Marketing strategy and planning
Group 9I
Anne Vainikainen
Christine Danniell
Eleonora Serafini
Lauren Anderson
Madison Lindley
Nav Johal
12942976
12924682
13019589
13013662
13022921
13009611
Overview
Cancer Research UK (CRUK) is the largest cancer research charity in the UK. It funds
research into all types of cancer, produces public awareness campaigns and lobbies
on key policy issues (Cancer Research UK 2014a:8).
This year, CRUK ranked first in the charities category in the annual Consumer
Superbrands survey (Superbrands 2014). Its brand is a key asset. In 2013/14,
fundraising income rose by 6% to £490 million after an expanded brand campaign
(Civil Society 2014). CRUK subsequently raised £8 million from a high-profile
fundraising campaign on social media (Cancer Research UK 2014b). CRUK has
responded strongly to new ways of fundraising and has particularly benefited from
digital expertise, although its competitors are becoming increasingly responsive (The
Guardian 2014a). Like most charities, CRUK faces an ageing donor profile and must
now consider whether to attract younger donors or tailor fundraising to meet
expectations of retired donors (Urbain et al. 2013, Third Sector 2014a).
This report adopts the identity salience model of relationship marketing (Knox et al.
2007) to argue that CRUK should adopt a two-pronged strategy, attracting new
audiences without alienating existing supporters. It outlines changes in the external
environment, particularly the growth of mobile fundraising, which make this
feasible. It further contends that CRUK must make use of key assets and capabilities
to maintain its position as the largest cancer charity in the UK. It defines key
objectives as maintaining brand awareness, more efficient donor recruitment and
retention, requiring an investment in data-driven fundraising. Finally, it summarises
key learning outcomes and outlines some limitations of the methods adopted.
Situation analysis
Macro-analysis
The Charity Commission’s compliance toolkit (2011) recommends a PESTLE analysis
as a means of understanding the impact of factors in the external environment.
Political
CRUK carries out extensive lobbying in relation to key areas of
policy and recently met with over 70 MPs in a ‘record-breaking day
of political action’ to launch their general election campaign
(Cancer Research UK 2014c). This work is likely to be significantly
affected by legislation restricting charitable lobbying, which came
into force in September (Third Sector 2014b).
Economic
CRUK receives no government funding (Cancer Research UK 2014a)
and relies on a high volume of donations, with nearly 90% worth
£10 or less (Communicate 2012). This makes it particularly
vulnerable to fluctuations in living standards (BBC News 2009).
Household disposable income remains low, despite the return of
GDP to pre-crisis levels (The Guardian 2014b, 2014c), although
million-pound donations are rising (Third Sector 2014c). In addition,
any decline in the property market directly impacts CRUK’s legacy
income stream (Civil Society 2014a), which funds over a third of
research (The Telegraph 2014).
Social
CRUK benefits from the prominence of cancer as a public health
issue (Ipsos MORI 2014) and the trend to donate to health-related
charities (Saxton and Wang 2014). A rising proportion of donors
give spontaneously, particularly first-time donors (Third Sector
2014d) who value the use of social networks and positive
messaging over traditional forms of giving (Urbain et al. 2013).
CRUK has an ageing donor profile and must consider whether to
attract younger donors or tailor fundraising to meet expectations of
retired donors (Urbain et al. 2013, Third Sector 2014a).
Technological
CRUK has responded strongly to mobile giving, which now accounts
for £26 in every £100 donated in the UK (Wired 2013) and will
become even more significant with further smartphone adoption
(Google 2014). CRUK faces key challenges in engaging new
audiences outside its traditional donor profile (Saxton and Wang
2014, Facebook and Instagram for Social Good 2014) and adapting
to emerging trends (The Guardian 2014b, 2014d). Big data is
particularly significant, presenting a key opportunity for highly
targeted solicitations and real-time evidencing of impact (The Wall
Street Journal 2013).
Legal
CRUK’s current privacy policy (2014d) would be dramatically
affected by EU data protection proposals, which represent ‘the
biggest challenge in fundraising for a generation’ by seeking to
restrict the use of data for donor profiling (Civil Society 2014b).
CRUK’s legacy income is likely to benefit from changes to
inheritance tax law (The Telegraph 2011), whilst its policy work
could be impacted by a review of lobbying legislation next year
(NCVO 2014).
Ethical
CRUK’s use of unpaid internships has been criticised by the social
mobility watchdog (Third Sector 2013, The Independent 2014),
