orientation, ethnicity and gender. Once
personalised, not only is the advice tailored
but also the messages encouraging donations
and the featured stories of success are also
altered accordingly.
The charity maximises the presence of its
extensive list of high profile patrons, including
the actress Dame Judy Dench, the pop star
Sir Elton John, TV and radio presenter Graham
Norton and entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson.
Celebrity support is used to help attract major
donors to the ‘friends of life’ group led by
Stephen Fry, who hosts regular gala dinners
for this ‘exclusive’ group of donors as a way of
thanking them.
The charity has a network of over 10,000
campaigning members, 6,000 of whom are
living with HIV, who help raise the profile of
the organisation, campaign for change and
support fundraising.
The charity prioritises asking for donations
and carries requests for one-off and regular
donations on the website’s home page and
constantly repeats the message throughout
its communications: ‘Donate now. Together we
can stop HIV in its tracks’.
Case Study 6
Terrence Higgins Trust
www.tht.org.uk

Brief history
Set up in 1992 in honour of the work of
Baroness Lucy Faithfull, the Lucy Faithfull
Foundation tackles child abuse by working
with abusers, or those at risk of abusing,
providing specialist treatment to change
their behaviour. It also supports non-abusing
partners and parents; runs a campaign and
helpline for people worried about their own
or someone else’s behaviour, among other
services; and has volunteer groups that
monitor sex offenders on probation.
Goals and Outcomes
The Lucy Faithfull Foundation has faced
particularly challenging times in fundraising,
with proven projects being forced to close
and withdrawal of funding pledges due to
negative reactions from the public. The
charity outlines in its annual report a primary
focus on communication of its message with
supporters, with fundraising as a secondary
focus.
Though still only accounting for less than
1% of income the annual accounts show
donations tripled from £11,066 in 2012 to
£37,319 in 2013, this is attributed to increased
efforts in fundraising by all staff, better
communication with supporters and an
improved website.
Framing the message
The annual reports define the charity’s work
in emotive language: “Imagine that you could
put a protective shield around a child – now
you can imagine the work of The Lucy Faithfull
Foundation.”
The website emphasises that the charity’s
focus is on child protection, rather than on
the offenders it works with, by prominently
displaying the statement “The Lucy Faithfull
Foundation is a registered child protection
charity which works across the UK to prevent
child sexual abuse”.
Though the website has very few pictures,
which mostly illustrate the less controversial
elements of their work such as training and
advice, on the home page is a compelling
image of smiling adults alongside a promise
directed at children. The ‘Yours Faithfully
Promise’ focuses on engaging supporters
by asking adults to sign up to the following
pledge, “Dear Children, I want you to grow up
free from sexual abuse and exploitation. I wish
to do something to make that happen. I sign up
to protect you. Yours Faithfully”.
Despite the history of attracting public
criticism, fundraisers for the charity have
persisted in championing the cause in
television and radio interviews, and made
good use of social media, such as blogs, to
take their message direct to the public.
In 2010 the charity was featured as a case
study in a New Philanthropy Capital report,
which identified two main strategies:
❥❥ focusing on building the evidence-base
of activities to prove that direct work with
paedophiles is an effective means of
tackling child abuse;
❥❥ employing a media officer to promote the
work of the charity and its message that
working with paedophiles or potential
paedophiles can help to prevent child
abuse.
Case Study 7
Lucy Faithfull Foundation
www.lucyfaithfull.org

Brief history
In 1995 a small network of grass-root projects
met to share ideas about supporting people
exiting prostitution. Originally named ‘National
Christian Alliance on Prostitution’ or NCAP
the organisation now heads up a network
of over 50 projects addressing the needs
of those involved in prostitution, providing
direct support and campaigning for better
awareness and removal of stigma.
Goals and outcomes
In 2009 faced with the economic downturn the
charity invested in fundraising training for the
whole charity. This resulted 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 the charity has more than doubled
its voluntary income from £8,036 in 2009 to
£18,204 in 2014, which now accounts for 21%
of the charity’s overall income.
Framing the message
The central message of the charity is clear
and simple: ‘a charity working to end sexual
exploitation’. The website’s homepage text
focuses upon people working in the sex
industry as victims and calls the sex industry
‘a theatre for gender power dynamics to
take stage’.
The website and communication resources
about the charity all reflect the theme of
‘moving beyond’, with campaigns entitled
‘beyond prostitution’, ‘beyond the limits’ and
‘beyond the label’. This message is further
reflected in their change of name in 2008 from
‘National Christian Alliance on Prostitution’
to ‘Beyond the Streets’. The charity directly
appeals to donors through statements such as
‘we receive a large proportion of our funding
from people like you, who believe in the
possibility of a life beyond prostitution’.
The imagery on the website is minimal, though
includes emotive pictures such as a woman
with ‘whore’ stamped on the back of her
neck to illustrate stereotyping. Each of the
campaigns is described by victims through
their personal experiences, written as a
narrative or as poetry.
The change of name by the charity was a
deliberate move ‘to convey more clearly
our belief in the possibility of life beyond
prostitution.’
The charity is very clear that financial support
is more urgently required than volunteers,
highlighted by the following statement: ‘Many
people want to help by giving their time but we
are increasingly finding that many projects are
currently unable to take on new volunteers.
What does make a huge impact are people
who are prepared to give financial support.
Even £5 a month can make a big difference.’
Case Study 8
Beyond the Streets
www.beyondthestreets.org.uk

