SUMMARY OF KARMA KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE EVENT 19TH SEPTEMBER
2013
Introductions

Introductory presentation on background to KARMA project, aims/objectives
and progress on work done

Subsequent presentations from KARMA team providing feedback regarding
findings from NGO interviews and audience focus groups, respectively
Summary of Key Points/Findings

There are important differences between “apparent” and “explicit” emotional
manipulation

Audiences read and engage with each communication/campaign in relation to
all other communications/campaigns and other media discourses. Perhaps
there are rewards to be achieved from those that “break the mould”?

Audiences are very knowledgeable about and aware of strategies used to
“push buttons”, and are critical of communications that they feel to be “faking”
sincerity. Sincerity is key to successful audience engagement

NGOs want to achieve the same status as the police, the NHS or other similar
institutions, and want to be “loved” by the public

Focus group findings indicate that there are four models of NGOs as
perceived by audiences: Charity, Professional, Glamour, Pure Business

It is interesting how the four models change in terms of perception across the
different focus group age demographics

The focus groups indicate that people do not trust NGOs – the main concerns
are about exactly what percentage of donated money actually reaches the
beneficiaries
1
Questions/Comments

Questions about precisely which materials were used in the focus groups. It
was explained that we chose not to distribute these during today’s event,
because the context in which the focus group participants had engaged with
them was a key element of their responses

Clarification requested about our definition of “emotionally manipulative”: it
was suggested that this is precisely “the point of what [NGOs] do”

Observations made regarding the tensions that exist between the fundraising
and policy/campaign departments of NGOs, because of their disparate
objectives and perspectives

We commented that fundraisers are tired of being told that what they do is
manipulative, and that NGOs are concerned about the cumulative effect of
such criticisms on their work

NGO Professional commented that aggressive DRTV (Direct Response TV)
campaigns are effective. Whilst they may be counterproductive in the longer
term, they do work in the short term

We agreed that fundraisers say that securing long term donors is the main
challenge for them, i.e. converting one-off givers into sustained donors

NGO Professional commented that there is known to be a high dropout rate
from street campaigns

NGO Professional notes that the public have a very skewed perception of
this, and that almost £0.92 per pound goes to beneficiaries - also noted that
it’s important for NGOs to try and get this point across in their communications

We noted that there’s a perceptible shift away from notions of charity amongst
NGOs (because of its potentially negative connotations) and towards notions
of justice instead. It is however important to remember that there can be
positive aspects of the idea of the “Good Samaritan” that might be valuable,
and shouldn’t be abandoned completely

We agreed that there may still be some mileage in this notion, despite its “oldfashioned” nature

NGO Professional
noted that it’s difficult for NGOs to know how much
attention they should pay to negative feedback from the public (especially
2
since the majority is positive!), because by responding too fervently, they risk
giving it credence and losing focus on their own objectives in the process

NGO Professional
noted that NGOs themselves are responsible for how
they’re perceived. Observed that perceptions of NGOs have been “bundled
together” with discourses surrounding the banking crisis, and that this has had
a detrimental effect

NGO Professional noted that successful campaigns are those in which the
“ask” is tangible, which is why social networks have become useful for these
purposes. Commented that Oxfam is actively seeking to counteract its
corporate image, and that new technologies could help to create greater
transparency in NGO communications, ensuring that feedback loops between
NGOs and the public are clear and that these are addressed and maintained
properly

We responded that although the issue of “transparency” is important, this
doesn’t solve the problem of trust, because it doesn’t address or acknowledge
the non-rational elements of human emotions

NGO Professional queried whether there was a sense from the focus groups
that people are loyal to specific NGOs, or to specific issues. Whilst regular
donors tend to be signed up to more than one NGO, they are loyal to particular
issues – this was linked to observations from Concern’s online donors

NGO Professional asked why the British Red Cross weren’t included in the
study (answer: they were at the beginning, but later withdrew for a variety of
political reasons). NGO Professional wondered about the extent to which their
non-participation might skew the results/findings from the project because the
BRC are such a trusted organisation amongst the public
Key Problems

Reconciling market pressures with cherished charity values

Re-building trust in UK public

Counteracting the “self-serving” image of NGOs
3
Suggestions

There are few problems in terms of the public’s perceptions of beneficiaries –
the issues are mainly with the NGOs (the intermediaries)

Whilst the NGO sector is preoccupied with their portrayal of beneficiaries, that
isn’t the crucial issue at all – it is images of NGOs themselves that concern
people most

Existing feedback from NGOs about the work they do isn’t enough

Audiences need a release from the emotions that are aroused by NGO
communications/campaigns, so that they don’t feel “dumped on”. From a
psychological perspective, people can hold on to their knowledge and feelings
for a much longer time if they are manageable
ACTION RESEARCH MEETING
 Summary provided of findings from audience focus groups, as per morning
KE workshop

Key issues: how to keep audiences connected to humanitarian issues

Reconciling market pressures and charity values

NGO Professional noted that the idea of the “charity shop” is something that’s
embedded in our everyday lives, so is to some extent inescapable

We suggested that the ”Professional” (neo-liberal) model of NGOs might have
the potential to be seen positively, especially from a psychological perspective,
perhaps by engendering a more “open door” relationship with younger
audiences