whilst the salary of its CEO has received parliamentary criticism
(The Guardian 2013a). It is also starting to be more open about
animal testing (The Guardian 2014e).
Micro-analysis
Arnett et al. argue that successful non-profit marketing ‘generates supportive
behaviour from key stakeholders’ including donations and positive word of mouth
(2003:92). As a major medical research charity, CRUK’s external stakeholders (Figure
1) mirror those studied by Knox et al. (2007:119).
Figure 1. Key external stakeholders across the value chain
The identity salience model of relationship marketing suggests that long-term
relationships are best developed by activities that increase stakeholder involvement
and attachment (Arnett et al. 2003:100). Recently, stakeholders have come to expect
targeted information to demonstrate impact (Carim and Warwick 2013:524). As
such, structured communications based on stakeholder segmentation increase
engagement and, ultimately, donations (Srnka et al. 2003, Waters 2011).
Knox et al. adapted Mitchell’s theory of stakeholder saliency for a medical research
charity. They found stakeholder saliency to be socially constructed by management,
with three perspectives (Figure 2) affecting the perceived importance of stakeholder
audiences (2007:122-126). These distinct worldviews prioritise grant recipients,
donors and the general public respectively. The direction of marketing strategy is
thus ‘contingent upon which worldview garners the most management attention’
(Knox et al. 2007:126).
Figure 2. Three perspectives affecting stakeholder saliency
A 2012 rebrand aimed to position CRUK as an organisation that saves lives in the
community, ‘rather than a science organisation’ (Communicate 2012). CRUK
described its purpose as ‘increasing income to fund research’ (Civil Society 2012).
This suggests that CRUK consciously attempted to move away from the first
worldview towards greater prioritisation of donors and the general public. This
strategic positioning is likely to further strengthen CRUK’s brand, enhancing its
competitive advantage over smaller charities (Chew 2009:223).
CRUK’s key competitors can be established by examining the Third Sector Charity
Brand Index (2014e) and YouGov’s Charity Index (2014), which measure public
perception of charity brands. They show that Macmillan Cancer Support is CRUK’s
main competitor, although Marie Curie Cancer Care also performs strongly. CRUK’s
income far exceeds both charities – it raised £490 million in 2013/14 (Cancer
Research UK 2014e) compared to £186.9 million and £136 million (Macmillan 2014,
Marie Curie 2014). It also faces competition from other large health charities such as
the British Heart Foundation (Hibbert 1996). CRUK’s assets and capabilities provide
the basis for a positioning strategy of differentiation (Hooley 2012:133).
Reputation and stakeholder relationships are important intangible assets for
charities (Chew 2009:42). CRUK’s size provides an inherent advantage, with
extensive PR reinforcing its reputation as an authoritative voice on research (Hibbert
1995:24). CRUK’s relationship with Tesco is also significant as a means of increasing
brand awareness by mass exposure through its 300,000 stores (The Guardian
2013b). The in-depth partnership is immensely successful at fundraising, producing
£11.85 million in 2012 (Tesco 2013). This dwarfs the amount raised by similar
partnerships, with Marks & Spencer raising £1.2 million for Macmillan in 2013
(Macmillan 2014b). However, maintaining this relationship requires immense
resources, including seven fundraising account managers (The Guardian 2013b). Its
strategic fit must be considered ‘in terms of mission, target audience, and/or values’
(Becker-Olsen and Hill 2006:75). Whilst target audiences are aligned in terms of
broad reach, Tesco’s mission and values are not health-related (Tesco 2014) and its
brand has plummeted in recent weeks (Marketing Week 2014a). In this regard,
Macmillan’s partnership with Boots (2014) is arguably more suitable.
Key capabilities facilitate effective deployment of assets and create competitive
advantage (Chew 2009:42). They include CRUK’s agile approach to marketing and
digital expertise, which resulted in £8 million raised by the #nomakeupselfie
campaign (Marketing Week 2014b, Cancer Research UK 2014b). CRUK’s competitors
have struggled to become more responsive (The Guardian 2014b), although
Macmillan’s brand metrics rose significantly after hijacking #icebucketchallenge
(Marketing Week 2014c).
In contrast, CRUK’s comparative weaknesses include the difficulty of establishing an
emotional connection to research and evidencing impact of donations (Facebook
and Instagram for Social Good 2014). CRUK has also experienced problems with staff
retention after high-profile campaigning (Marketing Week 2014a).
The above analysis can be summarised in a SWOT analysis to enable strategy
formulation (Hooley 2012:38).
Strengths




