BlueFrog Creative

Did anyone convince you your donation made a difference?

It's just over a year now since the earthquake in Haiti and the great wave of public giving that followed. Aid organizations are now being asked to prove that the donations they received have been:

1. Used.

2. Made a difference.

As I wrote about here, I gave my donation to MSF and, just over a week ago,  they sent me this email.

I was really pleased that the email came from an MSF volunteer doctor, but the content didn't quite live up to my expectations. The thank you, for example, is a little underwhelming. Jonathan Grapsas had a rather better experience which he writes about here with MSF in Canada.

Still, in the interests of research, I downloaded the report and watched the short video. Despite picking it up a few times, I haven't managed to finish the 36-page report, but the film – as you'll see below – has some pros and cons.

Prompted by MSF's offering, I thought I'd take a look at what other organizations have produced. They all face the difficult task of needing to share achievements, but also acknowledge that the situation for many people remains dire.

My selection is random, based on what came up in Google and You Tube searches. So if you have other examples you'd like to share, I'd be delighted. You can use the comments section below or send them to me. It would be great to see what you liked – or didn't.

MSF – views 1,925

(If you have trouble playing the films, I found a double click into You Tube did the trick)

There are plenty of facts and figures in this report – and one particularly crucial one. MSF was the only organization I found which said it had spent all the donations it had received for Haiti within the year. That goes a long way towards convincing me I gave to the right organization.

The film is pretty comprehensive, covering the cholera outbreak too. But for me, it only really comes to life when the MSF medics are speaking. The voice over is, I guess, deliberately dispassionate, but isn't giving about emotion? Didn't we give because we care? There's one moment in this film which could (should?) move you to tears, but it doesn't. I'll leave you to find it.

Save the Children USA - 241 views

Isn't it nice to be thanked? Save the Children USA has two versions of this film - the longer one above is a thank you version for donors. From the first beats, you can see they've tried to create a more dynamic, upbeat mood. We see children in temporary schools and permanent schools being built, as well as other examples of what donations have helped to do. In contrast to MSF's films, we hear from Haitian children and parents.

Because the voice over comes from a person we actually engage with and have been thanked by, there's also a chance to make an ask for further support.

Plan USA -775 views

 

Once it gets going, this one is pretty similar to Save the Children's. It ends with this graphic which I liked to sum up their activities.

American Red Cross - 9,337 views

 

Very like the previous two, but slicker. Feels like a honest assessment of achievements and set backs.

Oxfam UK - 689 views

 

Content-wise this one is very light indeed. If you like upbeat music and images, this is for you.

ActionAid UK - 22 views

 

No voice over. No ActionAid staff. No mood music. Just footage of a Haitian family describing their situation. ActionAid has produced some lovely films in this way to show donors who bought their virtual gifts what they were supporting, which you can see here. I didn't think this one was quite as good though.

UNICEF  - 4,854 views

 

Am I allowed to say I hate the start, where I'm told I'm watching 'unicef television'? This is very 'newsy', but as a result feels distant and impersonal. I'm guessing this hasn't been produced for donors. 

Christian Aid – 111 views

 

This is a mix of film footage and slide show. I didn't mind that, but I didn't feel I really learned what Christian Aid has done in Haiti.

One thing you may have noticed is that most of these films have a very low number of viewings (even after I'd watched them repeatedly!). It may sound harsh, but I'd say they just aren't entertaining enough. Turn off the visuals and, in many cases you're listening to a list – there's no story to engage.

It's by no mean perfect, but I found a news report, which provides an interesting contrast.

Just like the films above, it sets out of report on Haiti one year on. But within a minute you have seen the difference that one year can make - it's a father who, against the odds, still has his little girl. The wound on her head and knee are healed and we're treated to her tremendous smile. The report goes some way towards the delivering the great feeling that a donor needs, before then looking at the areas where more help is needed.

You'll need to click here to view as it's on the BBC website.

I feel a bit sorry that the report I liked best didn't come from a charity at all. But what do you think? Have you seen/received anything better? Post below if you have something good to share.

* UPDATE * UPDATE * UPDATE * UPDATE *

Here's another kindly sent my way by Damian O'Broin of Ask Direct.

Concern Worldwide has this nice dedicated web page, giving feedback on their work in Haiti. It includes some films, a map and some facts and figures. Click here to view the live site.

 

 

I took a speed-reading course and read War and Peace in twenty minutes. It involves Russia.

Confession first: that's a Woody Allen joke, not mine. But there's a reason for sharing it – I'll get to that in a moment.

First a story a client told me recently.

