CTC Begging Letter - March 2016

[robgul]

I was staggered to receive a begging letter sent to me "personally" by Jon Snow .... it even had a proper stamp on it, not a franked or printed mark.

It was thanking me for being a "loyal and long-standing member" referring to the "club you love" and asking me to a) send money b) make a donation in my will c) write to Jon Snow telling what I thought about the club ....

There was a also a faux "CTC Gazette" enclosed - just a list of milestones along the CTC history and more begging copy.

Now, I've not been a member for about 4 months (OK there's a time lag on the database, but not that long) so that's poor.

What was the real stunner was that the main components of the whole mailing from envelope to CTC Gazette, letterhead etc were using the Winged Wheel with the "new" now "old" CTC charity logo appearing on the last pages of the magazine leaflet. So what's all this new brand stuff about then?

Confused? I am.

For those that may not have seen it there's a pdf here (with my details blanked out) http://www.beewee.org.uk/CTC/CTC-Beggin ... ch2016.pdf

Rob

[beardy]

It is a charity, this is what charities do.

The old CTC winged wheel may be a toxic brand for the trendy set but no harm in exploiting it, to attract potential donors.

[Si]

The CTC has given no indication that the previous logos, such as the winged wheel, have been made redundant. Indeed, it has recently appeared in the magazine as an official logo. Having a new logo (such as the blue'n'yellow squiggly bike one) does not mean that you can't use the old if you deem it appropriate.

As for the new brand - why would they put that onto stationary before it is launched? It has also been stated that once the new brand is launched, the old logos/brand will not be dumped completely....which seems a sensible step.

The CTC has prompted members to make donations over and above their subs for as long as I've been a member, so this should come as nothing new to you. However, I agree that it is a bit lame to send a member-focussed communication to an ex-member.

[honesty]

As the new brand wasn't even meant to be released until April I'm not surprised it's not being used. That this uses old iconography is an attempt to pull you nostalgic strings.

I'm unsurprised you got this though. I had the same from the NDCS. My daughter is deaf, and we had contacted them about support etc. A few months later we got a proper begging phone call about supporting the NDCS. The phone person was rather pushy.

It's an unfortunate symptom of modern charities. When they turn from supporting people to being lobbying group to push for change from government(as I have seen the NDCS go, and the CTC has changed to) they need to raise money and the monthly donation model is something that lots of charities has hit upon as being highly lucrative.

[Paulatic]

I keep a mental not of the "pushy charities" that put bumph through my door. Top of my hate list are the ones who follow up, with pushy phone calls, if you've ever shown any interest.
Charities might be finding it lucrative but they certainly loose my support.

[robgul]

I'm well aware that charities send begging letters BUT with the tugging on the heart-strings approach with the old winged wheel (and the offer of a winged wheel badge if I sign up for a legacy!) does rather smack of the last twitches from the corpse.

Given the discussion that's been raging for some time on governance, logos, polls etc it does seem to be poor timing.

Rob

[honesty]

I may tick the intend to box just to get the free badge. It doesn't bind you legally and you can get yourself removed from the spam list at a later date...

[beardy]

The people who are responsible for this initiative and for the initiatives that have generated bad press for charities in general only get appraised for the money that they bring in and not on any harm that they may have done to those who dont pay.

[beardy]

I may tick the intend to box just to get the free badge. It doesn't bind you legally and you can get yourself removed from the spam list at a later date...

You could donate the badge back to CTC in your will.

[old_windbag]

I personally have a mental conflict going on with modern charities. In my mind you promote your cause and people choose to contribute or not, then all the money goes into advancing/aiding the cause. If you are the organiser of such then it would normally be a labour of love to do it. Modern charities though are big businesses, they have offices, staff and umpteen other overheads. They also are in competition with many other similar charities, again with similar structures and overheads. When I watch the london marathon or great north run, they randomly stop people and ask "who are you running for" and it will often be a charity covering a subset of a subset of a subset of a major illness...... in other words thousands of small charities all diluting what could be a larger pot for the better good. The intentions are admirable but perhaps the benefits may not be as useful as it could be with a larger charity covering all conditions in a specific area rather than diluting it down. Also many within "charities" are there because it is a job, nothing more, nothing less, better than working in the local garage or asda. So the passion that is there with an individual, say running a animal sanctuary, isn't there, it's work.

