Did anyone else get that v. upsetting 'baby names book' from the NSPCC this morning?

[tigertum]

This morning I got a mailer from the NSPCC asking for monthly contributions. Enclosed was a leaflet designed to look like a baby names book and under each letter was a childs name and underneath a brief desciption of how this child (mostly under two, one at only 9 weeks old) had died of abuse. Many of the deaths were horribly violent and had been at the hands of parents. I read it, and it had me in tears. Just thinking about it makes me want to cry again.

I already contibute to Oxfam every month and DP and I have agreed on this amount and we cant change it. The letter enclosed began with something like 'as a new mum', so I was probabbly targeted as a mother, possibly who is on record of being a regular contributer to a charity.

Yes, it was very effective in that it made me feel incredibly upset and depressed/angry at he world that this kind of thing can happen. As I sat, blothcy faced, staring at this 'baby names book', I couldn't decide if it's right or not for something that distressing should land on my door step oiut of the blue, especially if I was targetted by this mail because on some database somewhere I am logged as a mum who contributes to charities.

Did anyone else get this mail, what's your opinion?

Absolutely NQC, if anything these types of mailings put me off donating to charities with such a heavy handed approach

I realise many of you find these kind of appeals shocking and have been upset by them - and I'm not trying to make light of your obvious distress - but honestly, if your job was to raise awareness of cruelty to children and bring in as much money as possible to help alleviate children's suffering - what would you do? I'm not a great fan of mailshots but charities depend on regular donations so they know what they can afford to fund for the next year. So it's easier to target those ion their lists who already give. I give to the NSPCC (and work with ChildLine) and when I get the letters, if I can afford to give more I do. If not, I don't. If more money comes in for charities then maybe it doesn't matter if a few of us become upset (and yes, that includes me).

made the excellent point that in order to get the best, most effective Directors/MDs/CEOs they have to pay the going rate.

But why - I thought these people that worked for charities cared passionately about the work the charity does - not the salary.........And it's not always the 'top' people that get good salaries - often people lower down the 'tree' get pretty good ones too!

NotanOtter, we all know the abuse and ill treatment that goes on, we don't need it shoved in our faces the way they do, emotionally blackmailing people to give money, and targetting mums in this way, yes I do find this tasteless and offensive, they have sat down and thought about the group of people in society that would be most vulnerable to such a mailing which I think is in very ill taste.

its a crap campaign

I threw it in the bin

bet they will change it soon (after they get a lot of publicity of course - I used to work for WWAV and if you think that the agency's main motivation is genuine sympathy with the charity's aims, you are living in cloud cuckoo land)

I'm amazed that people find ads & mailshots about children being abused & killed offensive.
There is nothing tasteful about children being battered to death. I am so very, very glad the NSPCC & all those who work for them are bringing it to our attention.
I can't believe that you all want to live in a sheltered world where the images of real life are hidden from you.
It should be in our faces because it happens all around us. I don't ever want to feel that I'm to be sheltered from the brutality & sheer bloody awfulness of other peoples lives, just becase it might be distressing or offensive.

HRH,I'm sure the majority of people that work for charities do care passionately about the cause, but the fact remains that if you want to get the best people for the job (at any level) you have to pay at least the going rate. For most people paying the mortgage etc comes a lot furthwer up the list than their social conscience.

sorry typing gone to pot because I should be putting laundry away..

Having gone through it is not living in a sheltered world and I don't need people sending me stuff in the post or showing it on TV to make me relive it all over again thank you.

dur bugsy

we do all know about that without an ad telling us about it

I'm going off the NSPCC, we used to give them non-trivial amounts of money, but no more.
Part of this is the fact that the people in charge seem to enjoy "campaigning" more than actual work, as we saw so tragically in the Victoria Climbe case.

It's sad, because many people there do incredibly good work, and there is still much to be done.

I have no problem with the sort of shock tactics tigertum cites, if they work. It's a hard decsion to know where to draw that line.
I've done charity work both as organiser for small things, and on the sharp end , stuff like rattling tins for the bloke who did the london Marathon in a diving suit, and my experience is that most people when presented with an opportunity to give will do so.
Provided you catch them right.

