Marketing and Small Charities.

Another long one I’m afraid. (This is longer and edited version of one I did for my employer)

When it comes to marketing, charities and fundraising companies such face a problem. The usual approach to marketing is to outline the benefits for the customers. So for example if you worked for a greengrocer your marketing could focus on the health benefits of eating fruit and veg. However with charities the benefit rarely goes directly to the person paying.

Of course it is always possible to focus on long term or hidden benefits. For example the idea that you should donate to Cancer Research now, because you want to be sure that it or something like that will be around should you ever get cancer. Or, more tenuously, You should give to Help the Children because it makes you feel good. However this approach sells charity as a selfish activity, something that many donors won’t want to see themselves as being. In fact one of the big appeals of donating to charity for individuals is that it is a chance to do something good and unselfish.

Having said that, there is a large market for this ‘selfish sell’; some of the most generous sources of donations are corporations. However corporations are answerable to their shareholders. They rarely donate, rather they invest. Why invest in a charity? Because it’s good PR. In effect this is a simple exchange, they provide you money, and you give them some ethical brownie points.

Individual donors are somewhat more complicated. While the feel good factor will help persuade people to donate it is something the vast majority of charities have. At least any that isn’t set up for disposed dictators! Emotional appeals are one route that charities often go down. Think of the stereotypical leaflets with starving children on them. There is a reason why they are so widely used and that is that they get an effective response. However for small charities this doesn’t really help. Say you’re a small charity trying to feed a village in Ethiopia, you release your starving children leaflets and nothing happens! Why is this? Has everyone stopped caring? Or is it that they saw your leaflet, thought ‘I must do something’ and donated to Save the Children? What’s happened, well it’s an issue with brand awareness. Save the Children, Plan and similar organisations have been doing the same thing for so long that the images are now linked with them in many people’s minds. Smaller charities simply don’t have that link.

So what’s a small charity to do? Well the first thing is to be different. By providing an innovative service they not only stand out from the crowd, but they generate news stories which provide free advertising and awareness. In general small charities can get a lot of coverage from local newspapers by providing giving them stories that will interest their readers.

Another factor that a lot of small charities can use is local interest. The classical church roof fund is a great example of this. By supporting a local project or solving a local problem they can bring the benefits of their actions home to potential donors more easily than larger charities. Though for this to work the goal must be clear and obvious. For example fixing a church roof, or creating a youth club.

For example if your charity’s goal is to create and run a youth club, then donors know what you do. You can outline benefits for them and the area and they can measure your progress. In contrast if you goal is to help local children, then it is much harder for people to judge whether your successful, if you can do it, and why they should give to you rather than another charity offering a similar service.

Having raised awareness it is important for the small charity to engage with potential donors who will want to know not just what the charity does, but how it does and how efficient it is. After all very few people would be happy if they found that £4 out of every £5 donated went towards brand new computers for charity staff. And the newer, smaller charity will have deal with more scepticism than a larger better established one. Despite this, charities, with the exception of Help for Dictators, tend to have a lot of goodwill towards them from the start. So if you can get the attention of donors and engage with their questions, you’ll likely find them enthusiastic and helpful.

I'm Back + Dan's quick guide to SEO

Sorry I haven’t posted for a while, it’s been a busy few months and it seems like now’s the time to get going again. So why haven’t I been posting? Well, first I fell out of the habit and then I started working as an intern for a small fundraising company called Giveacar, which has been very interesting, but has left with little spare time. This is in part because its 9-5 but mainly because I’ve been sleeping on friend’s sofas. Thank you James and Amy!

Now the key thing about an Internship is that it is a learning experience. If it isn’t then it’s a waste of time and exploitive. Some people argue that Internships are exploitative anyway, but that’s an argument for another time. In this post I intend to show off one aspect of what I’ve learned and maybe impress any future employer’s miraculously reading this post (hint, hint).

That aspect is the importance of SEO or Search Engine Optimisation. Basically the ways of making sure that your website appears in one of the top spots on Google for any relevant searches. This is for an obvious reason, if your website comes up top of a search then it will get more people visiting it than its competitors and vice versa, if your competitors are higher than you then they are getting the customers.

For example with Giveacar we want to be number one when it comes to ‘donate my car’ at least when the searcher is in the UK. Now you may notice I’ve hyperlinked the search term just then. That’s because it’s an anchor text. This means that it is a phrase that I want Google or Yahoo or any other search engine to link with my website. This means it’s far more useful than just putting in the URL because it tells the search engine that these words are relevant to the site. Whereas putting in the URL increases the number of links to the site but then fail’s provide any context.

