Jenny Ramage thinks it’s time for greater transparency in charity adverts.

Last week in my Facebook newsfeed, up popped an article from The Independent about Save the Children’s controversial ‘not sexy but important’ TV advert.

I read through the comments that ensued - a great many of which were along the following lines:

“Why instead of paying the models to say the words ''sexy'', they actually could've sent money for the children. that is the most stupid thing i ever seen been done For Helping and Saving Children. GOOD JOB PPL”

“So that’s where the donations go then”.

“How much did this nonsense cost the charity? I'd say people who donated to the charity would be seriously annoyed if their hard-earned cash helped pay for this nonsense!”

“How many kids are still waiting for help today because funding to 'Save the Children' went on to pay for this advert?”

Ad infinitum.

In terms of a charity advertisement’s ability to generate annoyance among a large proportion of the public, I don’t think this Save the Children ad is particularly special. Negative comments of this sort are liberally scattered across online charity discussion forums in general, with people saying things like: “If they can afford advert after advert, they don’t need my money”, and: “if it only cost a few quid to put a well in, then using the money spent on these adverts could provide quite a few wells!”

Heads in the sand

I, as I'd imagine you do too, get frustrated at the short-sightedness that such remarks betray; but if charities aren’t taking the time to effectively counter the arguments, how is the average Joe supposed to know any better? Simply ignoring the criticism only serves to perpetuate the view these people hold of charitable organisations - that they are at best a bit useless, and at worst, just money-grabbers who don’t care enough either about their supporters or their beneficiaries.

Occasionally, you get people replying in defence of the charity advertisement. You might even see the odd full article published in response, setting out why the charity spent some of the donated money on the advert instead of giving it straight to the beneficiaries. But coming, as these things tend to do, some time after interest in the advert has peaked, most such articles get lost in the ether.

So here’s an idea: what about running a televised advert that specifically targets the misinformed and the cynical; one that sets the record straight? One that makes the ratio of money spent on good deeds and the resources dedicated to advertising them completely transparent, as a core part of its pitch? For a start, considering most people wildly overestimate the proportion of donations that they think goes on admin, resources etc, surely they’d be happy to discover that the beneficiaries actually receive more of it directly than they thought. And surely it would be advantageous to make people better understand the need to spend a proportion of donated money on admin and resources. To them, it's obviously not obvious.

It’s a similar thing with the CEO salary debate: someone needs to stand up and explain why the top charity chiefs are paid ‘so much’; why it’s actually a good thing that they are. If achieving the best fundraising results means employing the best people to oversee it, then that’s charities doing their jobs properly.

Being upfront

I would love to see a television advert that talks about why the charity used people’s donations to make that television advert. How much it cost to make, and how much money it’s expected to generate in return. I can just picture it now: the visuals would include all the traditional imagery of children in poverty, etc. But the voiceover would say something like:

“This is a special message to those of you who donated when you saw our Christmas television appeal. Thank you. We thought you might like to know that we spent some of your money on this new advert. How does that make you feel? Disappointed? Betrayed? Angry? In this advert, we’re showing images of children being fed, given shelter and cared for. But you feel deceived, because not all the money you gave went directly to these children…”

It would then go on to explain how spending a portion of donors’ money on the advert helped the charity to generate the maximum amount possible for the cause - how it helped to turn your (e.g) £10 donation into (e.g) £100. It would finish with something like:

“We need to keep raising awareness. We need to keep asking for money. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be doing our jobs properly. Adverts like this one help us to raise the maximum amount possible for the cause, meaning we can help even more children out of poverty. So thank you again for your donation, and please do take a little time to help us spread the word.”

Or something.

Do you think it might work? I do wonder why I haven’t seen this done before. Perhaps it’s been tried already and was proven to be ineffective. Maybe it’s simply considered to be slippery ground, and not worth the perceived risk. Or perhaps it would be deemed too patronising towards those supporters to whom the reasons for such expenditure are obvious. I don’t know. I’m no expert... but I think it would constitute a pretty fresh approach to charity advertising, and I for one can’t wait for the day when someone steps up to the mark.

Jenny Ramage is editor of The Fundraiser