Brief history
Incorporated as a charity in 1998, the Lesbian
and Gay Foundation is predominantly a
campaigning charity with the mission: ‘Ending
Homophobia, Empowering People’. They
campaign for ‘a fair and equal society where all
lesbian, gay and bisexual people can achieve
their full potential’.
Though the charity has shown a fall in
voluntary income over recent years, the
charity has been successful in attracting
philanthropic support through targeted one-
off campaigns, which have been effective in
terms of both income generation and
profile raising.
Goals and outcomes
In 2011 the charity set a strategic target to
focus on fundraising from charitable trusts
and foundations, and on building relationships
with commissioners.
In 2013 the charity received over £50,000 in
donations through sponsorship, individual
giving and fundraising at events.
Framing the message
Using the tag line ‘Ending Homophobia,
Empowering People’ the charity frames its
message around action and campaigning.
The website is populated with active drives
for change and opportunities to get involved
including campaigns around homelessness,
HIV and AIDS, Drugs, GP services and
community representation. At any one time
more than 10 different campaigns are likely to
be running.
The charity recognises it deals with a large
number of complex issues. Though general
support is sought, it particularly frames
requests for donations around its ‘Enough
is Enough’ campaign to take action against
homophobia.
Whereas most of the imagery on the website
is either an animated picture or symbol, the
pictures involving people primarily contain
large groups of individuals rallying together
for a protest or shared cause, presenting a
united front.
The charity asks for donations towards a
specific cause that is easy for donors to
understand and deemed most likely to attract
public sympathy; the ‘Enough is Enough’
campaign raised just over £50,000 in 2012/13.
The charity is particularly strong in promoting
its impact, each year an impact report sits
alongside the annual report, using case
studies, personal stories and promotional
literature to illustrate the impact their work
has had in the previous year.
Case Study 9
The Lesbian and Gay Foundation
www.lgbt.foundation

Brief history
Initially known as the Association of Parents
of Addicts (APA), Addaction was formed in
1967 when founder Mollie Craven wrote an
article in The Guardian newspaper appealing
to the families of addicts to start a support
group. Support for families remains a central
theme and their activities have expanded to
include clinical treatment, social support and
recovery services for adults, young people
and their families.
Goals and outcomes
A self-defined ‘unpopular’ cause, Addaction
launched a campaign in 2008/09 with the aim
to “target head-on the perception of drug
and alcohol treatment as an unfashionable
and unpopular cause to support”. Fundraising
income stood at £225,000 in 2013 according
to the annual accounts.
The charity highlights the effectiveness of
its work with online statements such as:
“Last year we helped 18,467 people through
recovery from alcohol, 14,551 from opiates,
8,238 from cocaine and crack, 677 from
novel psychoactive substances and 437 from
prescribed medications”.
Framing the message
The main image on the website homepage
demonstrates how people the charity helps
are also at risk in other ways – the picture
depicts a person hidden in shadows and the
statement “Women experiencing domestic
violence are up to 15 times more likely to
misuse alcohol and nine times more likely to
misuse drugs than women generally.”
‘Recovery’ is a strong theme in the charity’s
literature, with images of happy, healthy
individuals and groups, this is a theme which
continues throughout the rest of the website
and marketing material. For example, the
launch of ‘Recovery Champions’ in 2011
“spread[s] the message that this recovery is
both achievable and worth aspiring to” and
has, according to the charity’s annual reports,
been successful in promoting the charity
both with other organisations and to the
‘wider world’.
The charity uses personal stories and
statements by service users to support each
campaign and to illustrate their work. Powerful
messages include: “Without Addaction, I
wouldn’t be talking to you now. They got me
the right medication to help me cut down
and stop drinking” and “this will be my first
Christmas free of alcohol, and I’m really looking
forward to it… Sarah at Addaction didn’t cost
me anything, she didn’t judge me, and she
really, really helped me.”
The charity makes good use of a variety
of ways for donors to get involved in both
donating and relating to the cause. For
example, making text donations via the ‘SKIP’
Campaign which encourages donors to skip
one drink and text to donate £3, as well as
challenge events such as the ‘Cycle to Break
the Cycle’ campaign,
Case Study 10
Addaction
www.addaction.org.uk