Now the thing I find really interesting is that because Google wants to provide it users with a useful search term it actively tries to prevent people just churning out hundreds of thousands of links to their site on hundreds of completely unrelated websites. This means that they have done two things. First they made sure that the algorithm they use to sort sites is secret. No point in having it if people can work out how to game it. The second thing they do is rate links. So a link from a site with authority, that is a site with a lot of people linking to it and treating it as a trusted resource, is a lot more valuable than one from a site without. Similarly if a lot of people are making deep links (links to webpages that aren’t you’re home page) to your site that’s better than just a lot of links. In fact many websites have ‘nofollow’ links, which means that Google just discounts them when it comes to ranking websites.

So in a nutshell the challenge of SEO is to get a lot of high quality links to a website. Of course these are often hard to get. So there are several different ways to generate links. The first and most basic of these is to make sure that your site actually has a lot of high quality content. Articles that people want to read, a good service and so on. If the content is good enough then people will link to you. Of course this should be one of your objectives already, after all who wants a crap website? This however is not enough on its own. There is no point having a great website if no-one knows that it is there!

So you need to create some links of your own one way is to submit article to article site such as www.articlepool.com. These sites only accept articles of a high enough quality to ensure that Google counts links in them towards its rankings. This means that submitting to them is a somewhat long and arduous process. In addition it can take several days or even weeks for your article to get approved.

A second approach is to try to get your website into directories. These can either be free or paid, and there is an extent to which you get what you pay for. But they are also a lot quicker and easier to get onto than article sites. So they are certainly worthwhile. A good source of these can be found at info.vilesilencer.com.

You can also use social media to encourage other people to link to you. Post links to your articles and services and if people like them they may link them on their own blogs and websites.

The most fun way I’ve found so far is Squidoo. This is similar to an article site combined with a social networking site. Using this site to write articles (called lenses) you can also rate other people’s articles, start and participate in debates and generally get your name out there. You can also link to your own site safe in the knowledge that it’s considered high quality. However Squidoo will delete any article that appears too much like spam, and possibly your account so be careful.

So that’s my quick(ish) guide to SEO. After Christmas I’m going to look to do a couple of articles, one considering the ethics of Internships and one on charity marketing. So if anyone has anything to say about this post or those, please do. It feels good to be back.

In which I take on Stephen Hawking

As some people may have noticed Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have a new book out on the 9th September called The Grand Designer; an extract of which was published in the Times’ Eureka supplement. Now I admire and respect (Dr.?)Hawking but in this extract they make the following claim which really annoyed me.

“How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? … Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. [Emphasis mine]Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

Now aside from the fact that I spent the last three years of my life studying philosophy why did this statement annoy me? The most glaring reason is that betrays either a lazy use of language or a fundamental misunderstanding of philosophy. Philosophy is a very broad subject. It is usually divided into four main branches: metaphysics, ethics, epistemology* and language. Now I could understand if they wanted to claim that metaphysics was dead. It is in area which has ceded a lot to science and is likely to cede even more. (It is also incredibly abstract, dry and difficult.) But metaphysics is only one branch of philosophy. If he is claiming that ‘science, particularly physics’ has also killed off ethics, epistemology and the philosophy of language then he is saying something truly bizarre! So they are either lazy because they fail to make the distinction between a branch and the whole of the subject, or ignorant because they don’t know that there is a difference. I suspect it’s the latter and hope it’s the former.

Now it may or may not be true that metaphysics is dead. Hawking is far from alone from thinking this, for example many Kantians (philosophers who are inspired by Kant’s philosophy) regard metaphysics as a hopeless endeavour. Not only dead, but stillborn. I don’t have the expertise to argue this one way or another.
A second reason is that a few paragraphs later the authors are engaging in epistemology. They quickly explain that because modern physics can not proceed by direct observation; and to deal with this they decide that:

“We shall adopt and approach which we call model-dependent realism’. It is based on the idea that brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, we tend to attribute to it… the quality of reality or absolute truth.”

If philosophy is dead why are engaging in it? Moreover this extract illustrates one of the reasons why the philosophy of science* is still important. The counter intuitive nature of science, particularly physics’ findings requires epistemological investigation to explain why it is that these findings are valid. Sorry for the long rant, but I think that this is an important issue. It would be tragedy to abandon the centuries of thought that have gone into western philosophy and have contributed ( and continue to contribute) so much to such wonders as science, the enlightenment and parliamentary democracy. Also I suspect this book will be very interesting and informative, so its a shame to see such a mistake so early on.

