A few weeks after the UK general election, now is a good time to reflect on what the charity sector can learn from the campaign. This blog was originally delivered as a talk to Bayes Business School Master’s programme run by the awesome Haseeb Shabbir.
The profile of the charity sector
1. Charities are pretty invisible in general elections. Was the general election a great success for charities. Were charities and their policy requests a key feature of election debates. Did you hear charity leaders being interviewed about their views. I would have to answer to no to all those questions. Charities seemed almost invisible during the election campaign to me.
2. Its not a time for charities to campaign. I don’t think charities should bother campaigning during an election. Politicians are in broadcast made, not listening mode. It makes no sense to try and compete with them when they are out to tell everyone how great they are. Wait till the election is over and then go back into the fray. See my blog on this issue here
3. Lots of people who worked for charities were elected MPs. There are a raft of candidates who have worked for charities who have now been elected MPs. Perhaps this will make the new parliament more receptive to the work of charities and put the sector more centrally in government thinking – but it’s been pretty dismal over the last decade. But I am not holding my breath.
Social media and the digital world
4. Google trends is a useful tool for measuring profile. If you want to know whether your messaging is cutting through on social media, then google trends (https://trends.google.com/trends/) is a pretty good way to do it. It’s free and it’s easy to use, and it shows that only in the week of election day did Keir Starmer have more searches than Taylor Swift.
5. Paid ads on social media is a great, cost-effective way to target audiences. In the last week of the election it was hard to miss ads on social media for the Labour Party. They outspent the Tories three to one overall. Paid-for social media ads are a great way of targeting particular audiences for relatively small amounts of money. I have run campaigns for a couple of hundred pounds, and the learning about which messages work can be good. Charities should try it!
6. Great social media can get charities to have cut-through. Nigel Farage was the star of TikTok during the campaign. Each of his TikTok posts had an average of over 500,000 views, and it didn’t cost him a penny. The sadness is that almost no charities really seem to have used social media to become influencers. So while Khaby Llame has over 160 million followers on TikTok, just for pulling faces at other people’s videos, many charities don’t even have a TikTok account. Yet charities have all the ingredients for great social media – great stories, human interest, and a message to get across.
Brands, personalities and policies
7. Personalities and charisma matter in getting (social) media attention. There was a lot of talk during the election about the personalities of the leaders, and their charisma. Its fair to say none of them had great charisma. But Ed Davey faked his charisma by his stunts and gathered a much higher level of media coverage for it. Name an Ed Davey stunt – easy. Name a Lib Dem policy – harder. Who are the charity influencers? Beats me!
8. Policies really don’t matter that much. There was a poll among Labour voters just after the election asking them why they voted Labour. Just 5% said it was because of their policies. 5%! Many charities spend a huge amount of time crafting their policies, but the reality is that it is probably the reason that only very few support a particular charity. The brand, the image, of a charity is far more important than the policy substance.
9. Being against something is a powerful motivator. In the same poll that 5% voted due to Labour policies, 58% voted Labour to get the Tories out. The election shows how being against something is a powerful motivator. The danger for charities is that the old chestnuts of admin costs and high salaries are powerful disincentives for some to stop supporting charities. Charities have never quite worked out how to rebut that argument, and so many it remains an issue. Equally being against fracking or abortion or a new bypass or the closure of a local hospital will continue to motivate people.
People without worrying about impact
10. Political donations show that impact is just one motivator to give. On the standard thinking, people make donations to get impact, to help a particular project, to make a difference in the world. Political donations show how people can give for much more visionary reasons. People give to political parties and politicians to support their view of the world. They know that the politician may lose, but the chance of winning is the prize. It’s a good reminder for fundraising – think big and visionary, not simply £10 will buy xyz. Visions motivate people.
The basics matter of strategy, consistency and brands really matter
11. Strategy matters for harnessing resources and delivering results. Labour had a Ming Vase strategy: protect their lead in the polls by not upsetting anyone, by being cautious, by showing competence not bold visions. And it worked for them. Too few charities have a great strategy which helps them deliver results (more on strategy from Heyheyjoe here )
12. Consistency matters for getting messages across. Was Rishi Sunak leading the party of change as he implied at the party conference last autumn (‘30 years of vested interest standing in the path of change’) or a politician leading a party against the radical change of the Labour party. The Tories central narrative was never clear. Part of any good brand is identifying the core narrative and sticking to it. When people internally are just about sick of a message, the outside world might just about be noticing it. Charities need to remember that clarity of messaging is critical.
13. Toxic brands need hard work to overcome. The Tories had a toxic brand bought about by 14 years in power, and underpinned by the fiasco of Partygate, and the chaos of Liz Truss. Rishi Sunak could never quite decide how to overcome that toxic image, but his strategy of pretending it wasn’t there, was never going to hack it. In contrast Keir Starmer worked very hard to overcome the taint of antisemitism. Starmer’s strategy worked because it was bold, it was hardcore, and it was consistent. Sunak’s didn’t. Any charity with a negative image needs to be assertive, clear and consistent to change its bad brand.
Kommentare