MNHQ calling: Giving Week (our recent match-funding drive) - your thoughts please!

[KateHMumsnet]

Afternoon folks,

As you may remember, back in June we hosted our first ever Mumsnet Giving Week to shine a light on some brilliant causes nominated by Mumsnetters. Thanks to you, we were able to raise £11,302.43, which when we matched, rose to a whopping £22,604.86!

Woolly Hugs, Women’s Aid, Haven House, the PDA Society and Free Cakes for Kids are all overcome with warm-fuzzy feelings, as are we. This will make such a difference to all the people out there supported by these incredible charities and causes, and we hope will have a really positive impact on what they can achieve this year, so hats off to all of you!

We’ll be back with an update from the charities later in the year, so that you can hear firsthand from them about how your donations have made a difference. But in the meantime, we wanted to to ask you what you thought of our first ever Giving Week.

What do you think worked well, and what didn’t?
What compelled you to give, if you donated?
If you didn’t get involved in nominating or donating, was there anything in particular that stopped you?
What would you like to see as part of future giving weeks?

Giving back to the organisations who support Mumsnetters is important to us, and we’d like to make this a more regular feature so all feedback very welcome.

MNHQ

[Mintyy]

Yes, definitely do it instead of the awful mawkish Christmas Appeal which just seems to cause inexplicable resentment and jealousy, and must be a nightmare for HQ to negotiate adminster.

[ExitPursuedByAKoalaBear]

Completely past me by I'm afraid. Had no idea you would match any donations.

[ExitPursuedByAKoalaBear]

And yes. Ditch the Christmas appeal. May have worked well initially but last year gruesome and I say that as a receiver and donor.

[TeWiSavesTheDay]

What happened last year?

[TeWiSavesTheDay]

Sorry that seemed really nosy! I have given to SS before and thought it was fine, has something changed?

[tribpot]

There was the whole confusion over whether the charity would receive anything if it didn't make its target, I can't remember exactly what the ambiguity was but I know there was a lot of confusion over the way it was meant to work, which didn't really help build momentum.

Concern that Women's Aid England was chosen as a recipient and not the other Home Countries.

And, yes, a general lack of advertising/awareness.

[QuintessentiallyQS]

Yes, ditch the Christmas appeal.

[AnneEyhtMeyer]

I was put off the whole thing by the decision to support a cake charity to have a meeting.

It really made me feel the whole thing was ill-thought-through. I could not believe that of all the various ideas nominated one of the top five was a meeting.

Therefore I made the concious decision to not participate.

[QuintessentiallyQS]

I mean, ditch the Christmas appeal in its present form.

Do a better thought through charity appeal. Maybe in the autom, so the charities have their funds in time for Christmas so THEY can make the Christmas special for its target groups if this matters.
(Heck, they can even spend it on birthday cake for all that I care, if that is what they deem is most important. )

That would give me a much fuzzier warm feeling.

[MrsTeee]

I had an irrational (sorry!) feeling of miffedness when the chosen charities weren't ones I'd rooted for. Even though the ones chosen were clearly brilliant. I daresay other MNers may have felt similarly.

I agree with the idea of a big Christmas push. The charities can benefit massively from the publicity MN can give, regardless of the money. I'm guessing you'll need to avoid controversial causes. good luck with that

[ExitPursuedByAKoalaBear]

MN. Controversy.

[BIWI]

I'm really sad that people would say ditch the Christmas Appeal I think this is one of the things that sums up Mumsnet for me - that we would all nominate people who are strangers to us, simply because we think they deserve a gift at Christmas.

And I hate the parsimonious, sanctimonious bollocks that people speak here about why they don't want to give to a charity. The minimum donation was, I think £2? Yet suddenly this was too much.

I do think, though, that it wasn't sufficiently well communicated as a campaign. It was clear that very few people had any idea that the charities had been nominated by Mumsnetters in the first place, and that there was only a week for giving was evidently not well understood.

I think it's a brilliant idea, and hopefully we can build on this for future years to come.

[Boomerwang]

I didn't donate. I don't have a lot of money, but I do have a lot of time. Unfortunately, I live in another country. I wish I could help some other way.

I thought the causes were a good mix, I'm sure there was something for almost everybody to get behind. I actually liked the cake idea. I understand people want to address harder hitting issues like fatal diseases, but that's no reason to ignore those who will live.

