Charity brands: A qualitative study of current practice

Alan Tapp William Morris Building, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, U K ; Tel: +44 1203 838470; Fax: +44 1203 838400 Received (in revised form): 79th March, 1996

Dr Alan Tapp is senior lecturer in marketing at Coventry Business School. He obtained his Ph5 from the University of Birmingham in 1987, and subsequently worked for BT for six years finish- ing there as Direct Marketing Manager for UK High Value Consumers. He has completed an extensive number of research projects and specialises in direct marketing and charity re- search. Alan is also a course tutor for students Of the Diploma of Direct Marketing, run by the Institute of Direct Marketing.

ABSTRACT A nirmber of fundraising managers and directors of UK charities were interviewed wit11 the objective of trnderstattdir~g to what extertt bratidirig was irsed irt the sector, what development possibilities exist f o r comtnercial techniqires in charities, atid what the con- straints may be on srrclr practices.

I t was foirtid that many charities ahendy rrse day - to-da y brand t e c h iqi r es, (w itli oi r t describ- irlg them as ‘6ratiding ’), birt 6rfirid develop- ttrerzt work was scarce.

Charities have a number of objectives tom- petirtg with fundraising when considering their brand corrtetit. T h e y rrrrrst also satisfv the need to respect issires aborrt how the caiise itself is Corrrniirnicated, and possible weds to re-edrrcate the donor cotrrmrrnity or the pirblic.

One cointrtercinl practice in pnrticirlar corrld be developed firrtlier in charity branding: this is the idea of irsirig the persoriality of the

charity itself as soniething with iulrich donors corrld associate positively.

INTRODUCTION Brand management has its roots in the commercial sector, in particular in the FMCG industry. However brand nianagement in any formal sense has not yet been accepted in this way by the nonprofit sector in the UK. Many of the more obvious techniques associated with branding, the use of logos and so on, have been practised by charities for some years now, but the argument that niorc sophis- ticated forms of brand management should be introduced was first debated by Roberts Wray.’ Using his own cx- periences in the commercial and charity sectors, he argued that the techniques of commercial brand marketing, which work for, say, a shampoo brand, are just as relevant to marketing in charities. He suggested that there will be an increasing need for charities to brand themselves and their work more strongly because com- petition for donors’ expendable income is continuing to intensify.

The debate was moved on a step by Saxton’ who, using his charity prac- titioner cxperiencc, proposed a model that argued that a strong charity brand should be rooted in and derived from the voluntary organisation itself and not distinct from it. His thesis was

that charity brands do have a number of crucial differences from commercial brands and he proposed that it is the charity’s beliefs and values that should lie at the heart of its brand.

To help pull these arguments together, a branding for charities conference was held.3 However, since these valuable additions to the literature, no further progress has been made in the public debate. In particular, there is no for- mal research available that looks at how charities may create and maintain stronger brands in order to raise more money.

There is clearly still a lot of work to be done before it is fully understood how to make the most of branding techniques in charity fundraising. The premise for this paper was that it seems reasonable to start with an exploratory piece of research designed to raise awareness of the main issues to be considered before any com- prehensive charity branding models can be attempted.

This paper reports the results of an exploratory research programme carried out in the summer of 1995. The aim of these studies was to see how brand- ing techniques could help charities to fundraise. Within this umbrella, two broad areas were investigated.

First, the ways in which charities currently manage their brands. What are the major problems currently facing the modern furidraisers as they look at their brands? Secondly, ways in which charities may be able to maximise their branding effort to raise funds.

These questions need to be answered in order to understand:

- the range of perspectives on branding as a discipline currently held by prac- titioners

-the forces impacting on a charity brand

- whether practitioners could make more use of modern branding theories and techniques.

In the sections that follow, the results of the research are outlined. After this, an analysis is offered, using the results of the research to draw conclusions about how charities may improve their fundraising by using their branding more effec- tively.

RESEARCH OUTLINE A number of charity fundraising managers and directors were inter- viewed, in depth, on the subject of their charity’s brand. To give increased insight, more than one person was often interviewed at each charity. As is usual with a qualitative approach, a flexible topic guide was followed, with plenty of scope to explore any new or unexpected angles. The respondents and their charities are being kept confidential, so the interviewees were able to be completely candid in their responses.

The respondents’ charities were as follows.

Charily A: A fairly large children’s charity

Charity B: A wildlife trust based in a rural county

Charity C: A large disability charity Charity D: A strongly branded

campaigning group Charity E: A medium-sized developing

world charity Charity F: A large disability charity Charity G: A medium-sized disability

Charity H: An animal welfare charity Charity I: A rescue charity Charity J: A medium-sized homeless

Charity K: A hospice.

charity

charity

The topic guide covered the following views:

Fundraisers perspectives on how charities currently manage their brands - what were the origins of the charity’s

brand? - to what extent do charities use brand creation and maintenance techniques at present? - in particular what is the impact of the direct marketing techniques that now dominate fundraising?