Sales is now part of my job, and I will tell you that an advert that people hate so much that they don't read it is a wast of money.

I think they just want to shock. It makes the NSPCC powers that be feel good about themselves.
There is a clique in control, and they care more about being admired by their peers than the work.

Same with the demented "full stop" campaign, or the one that trivilised child abuse.

At the root of it, is my dismay that the NSPCC has real clout. It can get pretty much any celeb it wants for it's campaigns, and the media regularly give them publicity. This makes it harder for better run charities to compete.

I haven't read every single posting on this thread, but I don't get the impression that anyone is stating that they don't want to face up to the fact that these awful tragedies occur. I don't think it is a question of whether they upset "our cosy middle class life", (although I question the validity of that generalistation, but that's another thread) it is a matter that we should be allowed to decide an appropriate time to investigate what we can do to help, and when we can afford to help. Targetting new mothers with this kind of direct mailing is exploitative IMO - as is sending out mailings in the form of a party invitation (which had the negative result of upsetting the child of another poster). Exploitation is not a pleasant characteristic for any charity. As a family we give as much as we can to charity - receiving mailings like this does not enable us to afford any more donations, but why should we be made to feel guilty that we can't support everyone? I personally would rather give to charities that support children rather than animal charities, but I would never question the validity of the sensibilities of someone who does support animal charities. We have a right to choose who we support, and I think this thread has shown that some of these direct mailings put people off supporting the charity that sends them - which is a message the charities and the advertising agencies surely need to hear?

You have to ask, is this targeting mums with these 'baby names books' working anyway? Several posters have said they threw theirs straight in the bin or got very upset reading it. That doesn't sound to me like good marketing!

Seashells 'the most vulnerable group in society' is the children in the mailshot.

but do you do anything about it Enid?

I'm still not clear why it is so wrong to shock? Kathlean - I have lived through it too & I want people to know it goes on. Enid - if everyone knew what went on and wanted to stop it - there would be no abuse. They can't look through every mailshot and decide whether or not you are aware enough of abuse and likely to be upset! It obviously puts some of you off giving - but IMO that's better than no campaign at all.

NaO I quote what I actually said "most vulnerable to such a mailing"

i know. you need to reasses your values

no nothing. really I may have given a fiver now and then. but hopefully that wouldnt make anyone feel as though they are 'doing something about it'

I prefer to bring my own children up in an atmosphere of love and protection so that they themselves would never be abusers.

Strange that the ones who have experienced abuse are the ones who are not shocked by this.........

HC, there are a vast number of charities out there, hundreds of thousands that I don't support because I've never heard of them and I don't know what they do.
Our lives are so busy & we are bombarded with images constantly that unless we are reminded about things, we move on & push to the back of our minds that they exist.
The NSPCC is trying to save lives, not get us to buy face cream. If we get distressed in the process because we are made aware how these poor kids met their end - then that is a very, very small price to pay for a campaign that reminds people of the horrific lives some kids have on a daily basis.

Seashells, re your comment "they have sat down and thought about the group of people in society that would be most vulnerable to such a mailing which I think is in very ill taste". I completely agree with you. As I said in my previous post, it is exploitative, which is a dreadful tactic for a children's charity to use.

It obviously puts some of you off giving - but IMO that's better than no campaign at all.

Doesn't that depend on whether the campaign puts more people off giving than it encourages to give?

I don't really mind letters/pamphlets/etc., even if they are disturbing. What really hacks me off it this vogue for sending things out looking like an exercise book or a party invitation or a baby names book, in an "Aha! We shall trick you into looking! Aren't we clever!" kind of way. It isn't clever, and it's probably also bloody expensive -- which given the general verdict here makes me wonder if it's actually a good use of the significant cash that we as a household already donate to the NSPCC.

Kathlean was NanO

weaselmum - respect your experience here - agee info is helpful for a campaign but think the idea of a baby names book not suitable.