Keep the comments intelligent, please
29th October 2006, 5:34 pm
I do my best to avoid spending time on sites focused on fundraising, as VolResource generally leaves that area to Fundraising UK. But with Intelligent Giving launching soon, a quick glance at their blog - The Charity Sleuths -was in order. I was a little alarmed to read that of the 22 responses they’d had from charities previewing entries (emphasis added):
Barring one addled response from someone who seems incapable of navigating the site, people seem to have grasped that the purpose of Intelligent Giving is positive, and that we are not some evil force intent on destroying the charity world. November 3rd is the official launch date but you’ll be able to see the site on the 1st.
Hardly inspiring confidence that they really have the user and charities in mind in producing a usable site on judging which are best charities to support. And as an ex charity finance director myself, some of their blog commentary on figures they find in annual accounts also makes me wonder if they have any expertise in that area. Well, hopefully we’ll find out in a few days.
UPDATE, 1st November - site looks OK with only a minor layout issue (if viewing at 800×600 or smaller). Maybe there are just a few too many menu and other options on the front page ….. On the comments front, checking the charity I used to be FD for a few years ago, Plantlife, saying that “the website’s still there so it is obviously still a going concern” (after a slight drop in income shown in the annual report they looked at) is rather trite and insulting. But early days.
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Come on! Seems a bit churlish this.
First off, anyone running a website (however well designed/navigable) comes across people who will complain and complain….Intelligent Giving seems to have lots of different routes into the content. And a blog always has a more irreverent tone.
Secondly, the site is explicitly NOT focused on fundraising, but on the transparency and reporting of the charities. Indeed, it states on the site by ‘Fundraising Costs’ to “beware this figure: it can be calculated in all sorts of different ways so is best ignored unless very high. Larger charities’ average is around 25%”.
Thirdly, what else does your average donor have to go on apart from the annual report and the website if they are searching around? And how much expertise does it take to work out reserves as a percentage of average income/expenditure? (one of their main measures)…etc.
Early days, as you say, but surely a site that is truly independent of the sector, even if able to be improved, is to be welcomed?
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Nick
Can’t say I’ve encountered those constant complainers myself, and anyway they were invited to comment. (But then, as I avoid the SSE site as the background makes it almost unreadable for me, perhaps I am biased.)
Um, a site called Intelligent Giving, focused on donors, is about fundraising in my book. Not sure what fundraising costs test has got to do with that.
And I would hope that IG is capable of more than your average donor in assessing charities, otherwise it is worse than pointless.
But I’ll reserve judgement for now. And as you say, blogs are more irreverent - my comments here shouldn’t be taken as seriously considered info from VolResource.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Ha! You are of course only too correct about the current SSE site: new one in development to go live by the end of the year, you will be delighted to hear ;0)
[My ‘complainers’ experience comes from years at the helm of the Global Ideas Bank but point taken.]
I guess the true test will be whether the site is used by donors/members of the public, rather than us sector-heads.