Fundraisers views on how charities could use brands to maximise funds - what brand values were found to be

the best fundraising triggers? - what are the major constraints faced in presenting a brand that would maxi- mise funds?

These questions were used as a flexi- ble guide for the discussions. However, priority was given to allowing respon- dents maximum scope to lead the discus- sion with the key issues according to their perspectives, rather than that of the author. In this way, a number of impor- tant themes came through, not part of the original topic guide, that are fully ex- plored in the results given.

However, before outlining the results, it is important to define the boundaries of the discussion.

Definition of branding As has been pointed out by commen- tators such as G ~ r d o n , ~ the word ‘brand’ is used in many different ways by prac- titioners and academics. It is therefore important for the author to spell o u t how the word is used here. Using one defini- tion of branding from De Chenatony and McDonald’ as ‘the complete collection of images about the product or company,

that reside in the consumer’s mind’, and adapting it slightly for this research, a working definition is reached:

‘A brand is defined as the complete collection of images of the charity, its products and/or the cause that are con- tained in the donor’s mind. ’

Under this definition, a well-informed RSPCA supporter, for example, would see the brand image of the RSPCA as: the organisation itself, the way it deals with animals, its vision of what it is trying to achieve, how well it looks after sup- porters, and so on.

Respondents were asked to define how they used the term branding or brands within their charity. In this way, a com- mon language was established.

RESULTS

SECTION 1: HOW CHARITIES CURRENTLY MANAGE THEIR BRANDS

Brand origins The research aim for this section was to understand what, historically, has led each charity brand to end up the way it is.

Most respondents confirmed that their charity’s brand had developed largely without proactive management but had been largely an ‘accident’ of circumstance. Respondents ofolder charities felt this was particularly true for them. Given that modern marketing methods are only 40- 50 years old, while many of the best- known UK charities are well over 100 years old, this is not surprising.

I t is important as it suggests that brand development has been less than optimal in using this tool to raise money, which in turn suggests an opportunity for the

sector to grow by introducing more brand planning in the future.

Factors influencing the brand It became clear that the following were key factors:

1. Brands were not developed in any way in response to donors needs

Q ‘Is your branding led in any way by clients or donors?’

A ‘No, we push out - this is us, come and support us if you think like this.’

Charity D (environmental)

2. In the first few years of a charity’s life, key individuals and apparently minor events have a major part to play in the subsequent personality of the charity

‘when our donors think of us they think of [local personality] first, the logo, local sites we own and, um, a recent piece of news about giant spiders we got into the press.’

Charity B (wildlife trust)

Given the comments of older charities’ respondents, this could well be taken as not untypical of how charities’ brands develop. The early stages for charity B are characterised by a lack ofcontrol in the messages reaching donors.

Charities use of brand techniques - Name and logo

All the charities interviewed had a professionally designed logo to go with their name. The importance of the name and logo was reflected by those charities that had gone through a name change within the last few years - an expensive action to undertake.

Saxton’ argued that a charity needs a - Vision and values

vision and a set of values that it should communicate clearly to its supporters, in order to build a strong brand. Most charities interviewed had a vision, a purpose and a set of values. Interest- ingly, most respondents could repeat what these were, and many claimed that their donors were given high ex- posure to these, implicitly, through the charity’s communications.

- Good service as part of brand building Respondents also saw the importance of giving good service to donors in building brands:

Q ‘What about service to donors?

A ‘Good heavens yes. All our good branding work can be destroyed by one bad phone call experience. Bearing in mind what we are selling here is good feelings . . . the impor- tance of these things speak for them- selves. ’

Charity H (animal)

Does this have a role?’

- Internal communications Internal communications were ac- knowledged as a weak spot by most respondents. They admitted that understanding of their charity’s brand and the important of branding was limited to their department and the PR people, and went no fur- ther. An exception was Charity D, which undertook regular internal communication exercises to ensure a high level of understanding of the brand values. A clear remit each year sets out the future activities of the charity.

- Communication to donors: position- ing and tone of voice Reinforcing charity values, avoiding conflicting messages, consistent tone of voice and style, how the charity is positioned, and so on, were care-

fully managed by respondents. As an aside, it should be noted that the word ‘branding’ was rarely used to describe these activities.

