Join the discussion on Twitter: Has your charity experienced any controversy around fundraising? #DTW2022

 

Fundraising campaigns and events don’t always go to plan. While trust in the charity sector is growing, it isn’t without controversy. Taking big risks, some charities have pursued controversial, even offensive, campaigns, while others have been tempted by funds from unethical organisations.

 

Handling such controversial campaigns and fundraising strategies requires transparency. Here, we outline how charities can overcome their critics.

 

When questionable sources of funds come to light

 

Donations come from all sorts of companies and individuals. Most of the time, they are from the general public and are good for a charity’s reputation and brand.

 

But there may be times when you don’t want to be associated with donations. These may come from tobacco companies, politicians, or individuals and/or firms with questionable ethics. Dubbed ‘tainted money’, or ‘tainted donors’, charities should tread carefully.

 

First, take a look at your ethical fundraising policy. There may be donors which don’t fit your values. Recently, the No Kid Hungry campaign rejected a donation from the rapper 6ix9ine. The music star had previously evaded child sex offences and had pleaded guilty to violence charges.

 

The charity running the campaign, Share our Strength says: "As a child-focused campaign, it is our policy to decline funding from donors whose activities do not align with our mission and values." For them, rejecting the funds is the right course of action because they don’t want to be associated with certain values.

 

Rhodri Davies, CAF’s Head of Policy says there are several criteria to think about when accepting donations. He suggests that there are three broad questions:

• Can the charity show that the funds are, and will be, used for legitimate social good?
• Does the funding come with no strings attached?
• Will the funding be seen as an endorsement of the donating firm or individual and their ethics?

 

Ultimately handling the donation is a sensitive decision. It may entail fallout from staff or the public if an unethical source is disclosed. Alternatively, returning the funds could mean that a significant amount is turned away.

 

Fundraising success from controversial campaigns

 

Offensive fundraising can be hit or miss. Many campaigns use polarising memes or slogans to excite audiences.

 

Macmillan Cancer Support’s Brave the Shave campaign is a risky one. The purpose is to raise funds and solidarity for those suffering from cancer. However, the campaign backfired when some cancer survivors found offense.

 

They took issue with Macmillan’s slogan, arguing that shaving one’s head isn’t “brave” for a healthy person and linking this to the trauma of undergoing chemotherapy treatment is shallow and insensitive.

 

Macmillan continued on, and justified their approach by citing the campaign’s financial success.

The charity responded with: “We know that this is not a chosen fundraising method for everyone, but last year over 23,000 people signed up, raising over £4.4 million for Macmillan’s vital services supporting people with cancer and their loved ones through treatment and beyond.”

 

Lessons from the campaign are subjective. First, charities should acknowledge that, once the campaign is public, there will be many varying voices within the audience.

 

To handle controversial images or slogans, organisers need to check where these views are coming from and approach with empathy. Charity leaders should then think about how they may impact brand and reputation and assess next steps.

 

 

Confronting critics with your charity’s purpose

 

There may be times when charity campaigns should be put on ice.  Cancer Research UK (CRUK)’s obesity awareness campaign sheds light on what to do in this case.

 

In 2019, CRUK wanted to share how obesity increases the risk of cancer. In a divisive print and online campaign, the charity dubbed obesity as the ‘new smoking.’ The adverts used cigarette packets labelled ‘obesity’ and warned of the risk factors for cancer.

 

CRUK received heavy criticism from the public. The charity was accused of fat- and body-shaming. The campaign also spurred national conversations on whether junk-food advertising should be restricted from 9pm on television.

 

CRUK responded by emphasising its motivation: "Our campaign is not meant to make anyone feel bad about their weight or make anyone think negatively about people who are overweight or obese; it is based on scientific evidence that we have a duty to put in the public domain."

 

Interestingly, the campaign generated a lot of awareness and increased reach. The controversy even created a lot of MP conversations around Government-led action and policy.

 

Abigail Brown, head of health campaigns and marketing at CRUK was tracking the campaign.
She says: “When the campaign first launched in 2018, public awareness of the link between obesity and cancer went from 17 per cent to 43 per cent, and we’ve since run two more national campaigns with increases in awareness each time – but when we’re not actively campaigning, that awareness falls.”

 

For CRUK, the campaign not only drove excitement online but started a political platform for change. However, while the charity has stood by the campaign on the whole, it has steered clear from generating such controversy since. In short, they’ve iced it – but not binned it yet while it still holds value.