*The study of how we know things.
*The study of how science works and epistemological consequences.

Could boxing reduce antisocial behaviour?

One of the classic sporting stories out there is the ruffian made good by virtue of learning to box. A classic example is stories such as this and this. But I feel that you have to ask some searching questions about this narrative. In the long run does a violent sport such as boxing prevent or encourage violent behaviour? My suspicion is that in most cases it helps prevent violent behaviour by giving people confidence, discipline and something to do. But it also brings with it exposure to other violent people, and training in how to fight. In addition there is a risk of brain damage.
So how can we answer this question? I’m not aware of any specific research into the issue, but I think there are some clear ways we can answer it. The first would be to find out what percentage of violent criminals are boxers and compare it to the population as a whole. So for example if five percent of violent criminals are boxers and five percent of the general population are, then that would suggest it has no impact. If there is lower percentage of boxers among violent criminals then that would suggest that boxing prevents violent crime and if there is higher percent then it encourages it. However this by itself would risk falling for the fallacy of suggesting correlation implies causation. I suspect people who are drawn to boxing tend to be more violent than those who aren’t. Another way to investigate would be to follow the lives of some of the students of the previously mentioned projects. I would love to know more. Particularly as this article highlights the anecdotal evidence is good.

Of course just opening lots of free boxing gyms won't solve violent crime and antisocial behaviour by itself. But it strikes that this option really should be researched.

Eh?

A recent article from the BBC claims in its subtitle that “Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force behind evolution.” Now if this is true then it’s pretty revolutionary. However when you read the article it fails to show anything which suggests Darwin was wrong.
What the article argues is that the main driving force behind evolution was the opening up of new ecological niches. The example they give is:
“… When birds evolved the ability to fly, that opened up a vast range of new possibilities not available to other animals. Suddenly the skies were quite literally the limit, triggering a new evolutionary burst.”
Now the article itself has a quote from Prof. Stephen Stearns which show’s the problem with this argument.
“… In general, what is the impetus to occupy new portions of ecological space if not to avoid competition with the species in the space already occupied?"
It seems fairly obvious to me, a philosophy graduate with only a layman’s knowledge of evolution; that even if ‘an evolutionary burst’ occurs when a new ecological niche opens it still requires competition to persuade species to occupy the space and to diversify once they are within it. So the subtitle seems to be at best a lazy error, or a worst dishonest. So why did they do it. My suspicion is that it was an attempt to try to get more hits by tapping into the supposed ‘evolution-creation controversy’.
And yes I feel very comfortable talking about a supposed ‘evolution-creation controversy’ because there isn’t actually a scientific one. There might be a political one in the US, but the truth of evolution is as close to proven as the theory of relativity or germs.

Facebook Places

We all know Facebook, and most of us use it. However it has hardly been without its controversies. Most of these have been around the collection of data about its users, both overtly and covertly. However the latest one, for US users at least is an application called ‘Facebook Places’. This app lets US users share their location in real time with their friends and any marketers who happen to be interested. Now whilst I can see the whole invasion of privacy thing; my objection to this is not so high minded. My objection is that like 99% of Facebook apps it’s boring. I’m afraid to say that even if you’re my closest friend I’m not that interested in having a record of everywhere you went today. For that matter I’m pretty certain that you don’t want a record of everywhere I went today. If you’ve got an interesting story to tell or somewhere to recommend, or if we’re catching up; then sure lets have a chat about it. But that’s the point. What you did today is for small talk over a pint or dinner in the evening. So my suggestion ignore Facebook Places, because it’s just plain boring.