He described being on the train and seeing a fellow passenger – a woman with young children – pick up the insert that we had helped create for the charity he works for. 

Naturally, I was hoping the client was going to tell me he'd seen the woman read the insert attentively, perhaps nodding from time to time, before reaching for a pen with which to complete the Direct Debit form.

Dream on.

In fact, this is what happened. The woman was travelling with two young children. She wanted to read her newspaper. They didn't want her to. So she opened her newspaper, took out the insert and tore off a page for each child. It ended up being thoroughly crumpled up and, in parts, chewed.

It's a little heart-breaking when you think of the work that went into it, not to mention the expense. That's the reality though.

When we are doing recruitment work in particular, it's worth remembering that what we're producing will be ignored by almost everyone and actively avoided by others.

Depressing? Well, I'd say no. It's just a measure of the challenge we face. The first hurdle is avoiding being immediately thrown away.

All charities are in the same situation, so what tactics are being successfully used to ensure potential supporters engage with recruitment pieces?

The British Red Cross banker pack follows a path previously trodden by NSPCC, Cancer Research UK and no doubt others. It begins with an apology for sending unsolicited mail, pointing out that the organisation is taking this route because it is a cost-effective way of getting much-needed new supporters. The British Red Cross pack includes a set of cards, address labels and other gifts, which are hard to throw away.

In a similar vein, come springtime, there's a clump of daffodils in my garden, the bulbs having come from Marie Curie's highly successful recruitment pack (since scuppered by the change in Royal Mail charging). We were able to match its response and beat its ROI with a very simple personal approach from a nurse.

All of these are techniques for giving the recruitment piece 'value' in the eyes of the donors. At the same time, they act as ways of engaging the donor beyond giving. The daffodil bulb is to remember someone who has died of cancer. The cards enable the donor to show to others they are a supporter, raising awareness of the cause.

And, with a nod to Woody Allen, it helps to ensure that readers, however inattentive, are able to quickly grasp the ultimate message of the piece.

To make sure your key messages are effectively conveyed, it's worth understanding how people read, then using techniques that work for each group (something it appears Tolstoy neglected to do).

Here is how reading types are often described:

• Browsers (people who flick through)
• Scanners (someone who runs through text looking for key words and phrases)
• Skimmers (someone who runs eyes over text to identify key ideas)

I like to add one more - the person who reads diligently from beginning to end. A really skillful copywriter covers all these groups within a piece, without insulting the intelligence of someone who does read from beginning to end.

Layout is as important as the copy itself – handwritten sections, bolding, underlining are all very useful for highlighting key messages, not to mention highlighting itself. So if you are in the not unknown situation of having brand guidelines that rule out these techniques, it's time to start stamping your foot or negotiating, whichever is your style.

You can see them in use on this insert below, our latest offering to hungry, bored children travelling by train. With the hole cut in the front cover, we go to some lengths to engage the reader, getting our message across in a visually meaningful way. Very few words are needed at all to understand the immediate need for help. I will let you know how it gets on.

For those of you speed-reading, this post has been about avoiding dustbins.

 

Finally, an airline gets it right!

I’m pleased to report that I haven’t gone on holiday recently.  Yep, I’ve been right here in London – happily going from SE to E (and back again) via train, bus, tube or my own two feet. Ah land based travel. You just can’t beat it, can you?

Well, flying sure can’t. All you have to do is blink these days and a volcano erupts, cabin crew go on strike or taxes triple that ‘oh so tempting’ fare. Frankly, it’s no surprise so many Brits think flying is more trouble and money than it’s worth.

That said... all this palaver does have its upsides. Because now, we can sit back and watch the airlines get creative.  And let’s face it; they’ll have to be if they want to coax us back to a 30-inch seat in time for the all-important choice – chicken or beef?

Personally, I think this little gem from low-cost carrier Germanwings does just that. 

It’s pretty obvious that the Germanwings viral is a real departure (sorry I couldn’t help myself) from the way airlines usually advertise. Low cost carriers generally focus on price for pretty obvious reasons. But here, Germanwings make sure we know that they’ve got another thing many of their competitors don’t – the chance for a family to actually sit together. Isn’t it funny how easily we are impressed?

To be fair, I think they’ve achieved a lot here. They’ve put the message across really creatively and got a dig at the competition to boot. Most importantly, though, they got my attention. Because before I knew it, I was on the Germanwings website, checking out trips to Berlin, Zurich or St. Petersburg.

And presuming I’m not the only one that has had this reaction, well, that’s not bad for a viral that cost them four tickets on EasyJet (a guess - orange headrests), right?