I n summary, it was clear that although charities did not describe their activities as ‘branding’ per se, they were concerned with many of the same everyday issues as a brand manager of, say, Coca Cola. Many techniques that make up brand maintenance were used to at least some extent by all the respondents interviewed. Charity D (environmental) commented, ‘We take a look a t our activities and ask ourselves “Is this something [our charity] should do?”’

Charities’ deficiencies in brand management do not lie in brand maintenance, but in brand development. Although many respondents did have some idea of where they wanted their brand to go in the future, what they did not have was a clear brand development strategy, understood and agreed within the organisation. This is discussed in the final section.

SECTION 2: MAXIMISING CHARITIES’ BRAND VALUES FOR FUNDRAISING

Current brand values employed

What brand values have you found to be the best fundraising triggers? -- Trust

Engendering trust, important for commercial organisations, was seen as absolutely critical for charities by many respondents. Charity A sug- gested that donors do not want to know much about the charity but they do need to feel that it has absolute integrity. Trust was seen as a baseline, or hygiene factor, by charities; it had to be present.

‘The difference between charity and commerce . . . with charities they have to be trusted implicitly in every way . . . donors are not interested in the body of the charity itself. . . most people are supporting the cause itself. Trust is there at an emotional level. . . whereas Sainsbury just sells groceries . . . it doesn’t have any grander purpose and is more likely to be forgiven . . .’

Charity I (rescue)

- Evoking pity or sympathy Charities are natural emotion raisers and donors will naturally identify with any messages about the many emo- tional issues with which charities deal.

The Charity G (disability) respon- dent talked about evoking pity or sympathy in donors who are then strongly inclined to give out of a desire to help. This simple approach is the core of much of today’s fundraising activity. What it amounts to is focus- ing on the problem. ‘Here is the problem; people are suffering - give to us and we will solve it.’ This core message is portrayed in an emotional fashion, and people give.

When charities focus in this way, what they are doing is excluding a number of messages. They do not explain in detail how the charity solves the problem. They do not expand on what the charity is like, on its per- sonality, and sometimes they give the impression of the client as a person who is totally helpless. The client of- ten is not happy about this.

Rationality can also be used highly effectively. Respondents from two very powerfully branded charities (H and D) talked about the need to be seen as effective.

- Rational approaches

‘Ask most people why they support [charity D] and they say . . . “because you get things done”.

Charity D (environmental) - Simplicity vs. more involved mcs-

sages Some respondents pointed out the nccd for simplicity in their communication. Environmental Charity D explained that casual donors in particular are attracted by simple images. These are well-known images associated with this charity: the charity is symbolised as standing between the victim and the problem in a very simple way.

Some respondents thought that the best branding strategy for a charity may be to promote a simplistic brand to new donors, while more complex branding messages are restricted to long-term donors. Not all agreed. One respondent said:

‘Quick fix branding is a bad idea be- caus’e at the end of the day it is not credible. It is better to be truthful in your fundraising - and therefore probably get less in but have a more loyal base, and to use your advertising budget in changing attitudes about the cause.’

Charity A (children’s)

- Welfare vs. research Charities such as cancer-related, or disability charities are involved heavily in both these activities. The issue of whether to promote themselves as welfare- or research-led therefore came up. Most charities felt that welfare was a better trigger than research, because people-based images were likely to work better, although none of the respondents sounded confident of their ground on this issue.

Respondents from some chanties - Radical vs. traditional

brought up this issue and described the dificulties they have with it. The objective was the same for both: they would likc to portray themselves as morc radical in ordcr to bc ablc to lobby for political changc without it sccming a strangc activity for thcm. Howcvcr, the problcm was thcy fclt that thcir cxisting donor basc rcflcctcd thc traditional nature of thcir charities, and would be unlikely to take kindly to such a change. This was a tricky issue. Charity J had a solution, which was to use direct marketing to talk to the traditional , audience in one way and the radical audience in another. The public brand would reflect a more traditional focus.

Current use of USPs

Commercial organisations use unique selling points a great deal to provide points of difference between themselves and competition. To what extent do you do this? The hypothesis before this research was that most charities had not yet actively become competitive. It was rather surpris- ing, therefore, to hear many ofthe respon- dents explain that indeed they did promote USPs about themselves to donors. These tended to be quite simple:

‘We are the biggest . . . charity in the UK.’ ‘We are the only national or- ganisation of this type.’