Offence and Freedom

An issue that I have noticed occurring very frequently at the moment is the relationship between freedom and offensive speech. In fact it is not just offensive speech but various other actions that whilst doing no physical harm, are seen as offensive. A far from exhaustive list of related controversies include the ban on religious hate speech, Danish Cartoons and most recently the building Cordoba House near Ground Zero. So this raises two questions, first what makes words or actions offensive and secondly how should we react to offensive speech and actions. The definition of offensiveness is that it causes ‘anger, displeasure or injury’. For the sake of this discussion I’m not concerned with actions which cause physical injury, as we can generally accept that they are wrong, with a few exceptions. What interests me is the causing of anger or displeasure.
I also want to make a distinction between legal and moral, two things that are surprisingly often confused. For this article legal refers to the laws that governments make and moral refers to what individuals should or shouldn’t do. (Of course both these definitions are sketchy, but this blog post is not an academic essay.) What I want to argue is that individuals are morally obliged to try to avoid unnecessary offence, but that this should not be a legal matter. In other words it is wrong for me to call someone a prick but it should not illegal for me to do so. Why? There are three reasons I shall go through.
The first reason is the subjectivity of offence. Say I’ve go two friends, Dave and Mike. One evening, down the pub I greet them by saying ‘how are you two bastards doing?’ (Not the best banter ever I realize, but what can you do?) In this example Dave responds with a witty response, but Mike finds my greeting offensive. (We needn’t go into the reasons why.) The point here is which one, if either is in the right? I didn’t intend to offend either but the fact is I did. Now is this offensive, or is that just the case that Mike cannot take a joke. It seems to me that the answer is both; it offends Mike because he cannot take the joke and that makes it offensive. This illustrates one reason why it offence should not be a matter of legality. We frequently give offence without meaning to, and in ways that offend one person but not another. How therefore is the law, which by nature must deal with a large number of humans, supposed to regulate this?
Related to this is the second and to my mind most important reason. Offence is frequently an unintended consequence of criticism. Willingness to give and recive robust criticism is vital to many endeavours. Who hasn’t been told things that they are doing wrong, or could do better? Similarly if I disagree with your point of view, then the way for me to try and convince you, is to criticize that view whilst offering reasons to follow mine. Of course not all criticism is seen as offensive but it can be hard to predict what will be. There is also the fact that sometime the way to make a point is to do it in a very direct and robust value. If you try to soften a criticism you can obscure the point.
The third reason is that we are not talking about physical injury here. I would also include things like defamation whereby there is an obvious harm and a clear test as things we can legislate. But when it comes to statements, critcisms and actions, where the worst they do is insult and which aren’t lies then it seems that there are two things to be done. The first is to grow a thicker skin and the second is to try to avoid and challenge offence, but to do so individually and with words rather than anything else. An issue that I have noticed occurring very frequently at the moment is the relationship between freedom and offensive speech. In fact it is not just offensive speech but various other actions that whilst doing no physical harm, are seen as offensive. A far from exhaustive list of related controversies include the ban on religious hate speech, Danish Cartoons and most recently the building Cordoba House near Ground Zero. So this raises two questions, first what makes words or actions offensive and secondly how should we react to offensive speech and actions. The definition of offensiveness is that it causes ‘anger, displeasure or injury’. For the sake of this discussion I’m not concerned with actions which cause physical injury, as we can generally accept that they are wrong, with a few exceptions. What interests me is the causing of anger or displeasure.
I also want to make a distinction between legal and moral, two things that are surprisingly often confused. For this article legal refers to the laws that governments make and moral refers to what individuals should or shouldn’t do. (Of course both these definitions are sketchy, but this blog post is not an academic essay.) What I want to argue is that individuals are morally obliged to try to avoid unnecessary offence, but that this should not be a legal matter. In other words it is wrong for me to call someone a prick but it should not illegal for me to do so. Why? There are three reasons I shall go through.
The first reason is the subjectivity of offence. Say I’ve go two friends, Dave and Mike. One evening, down the pub I greet them by saying ‘how are you two bastards doing?’ (Not the best banter ever I realize, but what can you do?) In this example Dave responds with a witty response, but Mike finds my greeting offensive. (We needn’t go into the reasons why.) The point here is which one, if either is in the right? I didn’t intend to offend either but the fact is I did. Now is this offensive, or is that just the case that Mike cannot take a joke. It seems to me that the answer is both; it offends Mike because he cannot take the joke and that makes it offensive. This illustrates one reason why it offence should not be a matter of legality. We frequently give offence without meaning to, and in ways that offend one person but not another. How therefore is the law, which by nature must deal with a large number of humans, supposed to regulate this?
Related to this is the second and to my mind most important reason. Offence is frequently an unintended consequence of criticism. Willingness to give and recive robust criticism is vital to many endeavours. Who hasn’t been told things that they are doing wrong, or could do better? Similarly if I disagree with your point of view, then the way for me to try and convince you, is to criticize that view whilst offering reasons to follow mine. Of course not all criticism is seen as offensive but it can be hard to predict what will be. There is also the fact that sometime the way to make a point is to do it in a very direct and robust value. If you try to soften a criticism you can obscure the point.
The third reason is that we are not talking about physical injury here. I would also include things like defamation whereby there is an obvious harm and a clear test as things we can legislate. But when it comes to statements, critcisms and actions, where the worst they do is insult and which aren’t lies then it seems that there are two things to be done. The first is to grow a thicker skin and the second is to try to avoid and challenge offence, but to do so individually and with words rather than anything else.