I recently recieved an email to support a cause by contacting a local mp, but another organisation in a similar market could not support it as they had their own stance that was slightly different as they were all fighting for the same grants and funding. I think this pitching of one against another for government grants and funds is not beneficial compared to uniting as one. But it seems the world of competition that Mrs Thatcher heavily promoted has now drifted into the charitable sector who seem as bad as the big corporations when it comes to pursueing profit. This came to a head with the negative/fatal effects of their harassing of an individual and has led to positive changes.

This final aspect of profit I often see banded about, is where an organisation is described as "not for profit". This can make an organisation look whiter than snow, how benevolent they are "not for profit". Yet they can have zero profit simply after taking large salaries out the remains of the cash go to the cause. It is the large salaries that are hidden by the "not for profit" sweetener. I personally believe not for profit is good when undertaken in a genuine ethical manner, not for what you think you can take from it.

[Psamathe]

... If you are the organiser of such then it would normally be a labour of love to do it. Modern charities though are big businesses, they have offices, staff and umpteen other overheads....

My parents (who regularly give to charity) will no longer give to the large mainstream charities because of the "significant" salaries paid to senior employees. The "we are running a multi-million £ business and thus deserve large salaries" group of career charity staff. They make their donations to small (normally local) charities run by volunteers.

Ian

[old_windbag]

I think those small volunteer run organisations are probably how it was in the beginning but as we both know its the link below that seems to be the modern face of charity:-

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/20253/top_100_charity_chief_executives_earn_average_of_170000

One of the CEO's we had at my old company went off to be CEO of the BHF...... I believe his take was £200k per year back in early 2000's.

[robgul]

... If you are the organiser of such then it would normally be a labour of love to do it. Modern charities though are big businesses, they have offices, staff and umpteen other overheads....

My parents (who regularly give to charity) will no longer give to the large mainstream charities because of the "significant" salaries paid to senior employees. The "we are running a multi-million £ business and thus deserve large salaries" group of career charity staff. They make their donations to small (normally local) charities run by volunteers.

Ian

This is always a difficult one .... and one has to look at the financial ratios before making a judgement.

On the one hand there is the possible "fat cat" aspect of big charities BUT those charities do have massive economies of scale in getting greater value from their resources/people and benefits dispensed against the revenue incoming .... however, small charities very frequently have a "medium cat" situation where the costs of running the enterprise are very high when comparing the incoming revenues and outgoing benefits.

From the donor's point of view I would suggest that the best situation is the one where the maximum amount from the amount given actually reaches the beneficiaries (in whatever form that takes) - and small is not always best.

Rob

[old_windbag]

From the donor's point of view I would suggest that the best situation is the one where the maximum amount from the amount given actually reaches the beneficiaries (in whatever form that takes)

Yes that is a valid point. But on a similar tack, if we have a very large charity and the CEO takes a renumeration of £500k. He is capable of doing the same standard of work in the same time for £100k and £400k per year can go back into the cause. Sadly CEO's tend not to be at these organisations for any other reason than self gain and the fact that they were incapable of getting the higher paid job at a non-charity. They tend to have a prima donna attitude of "I'm worth it" and the "benefits I can bring to your organiation". They could live their lives comfortably on much lower salaries and return a handsome amount back to the cause each year but that would imply being in the job for the right reasons rather than the reality.

[Barred1]

From the donor's point of view I would suggest that the best situation is the one where the maximum amount from the amount given actually reaches the beneficiaries (in whatever form that takes)

They tend to have a prima donna attitude of "I'm worth it" and the "benefits I can bring to your organiation"..

Deja vu at CTC

B1