Charity G (disability)

Others had packaged together a more sophisticated WSP:

‘We are dealing with all forms of [. . .] problems, plus, we are the only cam- paigning charity: so we are the preven- tion and the cure . . . this is how we are different. ’

Charity J (welfare)

In the crowded children’s charity sec- tor, respondent A explained how the logo, unusual colouring and distinctive crcative were used to make the charity stand out a little. However, although he talkcd in detail about how different his charity’s philosophy was compared to othcr children’s charities, and clearly felt vcry strongly that his charity’s approach was right, there was little evidence that this philosophy was emphasised in Charity A’s material. As with so much else, it was implicit rather than explicit in the charity’s messages.

Brand personalities: The charity itself

-

Many commercial organisations brand themselves as well as their products. For example, Marks and Spencer portrays itself as a company that cares about its employees, and does not Quibble with its customers if they have complaints. Let us consider this in the charity sector. To what extent do you try and communicate, or reflect the Personality of the charity itself? If you do not, would you consider doing this in the future? The idea of using the personality of the charity itself as well as the cause as

something with which donors can identify is a notion adapted from commercial practice. It is discussed by De Chenatony and McDonald, who made the distinction between functionality and representutionality . According to McDonald and De Chenatony, a functional brand would be one in which the physical advantages of the product or service are prioritised in the images communicated. A representa- tional brand, on the other hand, is one in which consumers would identify with the brand image because it says something about their personality - they want to associate with the brand.

The latter approach is most often used with products that people put on show, for example with clothes or perfume. The brand provides consumers with a chance to communicate something about themselves to others. Someone wear- ing Levi jeans is saying ‘I am young, rebellious, cosmopolitan’ to others. As charities are potentially things donors could put on show, there is a clear opportunity here.

So how much do charities use this technique? The answer has to be that the idea of donors using the charity image to communicate something about them-

Box 1: Case study of a changing charity: Charity C

Charity C , in spite of spending millions of pounds on advertising in the last ten years, had not communicated anything about the personality of the charity itself. Respondent C explained that the charity was only now producing a mission and a set of values, and so had certainly not communicated these to donors, She explained that she and the rest of the new team in her charity regretted the lack of charity branding in the advertising campaigns ofthe past. However, it was clear that in many ways Charity C was just starting out with direct marketing fundraising techniques and many other things were considered a priority. The implication was certainly that the charity logo, mission and values would play a part in attracting donors’ money, but priority would be given to saying ‘this is what we do’, rather than ‘this is what we are like’.

selves is not taken seriously by most charities. Charity C was typical.

Very few charities had used charity personality in their communications, but interestingly, those that had done so tended to be highly successful.

Thc respondent of Charity D explaincd that this was a highly succcssful charity in branding terms, having vcry high public awareness and knowledge in the UK. Looking at the brand content of Charity D - non-violence, youth, anti- large businesses - it is striking how much of the charity’s personality is wrapped up in donors’ minds. As much, or more, of its brand reflects its ow# personality rather than what it was trying to achieve.

Respondents did give some clues as to why most ofthe charity world has resisted using this technique. One asserted that donors only give to charities as an in- termediary between themselves and the cause. He explained that in his view, on an emotional level people would rather give directly to the cause recipients, bypassing the charity altogether. Rationally, donors recognise they cannot do this, and so of course they give to the charity, but they see it as an evil necessity. The conclusion is that this is not encouraging for the idea that charities should promote their own per- sonalities.

In summary, given that great success was achieved by those charities who have developed and promoted their per- sonalities, there does seem to be a case for charities doing this as part of their brand image. By giving people an outlet for saying something about themselves: ‘I gave to X . . . and that says something desirable about me’, fundraising effec- tiveness may be increased.

Widenlng the message: Explaining what the charity does One of the most striking facets of this research was the revelation by many

charities that most of their donors have at best a simplistic, and at worst a completcly mistaken idca of what the charity actually docs. Misconceptions had bccn built up by thc public over a long pcriod of timc, but thc problcm was compoundcd by two currcnt practices.

Onc issuc is thc ovcrsimplification of thc charity’s mcssagc. This ariscs bc- cause charitics have a tcndcncy to use ‘soundbite’ copy in their fundraising. Many respondents talked about the need for simplicity created by the need for instant response. Direct marketing ap- proaches tend to require clear, simplified problem/solution scenarios in order to prompt donors into action.

‘In direct marketing appeals you need to create a “moment of action” among donors - using drama . . . factual ap- proaches are not enough. You need to compel people to give money from a standing start . . .’

Charity G (disability)

Secondly, respondents raised the problem of heavy emphasis on emotional triggers, discussed earlier, which obscure a more rounded presentation of the realities of their cause.

As more and more respondents brought up the inadequate knowledge of their donors, it became apparent that they shared a similar conflict. It appeared that, as responsible charity managers, their commitment to the cause led to a very natural desire to educate donors and the public generally about the com- plexities of their cause. This was because a better public understanding would lead to a heightened awareness of their situation, which in turn would lead to a better quality of life for the cause recipients.