Strong brand
Corporate partnerships
Digital expertise
Political networking
Opportunities



Mobile fundraising
Big data
Legacy giving
Weaknesses





Vulnerable to economic changes
Evidencing impact
Intangible concept of research
Competing worldviews
Staff retention
Threats




Data protection legislation
More responsive competitors
Ageing donor profile
Public perception of CEO’s salary
and unpaid internships
Marketing strategy
Strategic implications for resource deployment can be revealed by examining links
between strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats (Hooley 2012:39).
Opportunities
Strengths



Invest in new
fundraising
opportunities, including
mobile giving
Use big data to better
target solicitations
Leverage social
networks of corporate
partnerships in mobile
fundraising
Threats




Weaknesses



Use big data to evidence
impact of donations
Invest in core income
activities like legacy
marketing to reach
older donors
Use digital expertise to
counter ageing donor
profile by attracting
younger audiences



Brand campaigns to
maintain engagement
amongst existing
supporters
Use digital expertise to
attract new supporters
and monitor trends
Benchmarking against
key stakeholder
relationships of
competitors
Use political networks to
lobby against EU data
protection proposals
Regular benchmarking of
staff compensation and
benefits against key
competitors
Make research tangible
by focusing on human
stories
Seek new corporate
partners more in line
with CRUK’s mission and
values
With the rebrand, CRUK has started to reposition itself as an organisation that saves
lives, focusing on human stories in order to establish an emotional connection to
research (Communicate 2012). This repositioning links to the three management
worldviews identified above (Figure 2) from which three strategic choices arise (Knox
et al. 2007:126).
As Chew argues, stakeholder dependence is as critical for charities as marketorientation and resource-based perspectives (2009:204). It is therefore necessary to
consider stakeholder saliency alongside changes in the external environment and the
need to exploit internal resources and capabilities.
Option 1: Prioritise grant recipients with a focus on core income
activities
Over a third of CRUK’s research is funded by legacy donations (The Telegraph 2014),
so this approach emphasises more traditional fundraising activities, with a focus on
older donors. This approach aims to achieve differentiation through fortification
defence, utilising CRUK’s brand and improving key activities known to generate core
income in order to ‘shut out competitor attacks’ (Hooley 2012:283).
Option 2: Prioritise donors with investment in new fundraising
opportunities
This approach responds to changing donor behaviour, including the growth of
mobile fundraising and the rise of spontaneous and first-time donors. It focuses on a
younger audience, with particular emphasis on social media and text giving. It aims
to achieve mobile defence by adapting to emerging trends (Hooley 2012:285).
Option 3: Prioritise the general public with a focus on community
engagement
CRUK considers its focus on research to be less engaging than the palliative care
provided by its competitors (Facebook and Instagram for Social Good 2014), so this
approach counters utilises human stories to demonstrate the impact of research in
the community. It adopts a two-pronged strategy towards younger and older
audiences, utilising targeted messaging, big data and digital expertise. This focus on
closer stakeholder relationships can be considered a frontal attack on competing
charities (Hooley 2012:280).
Whilst the prioritisation of grant recipients would seem a logical choice for a cancer
research charity, CRUK perceives the prioritisation of grant recipients as limiting its
potential to reach other audiences. Instead, its rebrand aimed to ‘unite the two
human and scientific sides of the business’ with messaging focused on donor
empowerment (Rebrand 2014). The rebrand can be situated as part of a strategy to
engage new supporters and develop stronger relationships with current supporters
by creating a brand more appealing for younger, digital audiences (Civil Society
2012). Consequently, it would appear that the second approach is better aligned
with CRUK’s overall business strategy than the first.
The prioritisation of changing donor behaviours is arguably more responsive to
changes in the external environment, most notably the adoption of mobile
fundraising by key competitors. However, there remains a need to retain
engagement of older donors, who typically give larger amounts and contribute
significantly through legacy donations.
The third approach perceives the key challenge for CRUK as how to attract new
audiences without alienating existing supporters. This is closely aligned with its
‘digital by default’ business strategy, which seeks to be audience led (The Guardian
2014). Investment in big data and digital expertise will provide sophisticated means
of targeting older and younger donors (The Wall Street Journal 2013). Research
shows that that a focus on engagement as an antecedent of donor retention is likely
to make CRUK more efficient and effective (Arnett et al. 2003, Knox et al. 2007,
Sargeant 2008, Carim and Warwick 2013). As such, it forms a compelling basis for
establishing long-term strategic advantage.
Objectives and targets
Sustain greater brand awareness than any other cancer charity