As the previous chapters clearly demonstrate, asking for donations is a critical factor in
fundraising. However there is a surprising lack of confidence amongst charities about asking
people for support. Charities often rely on their work alone to attract support and do not directly
‘make the ask’.17
Drawing on the last three chapters – the literature review, the theoretical
underpinnings and the case studies – we suggest eight barriers to asking that affect all types
of charities, wherever they perceive themselves to be on the ‘popularity spectrum’.
The barriers have an impact at different levels of the fundraising process:
❥❥ The organisational level of the charity;
❥❥ The interaction between the donor and the cause; and
❥❥ Wider societal norms and values.
The further from the actual charity that the barrier exists, the less influence the charity can have
and the more external forces are at play. Therefore the ‘ask’ can become more challenging, but
as our case studies showed, not insurmountable.
17 A. Thelkelsen (2011) ‘Encounters with Philanthropic Information: Cognitive Dissonance and Implications for the
Social Sector’, Voluntas, vol 22(3), pp.518-545
Chapter 5
Wider Society:
Barriers 7–8
Donor:
Barriers 5–6
Charity:
Barriers 1–4

I Organisational level barriers
Barrier 1: Not having an established Culture of Philanthropy
Having a ‘culture of philanthropy’ means that a positive approach to philanthropy is embedded
throughout the charity and realised in its core principles, behaviours and values.18
A recent
study19
revealed that a third of charities (33%) felt fundraising was not a strong priority within
their business plan, and 85% thought their fundraising approach needed strengthening. This was
coupled with 44% experiencing a decrease in fundraising resources and just under 50% feeling
that staff had no dedicated time to fundraise and generate income.
A culture of philanthropy is apparent when there is a shared responsibility for fundraising by all
staff and volunteers, and reflected in the leadership of the organisation, the communication
strategy and how the staff and stakeholders in that charity talk about and promote the work
of the charity. It is about ensuring every single person connected to the charity – not just
the person whose job title is ‘fundraiser’ – is empowered to effectively be a cheerleader and
encourage donor support.
Barrier 2: Failure to cultivate Cheerleaders
Cheerleaders are in a particular position of influence with donors. We know that the behaviours
of peers and shared social norms are strong influencers within philanthropic activity and
therefore cheerleaders can prompt people to support causes. Cheerleaders can also offer a
personal connection and help the donor feel closer to the cause. Cheerleaders can include
beneficiaries, volunteers, staff, friends, ambassadors and celebrity supporters. Therefore
empowering individuals to become cheerleaders increases the reach of a charity accessing
these social networks.
Celebrity and high profile donors can use their position to send powerful messages about the
charitable causes they support by highlighting the importance of the work being undertaken
and/or the suffering of beneficiaries as well as by bringing some glamour to the issue.20
Furthermore, people who aspire to emulate or identify themselves with cheerleaders may be
motivated to donate. Being able to demonstrate support from popular cheerleaders can help
potential donors to distinguish between the many competing causes seeking their funds, as
some donors use celebrity supporters as a ‘shorthand method of assessing a charity’s calibre’.21
18 J. Bell M. Cornelius (2014) Underdeveloped: a national study of challenges facing nonprofit fundraising.
CompassPoint and the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund
19 C. Pharoah, T. Chapman R. Choudhury (2014) An Insight into the Future of Charity Funding in the North East.
London: Garfield Weston Foundation
20 O. Driessens, S. Joye O. Biltereyst (2013) ‘The X-factor of charity: a critical analysis of celebrities’ involvement in
the 2010 Flemish and Dutch Haiti relief shows’. Media, Culture and Society, vol 34(6)
21 B. Breeze (2012) ‘How Donors Choose Charities: The role of personal taste and experiences in giving decisions’,
Voluntary Sector Review, vol 4(2), p.165-183
Chapter 5
Continued