The view from respondent A (children’s welfare) represented the

extreme of the spectrum of views expressed. This respondent did not acknowledge the need for soundbites at all, indeed he was vociferous in his condemnation of such tactics. As a PR professional, and a committed believer in his charity’s aims, he expressed a strong view that a more rounded communica- tion of the charity’s work led to more committed donors. It may be that a smaller overall number of donors were attracted to the charity, but this was a price he was willing to pay.

‘It’s just a downward spiral. They have to produce more and more dramatic images to raise money. How long till we see children’s dead bodies pictured in the paper?’

a n d . . . ‘They are damaging the sector because they raise the thresholds of expectation in donors’ minds . , . by majoring on shock tactics charities get caught in the

trap of having to shock more and more to get the desired response.’

Charity A (children’s)

O n the other hand, for many respon- dents there were worries that replacing the ‘soundbite‘ fundraising approach with more rounded arguments would reduce the funds raised. The net result of this appears to be that donors are not receiv- ing very much information about the charities’ activities.

CONCLUSlONS Charities do not describe much of what they do as ‘branding’. Much of their day-to-day management is, however, concerned with such issues as maintain- ing a consistent style and tone of voice, and careful reviews of policies and actions to ensure they reflect their personality. In this sense, established charities certainly do not need any lesssons on day-to-day brand management. However, very little

Box 2: Case study: Charity F

The dilemma of charity F provides a classic example. As a fundraiser in a disability charity, the respondent explained that she could most easily raise funds by arousing feelings of pity in donors through simplistic images of helpless disabled people. An impression could then be given that by giving a few pounds, donors will improve the lives of these unfortunate people immeasurably. At this extreme, the approach, she explained, was misleading to the donors and insulting to the recipients of the charity. At the other extreme, an educational approach would be taken. This alternative would be to fully explain how the recipients wanted to be viewed, that is as people who could compete in life as normal healthy individuals, but needed help, in various ways, to create a level playing field.

Charity F’s respondent, faced with the reality of meeting the needs of cause and fundraising, talked about the creative challenge. O n the one hand the charity wanted to present their recipients’ disability in a positive light, educating the public that people with this disability had the same feelings, ambitions, and intellectual capability as anyone else, but needed help with their disability to enable them to compete, as it were, on a level playing field. O n the other, to arouse enough feeling in potential donors to get them to part with their money.

development activity goes on. The main emphasis in modern fundraising depart- ments is on direct marketing, or cause- related publicity, and branding per se tends to be subsumed within these activities. The brand image the donor develops of the charity and its cause are a result of these activities.

Most older charities have brands that are ‘accidents of fate’ in the sense that these brands have not been proactively managed, in many cases right up to the present day. Such charities should think about introducing the discipline of brand development, as well as brand main- tenance.

There is a clear opportunity for charities to capitalise on people’s need to use charities to say something about themselves. Some charities felt that it was not right to promote aspects of their own personality - it was the cause in which donors were interested. However, those charities who promoted an associative aspect of their brand were highly successful in branding terms. It is recommended that charities look into improving their associative substance - to build up a representational brand.

The need for soundbite fundraising is unlikely to go away. Charities need to find cost-effective ways of attracting new donors, and simple emotional messages have been shown to be effective in achiev- ing this. However, it is recommended that charities look for ways to project a more rounded brand image, by seek- ing to educate both the public and their

regular donors about what the charity actually does. This is certainly neces- sary in order to meet the needs of the clients, who get frustrated with an of- ten ignorant public. In addition, it may be that greater long-term commitment would be achieved from regular donors if they knew more about what the charity does.

It is possible that charities could ac- celerate this process with some market testing, whereby a small part of their donor base could be exposed to a more complete picture of the charity and its work, and the longer term effects of this approach on funds raised could be checked.

REFERENCES (1) Roberts Wray, B. (1994) ‘Branding,

product development and positioning the charity’, journal of Brand Management, pp. 363-70, Vol. 1, 6.

(2) Saxton, J. (1995) ‘A strong charity brand comes from strong beliefs and values’, Journal of Brand Management,

(3) Conference (1994) ‘Creating a brand p. 211-20, Vol. 2, NO. 4.

image and identity for charities’, Henry Stewart Conference Studies.

(4) Gordon, W., Corr, D. (1990) ‘The space between words’, journal of the Market Research Society, 32 (3). 409-34.

(5) De Chenatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1992), ‘Creating Powerful Brands’, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

(6) Burnett, K . (1992) ‘Relationship Fundraising’, White Lion Press, London.