Ask Charity Weblog

Is it worth putting an embargo on a press release if someone is going to break it? There's been a long discussion on a PR/journalists forum about the rights and wrongs of embargoes. In general the journalists seem to hate them, and often don't honour them. "Generally the embargo is there for the benefit of the client, or the PR company, not the reader....I worked for xxxxxx and our policy there was that we never ever honoured embargoes. If a PR wanted to send something out under embargo, they should not send it to us until they were ready for the information to become public. They system worked very well". One of the problems with sending embargoed releases to hundreds of journalists is that it may spoil an exclusive you have arranged pre embargo. One of the hundreds breaks the embargo, then the exclusive is no longer exclusive.

Posted by Charity at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have just tried to phone the media office of one of the largest charities in the country. First I rang the switchboard and when I asked for the media office, she acted as if she hadn't a clue what that was. Then she put me through to a voicemail. I didn't leave a message but surfed their site to find another press office number at the end of a press release. I phoned one of the numbers to get another voice mail which suggested that I should ring another number. I rang the other number to hear another voicemail which said that the office was closed for Christmas. I rang back half an hour later to learn again that the office was closed for Christmas. Its these experiences which help you understand why journalists sometimes get frustrated by charities....

Posted by Charity at 03:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The joint committee on human rights called some journalists up to talk about their coverage of asylum issues. The Mail and Express denied there was an editorial line on asylum or that journalists were pressured to write inflammatory things. The Director of the PCC said that the organisation had written to 14 newspaper editors to point out that the phrase "illegal asylum seeker" was wrong and inflammatory. More on mediaguardian http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,,1996874,00.html

Posted by Charity at 02:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Everyone knows that animal charities have a very strong appeal to the public. But charities themselves seldom draw attention to this. Enable Scotland has done just that in its latest advertising campaign. Enable Scotland is a charity for children and young people who have learning difficulties. In the campaign the charity is highlighting the fact that animal charities receive nearly double the amount in public donations that charities for disabled people get. Across the board 11.1% give to the former while 6.6% give to the latter. For more details about the campaign see their press release http://www.enable.org.uk/news.php?pageid=52&secid=65

Posted by Charity at 05:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Scout Association has launched research that claims media stereotypes of young people are misleading. The report says the majority of young people it surveyed had positive attitudes towards work and families and said their parents were the people they most admire http://www.scouts.org.uk/news/archive/2007/Jan/080107.html This is only the latest in reports highlighting the negative media image of young people - Young People Now did a report and started a campaign on the subject a couple of years ago and the British Youth Council highlighted the issue in May. Has anything changed as a result?

Posted by Charity at 09:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Some of today's national newpapers were quick to condemn a BBC programme which hasn't even be broadcast yet. The Baby Borrowers will be shown on BBC3 on Monday 8th January at 10.30pm. It's a documentary which records what happens when teenage couples are left holding the baby. The babies' real parents gave their permission for them to be involved in the programme. On paper this seems like a good public awareness campaign - a way to show a large audience of teenagers (who actually watch BBC3) the realities of parenthood. But I'll hold judgement until I've actually watched the programme.

One charity (Kidscape) has been quoted in the papers immediately outraged by the idea of it. "It's sick. Someone's got to make a stand and say this is a reality TV show too far". I'd be intrigued to know if Kidscape have already viewed the programme before judging it. And are they absolutely sure that this is "reality TV"? It doesn't sound like Big Brother style entertainment to me.

So let's see what the programme's like - and before charities leap on the bandwagon to criticise it - let's watch and see what happens. You never know, the programme might actually portray some teens in a positive light; it might actually educate some young people about parenthood. Can that really be labelled "sick"???

Posted by Charity at 04:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's that time of year again when the same old story all about how charities waste money gets wheeled out again. I spotted a story in The Guardian's G2 today - a lightweight piece about charities' fundraising techniques: "what a ghastly waste of money, on the presents, the postage and packing, plus consultancy and publicity and extra hordes of staff". Michele Hanson's arguements about giving and charities are pretty weak. It's not a great piece of journalism. But I don't object to her (or any other journalist) scrutinising charities and her opinions are clearly shared by many charity donors. I don't believe her article does some terrible harm to charities and their work.

It's always seemed to me that giving is a private affair - people are motivated by their own reasons, emotions and experiences to give money (or time) in the way that they choose to. But if you don't want to give money to the largest UK charities, working out who to give your money to can be difficult. How do you find out about the smaller charities out there and what they're doing? The G2 article ends with Michele Hanson describing one very small Argentinian charity and their work and finishes off with a name check and an email address for that organisation. No doubt they'll see a surge in donations on the back of this Guardian mention. Which just goes to show if you inspire the right journalist, if you can get a journalist to understand your charity's work - whether you're a tiny charity or a huge organisation - one media mention can make a tremendous difference to your fortunes. I don't support this widely held belief that the all media and journalists are charity bashers. Isn't it just time for charities to get clever and start trying to inspire and educate a few journalists. It's time for charities to get personal - pick a journalist and make it your aim for the new year to befriend them.

You can leave your comments and responses to Michele Hanson's article on The Guardian's Comment is Free website.

Posted by Charity at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)