Barrier 3: Difficulties encountered in donating
Making the donation process simple is an important factor in securing philanthropic support.
Difficulties encountered when trying to make a donation can suggest a charity does not prioritise
voluntary support, and is also unlikely to be ‘asking’ well or often. If a charity is trying to ask, either
directly or indirectly through cheerleaders and ambassadors, potential donors are likely to be
deterred if it is difficult to donate and in the worst case scenario take their support elsewhere.
The importance of this factor is highlighted by the upsurge in donations as a result of recent
social media successes such as the ‘#nomakeupselfie’, and the ice bucket challenge. Despite
vociferous criticism by commentators about lack of awareness of the charitable causes
supported and absence of evidence of impact, these campaigns enjoyed enormous success in
the UK, raising £8m and £11m respectively, which was arguably in large part due to the simplicity
of donating by texting a well-publicised number.
Barrier 4: The Framing of the Cause
Framing the cause effectively to both capture donors’ sympathies and appeal directly to donors’
personal tastes is key to securing donations. Charities campaigning for ‘unpopular’ causes often
find themselves with a particularly high barrier to overcome because of the complexity of the
issues being addressed. As with all causes, they must find a way to frame the cause so that it
appeals most widely to public sympathies. Yet as they often represent the most complex causes
they must find a way to represent these complicated causes in a simple and accessible way,
because clarity is paramount in attracting mass philanthropic support.
Effective framing of the cause helps donors to connect to the charity. It is largely assumed that
individuals donate to causes which they perceive to be ‘worthy’ of charitable support and in
doing so are supporting the ‘public good’ outside of an individual’s direct circle of friends and
families,22
however as chapters 1 and 2 reveal, this is an over-simplification of the real picture.
Charities can significantly increase the level of donors’ connectivity to their work through
better framing of the cause, in order to engage the emotions, and increase the likelihood
of philanthropic support. For example, framing the charity’s work in terms of the ultimate
beneficiaries rather than those the charity directly works with, can make the cause more
relatable for a wider pool of potential donors
22 R. Payton M. Moody (2008) Understanding Philanthropy: Its Meaning and Mission. Bloomington, Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press

II Barriers that exist at donor level
Barrier 5: The Perception of Culpability
Donors are more likely to donate if the beneficiaries are perceived to be ‘needy’, ideally through
little or no fault of their own and hence perceived to be free – or more free – of culpability.23
However the translation of this perception of ‘need’ into giving decisions is not a simple process.
Donors often use three main judgements to assess the worthiness of a charitable cause:
❥❥ The seriousness of the situation and suffering;
❥❥ The extent of responsibility the donor feels for the situation; and
❥❥ The degree of sympathy felt by the donor.24
The social construction of donors’ sympathy for recipients hinges upon a complex range of
factors both internal and external to the charity. The charity can control how its cause is framed
and this is a powerful tool in both raising the visibility of causes and challenging the perception
of culpability. However, how donors assign culpability and deem worthiness remain primarily
personal and subjective.25
Studies26
into donor behaviour suggest that sympathy can be impacted by a wide range of
external influences such as personal experiences, family, friends, social media, media outlets,
political, social and economic circumstances, and therefore are beyond the complete control
of the charity, yet steps can be taken, as illustrated in the case studies, such as a pro-active and
positive communications strategy.
Barrier 6: Lack of clarity of the Cause
The clarity of a cause is evident by how easily the charity conveys the plight and need of their
beneficiaries to donors. When clearly defined, donors can understand the mission of the charity
and the impact that donations will achieve.
We know that donors like to understand what impact their donation will have.27
For example
72%28
of the major wealthy donors in the UK prefer to donate to charities which are able to clearly
demonstrate their impact and have a lasting effect. Therefore if a cause is particularly complex,
as is often the case for ‘unpopular’ causes, fundraisingis more likely to be successful if donors
can donate to particular projects within the charity29
where the impact can be clearly identified.
23 N. Fenton, P. Golding A. Radley (1993) Charities, media and public opinion, Loughborough: Department of Social
Sciences, University of Loughborough
24 R. Flores (2013) ‘When charity does not begin at home: Exploring the British socioemotional economy of
compassion’. Sociological Research Online, 18(1)
25 R. Bennett (2002) ‘Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity’. International Journal of
Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, vol 8(1)
26 B. Breeze (2012) ‘How Donors Choose Charities: The role of personal taste and experiences in giving decisions’,
Voluntary Sector Review, vol 4(2), p.165-183
27 P. Ly G. Mason (2012) ‘Individual Preferences over Development Project: Evidence from Microlending on Kiva’,
Voluntas, vol 23(4)
28 CAF (2014) Why We Give. London: Charities Aid Foundation. https://www.cafonline.org/publications/2014-
publications/why-we-give.aspx
29 M. Bachke, F. Alfnes M. Wik (2014) ‘Eliciting Donor Preferences’, Voluntas, vol. 25(2)
Chapter 5
Continued

