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?

agree totally lemonaid

NotAnOtter, that's an interesting assumption. And unsurprisingly false - although my parents were fine, I have nieces who were thoroughly mistreated and eventually taken into care.

I live close to one of the "churches" where Victoria Climbie was taken to in the days before her death. I was pregnant at the time and I cannot help but think I may have passed her in the street, when she was covered in bruises and burns and smelling of urine. Distressing as it may be, I don't want to be "sheltered" from the reality of the child abuse that happens around us all.

What would constitute a less "crap" campaign enid? I'm genuinely interested in what you think would be a good, effective campaign.

Bugsy2 - the point is that I do already know about the NSPCC - the majority of the country does as they are one of the largest charities we have. It therefore seems misguided (and, A WASTE OF MONEY RAISED BY OTHER SUPPORTERS!!) for a charity with such a long history to send out mailings that are clearly turning people off to their message because they don't agree with their advertising tactics.

yes the nspcc ads and mailshots upset me. yes i throw them in the bin, no i dont give to the nspcc. so shoot me.

lol at the idea of advertising, any advertising, teaching us to be less 'sheltered'

most of us are aware of child cruelty through real life, books, magazines and tv

magazines? are you serious?

Less crap campaign: send out something that looks like an information leaflet.

Also if they are going to list a whole bunch of cases that they didn't manage to prevent then an indication of what the factors were that stopped them having any positive impact, and how giving them extra money is going to improve those factors in the future, would make me more likely to respond with cash rather than sympathy.

Or, still more contructive, descriptions of nasty and shocking cases where the NSPCC has intervened and made a difference, what they did, and how much it costs to fund those activities. That would make me feel that giving them money was doing something properly targeted at improving things and TBH is probably the option that would get most cash out of me.

The NSPCC are campaigning & raising money to try and protect children. They are not advertising or marketing!!!!!!
I would also be interested to hear what the NSPCC should do to highlight the plight of the children they are seeking to help & protect.

Lemonaid - exactly - the NSPCC need to tell us exactly what they are going to do about child cruelty other than 'raise awareness'.

I remember seeing an RSPCA ad back-to-back with an NSPCC one on tv. Children are obviously FAR more important than fluffy kittens, big-eyed puppy dogs etc, but because the RSPCA one actually explained how your money would make a difference it ended up being a much more persuasive advert.

Totally agree with lemonaid.

I'd like to hear about the work the NSPCC actually do, not a list of child abuse cases.

An info leaflet on how a child was helped presented in a non shocking manner.

I think it is advertising, Bugsy2. Charity is big business - that's not a bad thing, as most do a fantastic job, but it is advertising. This latest mailshot is also marketing - they have deliberately marketed it at new mothers.

An example:

I made a (theoretically one-off) donation to Kids Co. last Christmas.

In the post a few weeks later I received a hand-made Christmas card and a letter telling me about two specific children that the charity had been able to help over the Christmas period, what they had done for them and what had now happened to those children.

I now make a regular donation to Kids Co, which I set up within a week of receiving their letter -- without their ever having asked me to do so (the letter was just a thank you, not a request for more money). They achieved this with no hard sell, no "shocking" mailings and no clever-clever advertising techniques, through the simple act of making it clear to me exactly how whatever money I gave them would make a real and immediate difference.

All those interested in what the NSPCC actually do, you could take a few seconds to look at their website. But just in case you haven't got time, here are a few things:

Since the launch of the FULL STOP Campaign more than 140,000 individuals have signed up to help us lobby local and national media and government. Some have also helped us make representation to the UK Government, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and to MPs and local councillors.

The NSPCC has helped to secure a Children?s Commissioner for Wales, and one for Northern Ireland is likely to follow soon

We?ve persuaded 300 Members of Parliament to sign the NSPCC pledge to end cruelty to children

Through our ?Tighten the Net? campaign, we?ve influenced the Home Office to spend £1.5 million on educating young people about the dangers of the Internet

Research among Members of Parliament in 2001 showed that they considered the NSPCC to be the UK's most effective charity campaigner.

After the initial phase of our End Child Deaths campaign in early 2002, 361 MPs in the House of Commons signed MP Debra Shipley's Early Day Motion calling for support for the campaign. This was the largest number signing on a domestic issue in the 2001/02 Parliamentary session.

Those are just some of the major campaigning issues, but there is so, so, so much more on their website.

I give to Oxfam as I feel my money really does make a difference, the adverts show how life was and how it can be with my help, I'm told that X amount of money can change X,Y and Z for the people concerned.
I'd like to see the NSPCC adopt this type of apeals in the future. They've told us about the abuse, now tell us how you are going to change that, and I will help!

yes, magazines

why is an article about child abuse less 'worthy' than an ad campaign? [genuinely mystified emoticon]

THE NSPCC have recently been a great help to me personally and i am 38

Thing is that the NSPCC is about raising awareness. As well as the practical stuff, they are trying to change attitudes towards children in Britain & get people to wake up to the fact that child abuse is still here & going strong.
I must be reading the wrong papers & magazines but I hardly ever see articles about the ongoing abuse & deaths of children or the tens of thousands of children who live their lives in "care".

Yes, I know what they do. As I said before, as a household we do contribute regularly and I think we're fairly well informed. And yes, the information is on their website. But is anyone going to know what they do by reading a cunningly-disguised list of dead children? Or think "You know what, I shall drop what I'm doing right away and do some research on the NSPCC's website to see if I can identify their various inititives and how they might help with each of these cases of dead children."? Perhaps, but I have my doubts.

The discussion isn't "does the NSPCC do any good?" but "was this an effective mailing?" and, more broadly "what would constitute an effective mailing anyway?". Most charities have websites explaining what they do, but unless their mailings also illustrate it or at least make people look at the website that's as much use as a chocolate teapot.

it's not less worthy (in a magazine) but

a)you have to buy the magazine
b)it's next to an article is grey the next black? or has Posh gone too far this time?
c)just focusing on how a child has been helped is a bit like airbrushing imo

I got one of these booklets a while ago, I found it distasteful and upsetting and I did complain to the nspcc, It certainly didn't make me want to give them money, quite the opposite in fact.

And Bugsy, as a result of all of the fine sounding measures, how many children is the NSPCC helping at the moment.

Not being snide - but really, that's what it's all about.