Cancer Research UK’s letter from cancer
 Previous |
Back to item list | Next  |
|
The front of the outer envelope.
Chris Barraclough. Click here to find out why Chris Barraclough thinks Cancer Research UK’s death threat is wrong.
|
SOFII's view
At first glance you might think, wow, this mailing from Cancer Research UK is clever and a bit different. It surely will make people angry enough so that they give money that will beat cancer: an admirable ambition. But what would you think if you have cancer? Or someone dear to you had just been diagnosed with cancer, maybe your young child? You’re quite likely to be living on the highest emotional tightrope ever, would you want to be reminded that you or your loved one could be facing death? There is a fine line between pushing the creative boundaries to maximise fundraising impact and income and being sensitive to and considerate of the distress that hard-hitting marketing messages might cause to some readers. Do you think this mailing crosses that line? Medium of communication:Direct mail.Type of charity:Healthcare.Target audience:Individuals.Country of origin:UK.Creator/originator:Name of exhibitor:Date of first appearance:unknown.Summary/objectives:Background: |
Not effective, unfortunately.
Here's my take on the letter.
I have an aunt who is dying of cancer. She is not going to make it to christmas, say the doctors. This appeal wouldn't work on me. I don't think it's heartfelt, it doesn't have a story or message that resonates with me. It's abstract, not visceral. It has no pictures. It has no heart. I mean, props to the copywriters for trying something different, but it doesn't move me in the slightest.
Mazarine
http://wildwomanfundraising.com
That letter from Cancer
I'm so grateful for Chris' forthright view and the intelligent debate it produced on the Marketing site. We do so little of this in our sector and we can only learn useful things. Great debate, thanks....but why was the debate on Marketing, not on SOFII, Fundraising or TS!
What information do you believe?
In my experience with cancer fundraising (in the US), this type of approach would not be effective. I've found that the best message for cancer fundraising is some variation of "We're winning; please join the fight against cancer!"
That said, Chris Barraclough's critique of this piece is troubling for one reason: There's no way he has enough information to be authoritative about the success or failure of the piece. His only data is how it made him feel. He's universalizing his experience and opinion to everyone else and calling the piece a failure.
I have no inside knowledge about CRUK, but I hope they have some testing or other knowledge that tells them this piece is, or is likely to be, successful in motivating people to donate. Assuming they know that, they should not be swayed by Barraclough's complaint, which only tells us how Barraclough feels, not how everyone feels.
Typically in fundraising, the strongest campaigns get the most complaints. But for every Chris Barraclough, several hundred people respond with a donation. If that's what happened in this case, which voices should CRUK listen to: the handful of people for whom the message failed, or the multitude for whom it worked?
It would be completely irresponsible for CRUK to be swayed by complaints, no matter how eloquent they are.
Again, I wouldn't have condoned this piece because repeated testing has shown that the approach is not effective. It's possible their experience is different from mine. Or perhaps this piece is a test. In any case I urge them to get their direction from the data, not from the complaints.
Jeff Brooks
Failing to grasp the issue
I agree with Jeff that my opinion, in isolation, matters not one jot. However, I fear he's failed to grasp the issue I'm addressing. We are not talking here about criticism arising from the use of shocking imagery in fundraising such as piles of dead dogs or emaciated children. These are rightly used to shake people out of complacency and if they upset a few, that's unfortunate but a price worth paying. But what people feel is at most a degree of offence. Despite that, it's not personal. It's not about them.
With cancer, we are talking to people in very a fragile emotional state. People who have days when they can cope with the fear and other days when they cannot. It doesn't take too much to cause them severe emotional stress. It's why in the UK we have Macmillan Cancer Support.
A letter direct from the country's leading cancer charity that talks of the random nature of a death threat is just the sort of thing that could put a patient struggling with the disease into emotional turmoil. Macmillan, in their post on my blog, recognised that. A charity like Cancer Research UK has to have a similar responsibility to the cancer patients it seeks to help.
Cancer does not need the use of additional shock tactics to make its case as a worthy cause. It just needs the charity to persuade you to give money to beat it. Which is why Jeff is right about what works. And you can still produce extremely powerful fundraising material for cancer charities without causing distress amongst the very people you are trying to help.
Posted by Chris Barraclough
That depends on what the regulator and the law says...
Agree totally with facts leading the decision-making process but that's not always easy when:
a) you're trying something new to achieve an increase in cut-through (though I'm not advocating being reckless) so there may not be much of a precedent;
b) the regulator has the final say over what marketing messages (that's what fundraising is in this context) are acceptable or not. If the Advertising Standards Authority receives complaints, it will investigate and rule on whether Cancer Research UK is allowed to continue using the mailing pack... irrespective of whether it worked or not.
So facts plus professional judgement and experience probably the way to go?
Post new comment