III Barriers that exist at a societal level.
Barrier 7: Lack of visibility of the Cause
By definition, donors cannot support causes they are unaware of. This partly explains why the
most popular causes are often in synergy with the most visible issues. It is difficult to determine
in every case whether visibility precedes or follows philanthropic support, but there are some
long-term broad charitable causes that enjoy ongoing high visibility, and others that have
been relatively invisible, and suddenly due to a particular event or sequence of events – not
necessarily positive – can become highly visible. For example, the Manchester Dogs Home
raised just £1 million in donations in 2013, but following a widely publicised fire in September
2014 it attracted twice that amount in just one month.30
Whilst some people suggest that one charity’s gain is another’s loss, it is not the case that all
donations are substitutable.31
Different causes attract different sorts of people and most donors
do not allocate a finite amount of resources to donate, therefore elevating the visibility of one
charity can increase the overall size of philanthropic contributions, rather than simply lead to a
re-slicing of the pie.
Finally it should be noted that though strategic marketing campaigns and events do raise
visibility and donor awareness of a cause, this is often reliant on forces external to the charity,
for example the extent – and tone – of media coverage.
Barrier 8: Lack of coverage of Cause in the Media
How and why media outlets frame certain social issues and which ones they decide to place
on the public radar is an interesting area with a large literature. However the impact media
can have on donors’ understanding and perception of particular causes is relevant to the
present discussion.
Many charities lack the funds, resources and networks to launch significant media campaigns,
and their supporters and leadership may not endorse spending precious funds on such
activities. Even when a media campaign is launched it is very difficult to ascertain the factors that
lead to success. It is therefore often beneficial for charities to work together to raise the profile
of specific ‘invisible’ causes and use their combined resources and networks to secure sufficient
media support for the effort to be fruitful.
However despite restricted access to corporatised media markets, charities can negotiate and
expand media opportunities by strategically selecting mission-relevant media projects that
match their existing resources and networks, and fit with current social interests.32
Social media, entails a democratisation of ‘gate-keeping’ and opens new opportunities. Recent
research33
reveals significant increases in fundraising via peer-to-peer solicitations utilising
outlets such as Facebook, demonstrating the importance of being asked by someone who is
known to the potential donor.
30 Manchester Dogs’ Home Fire donations reach £2m’. BBC News Online – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-
manchester-29561323 (accessed 9/6/15)
31 R. Bennett, R. (2002) Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity, International Journal
of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, vol 8 (1)
32 C. Ryan, M. Anastario K. Jeffreys (2005) ‘Start small, build big: negotiating opportunities in media markets’.
Mobilization, vol 10(1)
33 M. Castillo, R. Petrie C. Wardell (2014) ‘Fundraising through online social networks: a field experiment on peer-to-
peer solicitation’. Journal of Public Economics vol 114

This final section draws together the findings discussed above to present implications for
practice. Key messages for ‘unpopular’ charities include;
❥❥ Charities need to focus on overcoming the ‘barriers to asking’ rather than creating a
self-fulfilling prophecy by dismissing their cause as ‘unpopular’.
❥❥ Building a strong culture of philanthropy and investing in fundraising, should enable all
charities to expect some success in fundraising.
❥❥ Targeting fundraising activities to overcome the eight barriers to asking, should also help,
charities to maximise their philanthropic income,
Table 3 demonstrates that most (75%) of the barriers to asking can be overcome, or significantly
reduced, through pro-active action on the part of the organisation seeking funds, and the
remaining 25% can be impacted to a limited extent.
Understanding how the eight ‘barriers to asking’ can impact on
philanthropic reach
Much of the current research focuses on donor demographics, dispositions and decision
making. One unintended consequence of this important body of work is that it has created
some stereotypical images of donors (such as the ‘Dorothy Donor’ caricature) and the type of
charitable causes they are willing to support (to be very reductionist: ‘cancer, kids and kittens’),
which are unhelpful for the many donors and causes that do not fit these stereotypes.
We argue that this situation can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in which charities exclude
themselves from, or barely engage with, the fundraising arena. It is no wonder they then
experience the barriers to asking that are explored above.
Faced with varying degrees of ‘barriers to asking’ these charities are more likely to focus their
efforts on pursuing contracts and statutory income, and view fundraising from private individuals
and institutions as a risky area requiring the input of scarce resources, which of course
perpetuates the situation.
Conclusions and Implications
for Practice
Barrier Cause What is it about? Who influencers the barrier the most
1 Culture of philanthropy Charities’ internal
processes, policies and
marketing approach
The charity
2 Cheerleaders
3 Ease to donate
4 Framing of the cause
5 Perceived culpability Relationship between
the charity and the donor
Charity and donors
6 Clarity of cause
7 Visibility Wider societal impacts Larger social forces, i.e. media,
politics, cultural context8 Coverage
Table 3