Achieve 5% more annual media coverage than key competitors
Engage 20% more during digital campaigns than closest competitor
Maintain top three ranking in YouGov and Third Sector charity brand indexes
over five years
Attract new donors from a wider audience





Increase share of donations to cancer charities by 15% over five years
Improve ratio of donor recruitment from campaigns by 2% every year
Maintain engagement with 50% of spontaneous donors for six months
Complete marketing research into donor expectations by 2015
Review best practices in data-driven fundraising by 2016
Improve relationships with existing donors




Increase retention of first-time donors by 10% over five years
Reduce attrition rate from sustainable giving by 5% over five years
Convert 7% of existing donors to legacy donors within five years
Review welcome cycles for mobile donors by mid-2015
Donor retention is two to three times less expensive than recruitment and is
enhanced by frequent, two-way communications with donors (Sargeant 2008:10).
Performance will be benchmarked against key competitors using sentiment tracking,
digital analytics, annual charity brand indexes and public accounts.
Conclusions
Changes in the external environment have created new and more sophisticated ways
of fundraising. If CRUK is to maintain its position as the largest cancer charity in the
UK, it must attract new audiences and seek greater engagement with existing
supporters. This will require sustained brand awareness and investment in donor
targeting, particularly donor retention.
A key limitation of this strategy is the lack of access to management, which means
that the analysis of stakeholder saliency is based on news articles and previous
research (Knox et al. 2007, Marketing Week 2013, The Guardian 2014f). A further
limitation is the lack of access to internal data, which means that targets are based
on publicly available data. As such, targets have been formulated ‘to match or
exceed the market-growth rate and thereby hold or extend market share’
(McDonald 2007:325). Where possible, figures are based on the average rates of
attrition and legacy donation for UK charities (Sargeant 2008, Nonprofit Quarterly
2013, The Guardian 2014g).
Further research would benefit from in-depth interviews with key stakeholders to
determine the applicability of the identity salience model, as well as a thorough
evaluation of organisational culture and day-to-day working practices.
References
Arnett et al. 2003. Identity salience model of relationship marketing success. Journal
of Marketing, 67:89-105.
BBC News. 2009. Charity donation hit by recession, accessed 21st October 2014 from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7946518.stm
Boots. 2014. Partnership with Macmillan Cancer Support, accessed 19th October
2014 from http://www.bootsuk.com/corporate_social_responsibility/community/partnership-withmacmillan.aspx
Cancer Research UK. 2014a. Beating cancer sooner, accessed 14th October 2014 from
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/cruk_strategy.pdf
Cancer Research UK. 2014b. #nomakeupselfie trend raises over £8 million for Cancer
Research UK, accessed 11th October 2014 from
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/2014-0325-nomakeupselfie-trend-raises-over-ps8-million-for-cancer-research-uk
Cancer Research UK. 2014c. Campaign news, accessed 4th November 2014 from
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/support-us/campaign-for-us/campaign-news
Cancer Research UK. 2014d. Privacy statement, accessed 2nd November 2014 from
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/terms-and-conditions/privacy-statement
Cancer Research UK. 2014e. Annual review 2013/14, accessed 28th October 2014
from
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/cruk_annual_review_2013_
14.pdf
Carim, L. and Warwick, C. 2013. Use of social media for corporate communications
by research-funding organisations in the UK. Public Relations Review, 39(5):521525.
Chew, C. 2009. Exploring strategic positioning in the UK charitable sector: emerging
evidence from charitable organisations that provide public services. British
Journal of Management, 20:90-105.
Civil Society. 2012. CRUK in £680,000 brand refresh, accessed 20th October 2014
from
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/13136/cruk_in_07m_br
and_refresh
Civil Society. 2014a. Cancer Research UK income rises 10 per cent in a year, accessed
5th November 2014 from
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/17942/cancer_research_uk
_income_rises_10_per_cent_in_a_year
Civil Society. 2014b. EU data protection proposals would kill fundraisers’ mailing lists,
says report, accessed 5th November 2014 from
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/18058/eu_data_protecti
on_proposals_would_make_fundraisers_mailing_lists_disappear_says_report
