Charity doesn’t begin at home for the charities!

So our annual research into use of suppression has been published. Fundamentally good news abounds. Use is up by an impressive 42% year on year, a truly significant growth and a huge fillip to the industry's environmental credentials.

Yet once again the charity sector bucks the trend of embracing best practice, creating long-term relationships and taking responsibility for their actions and rather than growing their use of suppression and data accuracy has in fact taken a retrograde step and used less suppression in the last 12 months than it did in the previous! So what the hell is going on?

Firstly, it is important to say we work with many charities – by definition those that have recognised the benefits of brand protection, significant costs savings and environmental awareness. They do tend to be the larger charities. In the commercial world the model pursued by the larger companies would be the one which everyone else strived to achieve, but not with the charities – no they seem to argue that they cannot afford suppression; that the ROI doesn’t stack up if you use suppression; that people want to receive their mailings; that it’s not JUNK MAIL they are charitable offers; - Please someone help me!

The hardest thing to overcome is that they can hide behind the statement that they are doing all in the name of good. Don’t get me wrong I absolutely support the charitable sector in their aims and ambitions. This country, nay world, would be a far worse place without the incredible work that they do for so many less fortunate than ourselves. However, it is not despite of this that I am so wound up, it is because of it! The bottom line is charities will continue to do good work whether they continue to send out junk mail to dead people or people who have moved, or not. The real issue is here is how much MORE they could do if they didn’t. £11.5 million wasted in the last 12 months over £100 million in the last 10 years!

And it’s not just about money wasted - it also significantly about perception. In my experience of talking to people about junk mail, the charity sector is the one that consumers always seem to have at the top of their “most annoying” list. Go to the ICO site and visit the charity section, even they acknowledge that consumers seem to be most irritated by charity mailers. Add to this that so many mailers are being sent to dead people or previous occupiers the perception is that charities both send out unwanted mail and then they waste money sending it to people who have died or moved years ago. Not a good approach for a sector that constantly leverages the angle that they need more money!

If suppression doesn’t work then why does every other industry sector screen on average 60% of its mailings? Because it works, that’s why. It saves money, it protects a brand, it enhances relationships, and it increasingly helps to protect our industry from legislative threat. All things that one would expect charities to embrace. Charities may think that they can do no wrong, in the name or good, but the reality is that they have been for decades. The time has come for the rest of the industry to ensure that every sector puts it weight behind the current industry challenges, the alternative being politicians enforcing change that puts charities at the top of their “most annoying” list.