The importance of Philanthropic Reach
The impact of each of the eight barriers on fundraising can be depicted in terms of the
philanthropic reach of a charity. The wider a charity’s ‘philanthropic reach’ the more successful
its fundraising efforts are likely to be. A charity which clearly addresses all of the barriers will
have a wide philanthropic reach and is likely to receive a high level of fundraising income.
Unsurprisingly a charity that has not considered, let alone addressed, these barriers is likely to
receive very minimal philanthropic income.
This model is not meant to suggest that the barriers are of equal importance for every charity.
But it is intended to provide a useful tool to help charities understand which barriers may be
preventing them from maximising their philanthropic income.
Maximised versus minimal philanthropic reach
Culture of Philanthropy
CheerleadersCoverage
Visibility Ease to donate
Framing of the cause
Perceived culpability
Clarity of cause
10
8
6
4
2
0
Maximised
Minimal

Top Ten Tips
Drawing on the findings of this report and the examples of good practice highlighted in the case
studies, we suggest ‘ten tips’ to help ensure a maximum philanthropic reach for charities. Whilst
this list is relevant for all charities, it is specifically developed with ‘unpopular’ causes in mind.
1. Ask
Asking donors to donate is the single biggest factor affecting giving. Research shows that over
80% of donations occur in response to a solicitation.
Asking means going beyond offering information about the need and creating opportunities
to donate. It means proactively embracing fundraising and directly approaching donors. The
‘askers’ do not necessarily have to be professional fundraisers, but can be friends, cheerleaders,
beneficiaries and stakeholders of the charity. The ‘asker’ should be well informed and able
to communicate easily about the particular appeal, as well as provide clear and concise
information about the overall mission and work of the charity. Therefore it is important that the
communication strategy is owned by all those who represent the charity.
2. Take a Holistic Approach
No barrier to asking can be considered in isolation from the others, and nor should they be.
Each of the barriers and potential solutions are interlocking and require a holistic, whole system
approach for a charity.
Many of the case studies illustrate this holistic approach to fundraising. For example, Mind
clearly places fundraising ‘at the heart of the organisation’ ensuring that it is the business of
every person who works for or is involved in the organisations. Too often fundraising is seen as a
separate activity to the main business of a charity rather than a mobilising factor that enables the
work to take place.
The fundraising strategy needs to be an integral part of both the communication and business
strategy. The brand of the organisation, the ‘ask’, the marketing, imagery, framing and methods of
fundraising all need to support the compelling story that donors hear.
3. Invest in Fundraising
For charities to achieve and grow their philanthropic income they must invest resources in
proportion to the size of their fundraising goals; however such resources do not necessarily have
to be purely financial.
A recent study34
revealed that voluntary sector organisations were excluding themselves from
receiving philanthropic funding as a result of neither asking nor investing in fundraising. The
reluctance to invest scare resources in what is often considered the risky venture of fundraising
is widespread and understandable. But refraining from, or reducing, investment in fundraising,
leaves charities increasingly reliant on existing sources of income rather than expanding their
potential support.
Investing in marketing campaigns to raise awareness about the charity and cause is particularly
important for ‘unpopular’ causes where public perceptions are often cited as one of the major
barriers for these charities to overcome. By appropriately framing the cause to maximise the
pool of potential supporters and by supporting the development of empathy for the cause, the
raising of funds should become less of an uphill struggle.
34 C. Pharoah, T. Chapman R. Choudhury (2014) An Insight into the Future of Charity Funding in the North East.
London: Garfield Weston Foundation
Conclusions and Implications for Practice
Continued