Communicate. 2012. Brand:Rebrand - Cancer Research UK, accessed 28th October
2014 from http://www.communicatemagazine.co.uk/archive/157-nov-dec2012/4204-brandrebrand-cancer-research-uk
Facebook and Instagram for Social Good. 2014. Interview with Cancer Research UK
social media team during conference held at Millbank Tower, London SW1P 4QP
on 2nd October 2014
Google. 2014. Any place, any time, any device: building websites for the multi-screen
consumer, accessed 20th October 2014 from
http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en//intl/ALL_uk/th
ink/multiscreen/pdf/multi-screen-consumer-whitepaper_research-studies.pdf
Hibbert, S. 1996. Giving to charity: questioning the donor decision process. The
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(2):4-13.
Hooley, G. 2012. Marketing Strategy and Competitive Positioning. Financial
Times/Prentice Hall: London, UK.
Ipsos MORI. 2014. 2014 public awareness and opinion survey, accessed 28th October
2014 from https://www.ipsosmori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/SRI_Health_2014_public_awareness_and_op
inion_survey.pdf
Knox et al. 2007. The application of stakeholder theory to relationship marketing
strategy development in a non-profit organisation. Journal of Business Ethics,
75:115-135.
Macmillan. 2014a. Annual reports and accounts, accessed 20th October 2014 from
http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Aboutus/HowWeRaiseAndSpendOurMoney/Annua
l_reports_and_reviews.aspx
Macmillan. 2014b. Marks & Spencer, accessed 1st November 2014 from
http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Aboutus/OurCorporatePartners/MarksSpencer.asp
x
Marie Curie. 2014. Reports and accounts, accessed 29th October 2014 from
http://www.mariecurie.org.uk/en-gb/who-we-are/reports-and-accounts/?Tab=2
Marketing Week. 2014a. Tesco’s corporate woes torpedo brand perception, accessed
29th October 2014 from http://www.marketingweek.com/2014/09/24/tescoscorporate-woes-torpedo-brand-perception/
Marketing Week. 2013. Cancer Research UK fights to ‘beat cancer sooner’ in
marketing campaign, accessed 20th October 2014 from
http://www.marketingweek.com/2013/12/20/cancer-research-uk-fights-to-beatcancer-sooner-in-marketing-campaign/
Marketing Week. 2014b. Can your team pass the agility test like Cancer Research?,
accessed 29th October 2014 from
http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/disciplines/social-media/opinion/can-yourteam-pass-the-agility-test-like-cancer-research/4010454.article
Marketing Week 2014c. Macmillan defends itself against criticism it hijacked the Ice
Bucket Challenge, accessed 20th October 2014 from
http://www.marketingweek.com/2014/08/26/macmillan-defends-itself-againstcriticism-it-hijacked-the-ice-bucket-challenge
NCVO. 2014. Government to amend lobbying bill following pressure from charities,
accessed 1st November 2014 from http://www.ncvo.org.uk/about-us/mediacentre/press-releases/524-government-amend-lobbying-bill-pressure-charities
Rebrand. 2014. Cancer Research UK, accessed 18th October 2014 from
http://rebrand.com/best-cancer-research-uk
Saxton, G. and Wang, L. 2014. The Social Network Effect: The Determinants of Giving
Through Social Media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5):850–868.
Srnka et al. 2003. Increasing fundraising efficiency by segmenting donors.
Australasian Marketing Journal, 11.1:70-86.
Superbrands. 2014. Consumer Superbrands 2014, accessed 14th October 2014 from
http://d3iixjhp5u37hr.cloudfront.net/files/2014/06/CSB-2014-Official-ResultsMvFjW2.pdf
Tesco. 2014. Core purpose and values, accessed 18th October 2014 from
http://www.tescoplc.com/index.asp?pageid=10
The Charity Commission. 2011. Charities: due diligence checks and monitoring end
use of funds, accessed 3rd November 2014 from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charities-due-diligence-checksand-monitoring-end-use-of-funds
The Guardian. 2013a. The charity sector has problems, but executive pay is hardly the
worst, accessed 19th October 2014 from
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/19/problems-charitysector-executive-pay-bosses
The Guardian. 2013b. How to become a company’s charity of the year, accessed 29th
October 2014 from http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sectornetwork/2013/jan/29/become-companys-favourite-charity
The Guardian. 2014a. #wakeupcall:has the face of fundraising changed for good?,
accessed 14th October 2014 from http://www.theguardian.com/voluntarysector-network/2014/oct/14/wakeupcall-selfie-fundraising-evolution
The Guardian. 2014b. UK economy bigger and growing faster than thought, says
ONS, accessed 2nd November 2014 from
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/30/uk-economy-bigger-fasterons
The Guardian. 2014c. Fall in UK living standards deeper than thought, TUC says,