NGO Professional noted that whilst clicktivism can trigger avoidance amongst
audiences, CONCERN’s newly launched online campaign involves taking
donors on a “supported journey”, aimed at fostering longer term commitment
and involvement. NGO Professional
noted that this is also the cheapest
method for NGOs to boost donations

NGO Professional
suggested that there is a gap between NGOs and
audiences in communicating the impact of their work, and that this needs to be
addressed
4

NGO Professional
commented that NGOs need to remember that they
themselves are partly responsible for any negative public perceptions, and that
in a sense they are “in the way” between donors and beneficiaries

NGO Professional
commented on PLAN having received a number of
complaints about CEO salaries, but that even in these cases, people feel they
have personal relationships with the beneficiaries that transcend this – even
where donors were offended by salary issues, they intended to continue
sponsoring “their” child until he or she reached 18

We noted that personal relationships are key – we need to focus on this and
rebuild trust as a means of achieving it

NGO Professional noted that people don’t want to think of NGOs as being
corporate businesses, and often don’t recognise that the work they do requires
a corporate skill set, and therefore justifies corporate CEO salaries

NGO Professional – many charity CEOs actually took significant pay cuts to
do their current jobs, and did so willingly – the public don’t recognise this

NGO Professional
– public perceptions of NGOs as faceless entities are
wholly incorrect: people don’t recognise that in many organisations, all the
employees work together in one room. Drawing attention to the fact that
they’re not all big bureaucratic can be effective

NGO Professional – fundraisers’ main concern is that “the medium is the
message” –this results in a cumulative view of NGOs as simply trying to get
money from the public

NGO Professional agreed with findings that the “white hero” notion of NGOs
is far less important to the public than their availability and accessibility

NGO Professional – more investment is needed in supporter relations

NGO Professional – annoyances amongst audiences that the only contact
they receive from NGOs is via market research agencies asking for more
money/to increase their donations. Those doing the “reaching out” to the
public aren’t even part of the agencies themselves!

NGO Professional – it might help to close this gap if the people actually doing
the “hands-on” work (e.g. the doctors/nurses “on the ground”) gave
presentations about agency work instead of NGO professionals. The problem
5
is that many marketing departments are resistant to suggestions about what
really works

NGO Professional – who are the “audiences” that NGOs have in mind when
they design their campaigns/appeals? There are lots of different notions of
“the human”, and each has a significant impact on the design and structure of
these documents

We commented that NGO practitioners are anxious about making people feel
uncomfortable or even inducing strong emotions – they are reluctant to do this

NGO Professional
– there’s a real tensions between provoking important
feelings/emotions, and doing this in a way that isn’t too much for people to
manage. Provocative campaigns are polarising and can divide people very
powerfully

NGO Professional – there is an important distinction to be made between
evoking responses and evoking monetary donations from people

NGO Professional
– is there any point in even trying to “convert” certain
types of reader or audience?

NGO Professional – audiences are different depending on the current sociocultural climate, and in relation to the context of what’s happening in the world
at the time

– social media is really important, because
NGO Professional
communications delivered via this medium “feel different” to other more
conventional methods, and can engender very powerful responses from the
public. Strategies such as using an “Inspirational Quote of the Day” can be
very popular and effective

We questioned why it is that NGOs want to distance themselves from the
provocation of negative emotions

NGO Professional
– precisely because the kind of work that we’re doing on
this project shows that it doesn’t work!

NGO Professional
– NGOs are concerned about oversimplifying and
reinforcing stereotypes about “the victim”. They’re keen the emphasise the
agency of beneficiaries (showing how people can help themselves), as a
means of creating lasting change

NGO Professional – “brand values” are important to NGOs
6

NGO Professional – NGOs feel it’s important to “protect your brand”: there’s a
real tension between campaign people, policy people and marketing people,
because charities are increasingly required to come up with a “brand” in three
key sentences. MSF have tried and failed several times to find a “strapline”
that works

NGO Professional – there’s a competing interest within organisations, and it is
very difficult to find something that everyone agrees on. The emphasis on “big
message/big ambitions” means that everything becomes less effective in
terms of engaging the public

NGO Professional
– the focus on “branding” means that all NGO
communications risk becoming generic. Being successful isn’t about brand
loyalty, but about focusing on the issue in hand

NGO Professional – the public are sick of hearing about “brands”

*** N.B: the whole group acknowledged the irony that the afternoon’s
discussion had also been dominated by this issue***

We asked – how can we continue the dialogue with NGOs and how can our
findings be useful to them?

NGO Professional
– it would be helpful for us to organise a series of
“roadshow” presentations, where we visit the NGOs and give talks there,
instead of expecting them to come to us

NGO Professional – we need to emphasis the practical value of attending
meetings as a means of persuading people to come

NGO Professional
– academics and practitioners use completely different
discursive and linguistic strategies in their communications, and this can
create a barrier to effective liaison. We need to “market” our work to NGOs in
a “less academic” way, and try to “sell” the event in a way that is appealing to
them

NGO Professional – willing to liaise with us to re-design future invitations

NGO Professional – we could consider putting NGO CEOs on a discussion
panel for future events. Suggested names: Justin Forsyth (Save the Children);
Jon Snow; John Burke; Vicky Browning (Charity Comms);

Could also approach the Institute of Fundraising
7

NGO Professional – will circulate information about future events to his full
contact list
8