4. Frame the Cause
Framing the cause in the most effective way is essential to ensure the charity’s aims are viewed
as important and appealing by the largest number of potential donors. Research shows that
framing the cause in relation to an individual beneficiary, such as one child, is far more effective
than focusing on large numbers of potential beneficiaries.35
Furthermore personalising the
message of the charity through story-telling and individual case studies is more likely to appeal
to donors’ sympathies. Underpinning this approach with images that donors can personally
connect to and that elicit empathy, is also likely to increase the likelihood of donations.36
‘Unpopular’ charities need to consider carefully the type of stories they tell. For charities
campaigning for complex causes, highlighting personal and compelling stories of individuals
helps the donor emotionally connect to the cause and feel empathy with the beneficiaries.
Almost all the case studies highlighted in this report tell individual beneficiary stories as a
representation of the work that they do. Such approaches allow donors to understand and
visualise the impact of their gift. Furthermore when campaigning for a range of complex issues
under a single cause, highlighting one or two issues that are particularly appealing to the public
can be advantageous.
5. Empower Cheerleaders and Friends
The idea of friends and advocates of charities often bring to mind either celebrities or high profile
donors. It would be naïve to understate the importance of the role these individuals can play in
promoting a cause, however engaging such individuals can be difficult, especially for smaller
charities with fewer resources.
But cheerleaders do not need to be famous. A key lesson of the impact of social media is that
anyone who is connected to other people can promote the work of a charity. By encouraging
the people at the heart of ‘unpopular causes’ – including beneficiaries, former beneficiaries,
their parents and loved ones, as well as volunteers and staff – to ask their friends, family and
social networks to support the cause, the funding can soon add up. Who better to approach
donors with a personalised message, provide clarity, demonstrate connectivity, effectively frame
and address issues around perceived culpability than the staff, friends and stakeholders of a
charity itself?
This point is also illustrated in the case studies. The Refugee Support Network has over
100 volunteers who champion the charity, whilst the Terrence Higgins Trust has over 10,000
campaigning members, 6,000 of whom are beneficiaries of the charity as well as an impressive
list of celebrity supporters promoting the charity.
35 M. Bachke, F. Alfnes M. Wik (2014) ‘Eliciting Donor Preferences’, Voluntas, vol. 25(2)
36 D. A. Small, G. Loewenstein P. Slovic (2007) ‘Sympathy and Callousness: the impact of deliberative thought on
donations to identifiable and statistical victims’. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes vol 102,
pp143-153

6. Seize opportunities to raise your profile
Opportunities to raise profile can be created through calculated marketing efforts, or they can be
opportunistic. Accepting that the visibility of a cause is largely influenced by wider social factors
means that a charity needs to remain vigilant of opportunities to discuss and promote the work
of the charity at all opportunities.
Again this is illustrated by a case study. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation has faced particularly
challenging times in fundraising, with proven projects being forced to close and withdrawal of
funding pledges due to negative reactions and organised protests from the public. In response
to this they have focused on championing the cause in television and radio interviews, and made
good use of social media, such as blogs, to take their message direct to the public.
7. Make donating easy
A common trend throughout the case studies, and supported by the majority of the top 100
fundraising organisations is the importance of the ease of donating. Each of the case studies
offers a clear and accessible form of donating online, with most offering a range of options.
Most of us receive a huge amount of communications every day, primarily from people trying
to sell us things we don’t really need. Charities have to shout loudly and make it easy to follow
through when their message succeeds in being heard. Both the issue and the ways in which
individuals can respond need to be clear and easy to act on. Charities have a relatively short
amount of time to gain donors, attention and even less time to encourage them to donate. By
using easy methods such as texting or online donations, the donor is less likely to give up.
8. Thank donors and supporters promptly and sincerely
This sounds like an obvious tip, however it is often overlooked by charities in pursuit of attracting
an increased number of donors. Yet investing in efforts to hold onto existing supporters is more
productive than investing in recruiting new donors. Donors will often continue to support causes
they have supported previously, if they receive prompt and sincere thanks, as well as timely
feedback on what their donation has achieved.
Many of the charities featured in the case studies invest effort in thanking donors promptly and
sincerely, for example Story Book Dads thanks each of their donors personally and in their annual
reports.
9. Demonstrate impact
We know that donors’ decisions are influenced by their judgements regarding the competence
of charitable organisations. Efficient use of money is a common proxy for judging overall
competence, so having clear accounts and figures that demonstrate effective impact are likely
to increase donations.
The Lesbian and Gay Foundation is particularly strong in demonstrating impact. Each year they
publish an impact report which sits alongside their annual report, detailing how donations are
spent and using case studies and personal stories to underline the impact of their work in the
previous year.
Conclusions and Implications for Practice
Continued