Essentially, the money Germanwings spent went mostly on their flash mob style concept, because the execution was so inexpensive. And by allocating their spend this way – rather than throwing money at flashy design – the viral stands out a mile from the competition.

As for charities, well the logic really need not deviate too much from what Germanwings have done here. Because once you’ve got that great idea, you can still stand out, get attention and engage donors without spending a fortune on gimmicks, giveaways and graphics.

A case in point is the series of press inserts Bluefrog recently created for our client, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

In the first round we ran two inserts. One was, as we say, very ‘inside track’ – it looked like it was sent directly from the field, from an MSF nurse. And believe me, when I’d finished the interview, I had a feeling we were onto a winner. Her experiences were so compelling.

 So, we typed the insert in courier, used real handwriting, printed on a very inexpensive stock, and put it all in a cost-effective ‘no bells and whistles’ layout. The finished product was convincing. The other option, although also straight from the field, was much more designed and glossy.

When the results came in, our initial hunch was right. Just as the Germanwings viral has done, the MSF insert really grabbed donors’ attention. And at the end of the day, it was the inexpensive looking insert that fought off the competition and convinced donors to sign up to a £20 a month Direct Debit. Not bad.

 So where do we go from here? Well, in round two, we’ve taken that learning, built on it, and created two brand new inserts. One ran in the Guardian two weeks ago, and the other may have dropped out of your Sunday copy just this past weekend. If you missed them, here’s a look:

This insert (based on the winning insert last time) is about kala azar.

One of the inside spreads

This is a new approach about Fistula

This is the first spread. 

So far, it looks like our new inserts are creating the same positive reaction as the first one. In fact, Nick Nunn of the Lancashire Telegraph has already blogged about the first of our two inserts, and I think his headline says it all... One leaflet that put things into perspective.

You can read Nick’s full post here, but this is just a taster:

“A LOT of printed material has come through the letterbox in the past week.

“Some is extremely boastful and it’s all designed to appeal to self-interest usually by suggesting we will be better off financially if we vote a particular way...

“...But one item, a few pages of cheaply printed, A4 paper, was none of the above. It was all about kala azar.”

I’ll leave it there for now. But I suggest keeping copies of the MSF inserts... they may come in handy next time your brand team say, “but that’s not one of our agreed fonts/colours/insert whatever you like here”.

Thanks for listening,

Joanna Gaunt, Bluefrog

A brand that's good enough to eat

In a desperate attempt to find a snack to enliven the miserable dark days of February, I stumbled across a potential 'Lovemark'. 

If you read this post, you'll probably recall that 'Lovemarks' are the brainchild of Kevin Roberts, CEO Worldwide of Saatchi and Saatchi. In Lovemarks - the future beyond brands, he states his belief that brands have become tired and need to evolve. Although charities are not a major feature of the book, the values he ascribes to 'Lovemarks' are exactly what good causes need to aim for if they are to hold a special place in people's hearts. 

Here's a quick reminder of some of the ways 'Lovemarks' rise above traditional brands.

BRAND v  LOVEMARK

Information       Relationship

Generic Personal

Recognised by consumers   Loved by people

Defined Infused

Statement Story

Values Spirit

And now let's road-test a product which takes us a step closer to our sector – it's Tropical Wholefoods.

Their dried banana pieces caught my eye in a shop which is a lunchtime stroll away from Bluefrog offices. The packaging is fabulous. Subsequent googling revealed it to have been designed by a company called Shimmer. 

Here's the front.

It can be a punishing job researching material for this blog, but in this case I can report that the dried banana pieces are pleasingly sweet and chewy. And when I turned to the back of the packaging, I discovered the product's extra goodness.

Hopefully, it's shown big enough (below) for you to see that the illustrations bring to life the benefits of trade to the whole community, with children in school and more food being cultivated.

The copy gives a taste of some interesting sounding work, very much like what we'd share with donors to an international development organisation. It mentions, for example, that the ripe bananas are picked, hand-sliced and dried in specially designed solar driers.

I also bought the dried oyster mushrooms in the same range. They're cultivated by coffee growers in Colombia, using another innovative technique – sowing seed in biomass that is a by-product of coffee cultivation and usually discarded.

So far, so good. Great product, attractive packaging, innovative work – but does Tropical Wholefoods qualify as a 'Lovemark'? I followed the link to the website to find out whether the values displayed in the packaging are reflected ('infused') online. Would I find the makings of a 'lasting relationship'?

I'd like to say otherwise, but I was a bit disappointed. The promise made on the packaging wasn't entirely fulfilled. As you may be able to see from the extract below, the information on the website is decidedly flat – especially when you consider how interesting it could have been. The 'story' aspect of a 'Lovemark' is missing.