accessed 2nd November 2014 from
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/30/fall-uk-living-standardsdeeper-ons-tuc
The Guardian. 2014d. #nomakeupselfie - why it worked, accessed 7th October 2014
from http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sectornetwork/2014/mar/25/nomakeupselfie-viral-campaign-cancer-research
The Guardian. 2014e. Companies, universities and charities vow to reveal more on
animal testing, accessed 22nd October 2014 from
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/14/companies-vow-to-be-moretransparent-on-animal-testing
The Guardian. 2014f. ‘Cancer Research UK’s digital strategy is not just about
technology, it’s about people’, accessed 18th October 2014 from
http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/iof-partnerzone/2014/sep/09/digital-technology-fundraising-cancer-research
The Guardian. 2014g. Fundraisers need to be brave to change the face of legacy
giving, accessed 5th November 2014 from
http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/iof-partnerzone/2014/nov/04/legacy-giving-fundraisers-must-be-brave?CMP=new_1194
The Independent. 2014. Ban unpaid internships completely, says Social Mobility
Commission, accessed 1st November 2014 from
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ban-unpaid-internshipscompletely-says-social-mobility-commission-9796805.html
Nonprofit Quarterly. 2013. Donor retention: what do we know and what can we do
about it?, accessed 4th November 2014 from
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/philanthropy/22708-donor-retention-what-do-weknow-what-can-we-do-about-it.html
Sargeant, A. 2008. Donor retention: what do we know and what can we do about it?,
accessed 2nd November 2014 from
http://www.afpnet.org/files/ContentDocuments/Donor_Retention_What_Do_W
e_Know.pdf
The Telegraph. 2011. Change inheritance tax laws encourages charitable giving,
accessed 2nd November 2014 from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/how-budget-affectme/8402261/Change-in-Inheritance-Tax-laws-encourages-charitable-giving.html
The Telegraph. 2014. Will you leave a life-saving legacy?, accessed 20th October 2014
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/health/beatcancer/11032415/leave-money-to-charity-in-your-will.html
The Wall Street Journal. 2013. How big data will change the face of philanthropy,
accessed 20th October 2014 from http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sectornetwork/2013/jan/07/top-charities-innovative-fundraising
Third Sector. 2013. Analysis: The rise and rise of the unpaid charity intern, accessed
2nd November 2014 from http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/analysis-rise-rise-unpaidcharity-intern/management/article/1207509
Third Sector. 2014a. Charities should build relationships with a new generation of
rich retired people, study says, accessed 4th October 2014 from
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charities-build-relationships-new-generation-richretired-people-study-says/fundraising/article/1320233
Third Sector. 2014b. Lobbying act regulated period for 2015 general election begins,
accessed 28th October 2014 from http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/lobbying-actregulated-period-2015-general-election-begins/policy-andpolitics/article/1312963
Third Sector. 2014c. Number of million-pound donations in UK is at highest level
since 2008, accessed 4th November 2014 from
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/number-million-pound-donations-uk-highest-level2008/fundraising/article/1320211
Third Sector. 2014d. Charity Brand Index launch reveals rising proportion of donors
who give only spontaneously, accessed 5th November 2014 from
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-brand-index-launch-reveals-risingproportion-donors-give-spontaneously/fundraising/article/1319897
Third Sector. 2014e. Cancer Research UK named best charity brand of 2014, accessed
28th October 2014 from http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/cancer-research-uknamed-best-charity-brand-2014/communications/article/1309460
Urbain et al. 2013. What does the future hold for giving? An approach using the
social representations of Generation Y. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18:152-171.
Waters, R. 2011. Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit
organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37:321-324.
Wired. 2013. Quarter of charity funds now raised through online and mobile,
accessed 20th October 2014 from http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201311/27/charity-and-social-media
YouGov. 2014. Macmillan Cancer Support tops YouGov’s mid-year charity
rankings, accessed 18th October 2014 from
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/16/macmillan-cancer-support-tops-yougovsmid-year-cha/