10. Make donors feel part of something special
Finding ways to help donors feel connected to the cause and part of the solution, will help
increase the pool of cheerleaders, raise awareness and visibility and encourage donors’
connectivity to, and sympathy for, a cause. All these outcomes help a charity to increase its
philanthropic reach.
As illustrated in the case studies, Storybook Dads works with families where a parent is in prison
and recently hosted a ‘No Ball’ Ball. This was a fictional event, supported by a number of high
profile donors, which encouraged individuals to donate whilst sharing on social media their
amusing excuses as to why they could not attend. The methodology was simple and extremely
cheap, but donors were made to feel part of something special, alongside the likes of celebrities
such as Joanna Lumley. As another example, the Terrence Higgins Trust hosts exclusive dinners
for the ‘gold’ donor members, hosted by Stephen Fry to thank donors and retain their loyalty.
Conclusion
This report has questioned the widespread assumption that certain causes are inevitably
‘unpopular’ and unlikely to attract significant voluntary support. The UK is a generous country,
but this generosity is not evenly distributed or rationally allocated according to some criteria of
‘worthiness’. Therefore all charitable organisations need to work hard to help grow the overall size
of the philanthropic pie and to secure the biggest possible slice to fund their work.
The landscape of charitable activity is awash with well-framed, emotive causes competing for
donors’ support. Whilst we know that an individual’s decision to donate is hugely influenced by
subjective experiences and personal taste, we also know they are unlikely to seek out charitable
causes beyond their normal frame of reference or experiences. This can mean that it is difficult
for charities outside of this framework to gain donors’ attention, so they need to work even
harder to make their cause visible and compelling.
There are, as identified in this report, socially constructed barriers which can affect the
positioning of causes and their ability to attract voluntary income. These barriers are a
combination of internal and external factors that impact on a charity’s ability and confidence to
‘ask’. Each barrier to asking has a different degree of impact depending on the cause in question,
however we argue that none of them are insurmountable. Barriers can be overcome by taking
steps to extend the philanthropic reach of a charity, as demonstrated by the case studies of
‘unpopular’ causes, and as re-capped in the top ten tips. Whilst some causes are undoubtedly a
tougher ‘ask’ than others’ every cause is more likely to achieve its goals by taking steps to extend
its philanthropic reach.

Appendix A:
A tool to depict philanthropic reach
Maximised versus minimal philanthropic reach
Culture of Philanthropy
CheerleadersCoverage
Visibility Ease to donate
Framing of the cause
Perceived culpability
Clarity of cause
10
8
6
4
2
0
Maximised
Minimal

About the Centre for Philanthropy
at the University of Kent
The Centre for Philanthropy is based within
the School of Social Policy, Sociology and
Social Research in the University of Kent. It is
a leading academic centre that seeks to make
a positive impact on the understanding and
practice of philanthropy. Founded in 2008,
the centre team comprises full-time staff
members, associate staff, honorary fellows
and PhD students. We have conducted
research on a range of topics including:
‘million pound donors’, ‘how donors choose
charities’, ‘the philanthropic journey’ and
‘user views of fundraising’. We offer teaching
on fundraising, philanthropy, volunteering
and the third sector at both undergraduate
and masters level. We work closely with
academics and practitioners in our field
based in the UK and abroad. We have a strong
reputation for public engagement as a result
of building good relationships with the charity
sector, featuring regularly in sector and
mainstream press and maintaining a strong
social media presence.
Further information about the centre
is available at:
www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/philanthropy
Designed and produced by Beaufort 5
www.beaufort5.co.uk
Printed by Pureprint Group Limited

Philanthropic support is a crucial source of
income for most charities, especially during
a period of public sector cuts, yet some find
it tougher than others to attract donations.
By exploring what is meant by the phrase
‘unpopular causes’, and by presenting ten case
studies of best practice, this report challenges
the suggestion that fundraising is inevitably
destined to be an uphill struggle.
Despite demonstrating that all types of
cause can prove attractive to donors, it is
also suggested that fundraising goals are
more achievable when steps are taken to
increase each charity’s philanthropic reach.
This report will be of interest to charity
leaders, fundraisers, policymakers and all
concerned with growing a stronger culture
of giving in the UK.

Rising_to_the_challenge FINAL

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Rising_to_the_challenge FINAL (20)

Rising_to_the_challenge FINAL