The blog, which you can click on from the home page, is slightly better and there are nice features, like an open invitation to visit the company. So a 'Lovemark'? Perhaps not quite yet.

 

As charities, all we have to offer donors is the experience of giving - hopefully, a fulfilling and life enhancing one. We don't have any banana chips to hide behind, tasty or otherwise.

So I'm reminded how important it is to convey innovation, good ideas and intelligent work. Donors, even more than consumers, want to align themselves with an inspiring and innovative brand. 

And so onto another example, where the brand promise is fulfilled by the experience.

Over 43,000 people have watched this clip of MSF's inflatable hospital going up in Haiti. If you haven't seen it already, there's no fancy editing or commentary. There's even a section in French without translation. You just see the hospital going up. The last person I showed it to watched the full six minutes in silence, then turned to me and said "That's so incredibly neat".

To finish, one last link to a post by Jeff Brooks. If you haven't read it yet, it shares the best starting point when thinking about brand: 'Your 'look' is not your brand: What you do and who you are is your brand'.

Why do people think charities waste money? Because we don’t prove them wrong?

I was at the hairdresser’s last Saturday. Whilst not much was happening in the hair shortening process, I listened in on a conversation that one of the girls on reception was having with a young man who worked there too. And by young, I mean early/mid-twenties.

The young woman was holding up a z-card she’d been given by a charity she supported. And she talked about how important it was to her to support them.

At this point, the young man thought it would be a good idea to put her straight on a few things – like the ‘fact’ that if she was giving a tenner, only two or three pounds of it would get to the people who needed it.

There really wasn’t any point in her giving at all he inferred.

Thankfully, the young woman wasn’t so easily deterred. But for want of any facts of her own, she could only counter that she only gave £5 a month but she was sure it helped.

So let’s deal with that first.

Whenever we work with charities on recruitment pieces, we encourage them to use the basic statistic of how many pence in the pound go on ‘real work’.

You’d be surprised how many are reluctant to do so. When asked why, some point out that another charity has a better statistic. But by that, they may mean only one or two pence more are spent in the ways that are easiest to justify to a supporter.

It’s a great shame if a charity doesn’t share their figures on the basis of just one or two per cent.

Because the young man in the hairdresser’s isn’t the first I’ve heard massively over-estimate how much a charity spends on administration or fundraising. It comes up time and time again in research.

At Bluefrog, we call this a ‘barrier’. By that, we mean that it’s a reason people commonly give for not donating. For many years, we’ve identified those ‘barriers’ and made sure that whatever piece of work we’re doing counters this in some way.

(Others might be: I don’t have time, the government should pay for this etc.)

In this case, overcoming the barrier is as simple as telling the donor how a charity uses its money and justifying it accordingly.

One good experience recently was working with MSF. Unprompted, the client came in with the most compelling justification for why the organisation needed committed givers I have ever heard (i.e. not just to ‘plan ahead’).

Here’s an extract from how how it appeared.

And MSF took it for granted that we would explain how the money we raised would be used. You can see it here.

 

Along with this, which is another great thing they do.

 

Another of our clients, CARE International, make good use of their statistic on fundraising pieces – warm or cold. This is the back on an envelope.

But back to ‘barriers’. We also used to identify ‘buttons’ – reasons why the donor would take action. One example of a 'button' is discussed in Mark Phillips' blog here, where he suggests ear-marking at recruitment stage might help introduce new donors to charitable giving – at the same time winning their interest and trust.

Barriers, buttons and values were all a vital part of Bluefrog’s approach when I began work here. Over the years, that’s changed. First because we found we could beat ‘values-based’ copy and, second, because after some lengthy research, we instead identified donor needs, which you can read about here.

Identifying ‘barriers’ is still useful, but working with needs enables you to go beyond the reasons people tell you for not giving to what they actually need to give.

And in the case of the young woman at the hairdressers, that would have included equipping her to be able to justify to her friends what she’d signed up to. Better still, putting her in a situation where she would actively want to involve her friends too.

And the new unnamed Bluefrog product that I wrote about last week does exactly that – in fact, it makes sharing with friends as easy as pressing a button. It also gives you regular blog style updates showing you what your money is doing. Hopefully just what the young lady in the hairdresser's and many others need to keep them engaged.

As it turns out, last time, I gave you the wrong date for the seminar Bluefrog and Direct Dialogue are giving about countering attrition. It's actually the 13th of November. So I hope you'll come along and find out more. It should also be a good opportunity to put some more tweeting faces to tweeting names.

Right that's it for now.