If I were to donate, personally I would donate to a charity which supports animals or young children. The former because I want shelters and organisations to keep spreading the message about the responsibility owners should take for their animals, closing down the puppy farms, campaigning for tougher sentences and putting pressure on the government to ban pet stores or make them accountable for mistreated animals coming from their stores.

The latter, simply because kids always need support until they are of an age in which they can make their own way in life and I want them to be given every opportunity to make the most of it.

I think what MN is doing is wonderful, and I rather applaud the lesser known causes/charities being highlighted here.

I do have one suggestion - a lot of people feel strongly about their own neighbourhood but don't necessarily know about their neighbours. Local charities could be voted for within each county and then a shortlist drawn up for the quarter regions of the UK and NI. I think the international causes get enough of a profile without MN's help.

[Floralnomad]

I don't think it was publicised well enough but I agree with other posters - ditch the terrible secret Santa and have a charity appeal at Christmas .

[MollyHooper]

I think this is a case of simply don't participate if you don't want too. There are clearly many people who enjoy the Christmas Appeal and have been happy to support Giving Week.

£11,302.43 is a fantastic amount for an online community to raise in one week and the appeal really makes Christmas special for a lot of the members here.

There is absolutely no real reason for the people who don't want to/cannot donate to feel guilty and I find it pretty selfish for anyone to want it scrapped because of that. Just hide the threads.

I think the only thing that needs to change is more advertising next time. Lots of people hadn't even heard about it until the AIBU (light hearted) thread.

[BIWI]

I find it really distressing that people would use words like 'terrible' to describe the Mumsnet Christmas Appeal. Why on earth would you think it terrible that we would nominate people that we think deserve a gift at Christmas? I really, really don't understand that.

[QuintessentiallyQS]

Biwi - I think people feel bad about the threads started by people upset they have not been nominated. I know in the past some people have been upset at not having been thanked, or their donation not mentioned or appreciated in the "thank you threads". etc. I think it has caused a lot of ill feeling.

[Floralnomad]

Last year it appeared to cause a lot of ill will ,and the gist was that it had lost its original meaning ,which I'm sure was very worthy .

[NerfHerder]

I think there has at times been a lot of bad feeling about the christmas giving. Of course, there has been a lot of genuine altruism in it too, which is invaluable, and some people have been made very, very happy at a time of year that can be difficult for many of us (and not always because of financial reasons).

I think a charity (or charities) of the year would be a good idea, and then people would have time to sort out their contribution(s), which may not necessarily be financial if there was more time to arrange events/auctions of goods etc, thus more MNers would be able to contribute.

[Mintyy]

Biwi, I expect you missed them, but there were some truly dreadful threads as a result of the Christmas appeal, not just last year, but in the year before that too.

[Nerf]

I'm not sure what would make me give to a charity/ cause I don't support/believe in, which I guess is the issue. Congratulations on the amount raised, and no need to feel bad about it.
There isn't really an incentive is there, online via mumsnet, if you don't feel the need. For example, I don't support children in need but I donate because there is a penalty - the dcs have to in order to participate on dress up days. I have a standing order to Macmillan because I support the cause. Going back to my earlier post, I might donate for the novelty of something silly and cheap like a mumsnet badge or pen but I'm not sure that would be cost effective at all.

[JulesJules]

I think £22K is amazing, although I was also surprised that there were not more donations.

I think the Giving Week was too short a time frame - I didn't get round to doing anything until the last day, and then had problems accessing some of the giving pages.

The Giving Week was not well enough publicised during the actual week - the sticky (with the links) seemed to come and go - perhaps it could have been Super Stickied at the top of Active Convos?

Also, perhaps not enough clarity around how the charities were chosen and what would happen if they did not make the minimum donation.

[BettyBolognese]

I'm really sad that people would say ditch the Christmas Appeal I think this is one of the things that sums up Mumsnet for me - that we would all nominate people who are strangers to us, simply because we think they deserve a gift at Christmas.

It always (been here 5 years almost) descends into a 'I didn't get nominated' 'I'm embarrassed I did get nominated' 'I don't want to be nominated' 'I never got a thank you' 'you have to be an oldie to get nominated' argument.

And I hate the parsimonious, sanctimonious bollocks that people speak here about why they don't want to give to a charity. The minimum donation was, I think £2? Yet suddenly this was too much.

Charity is personal £2 in a bucket at a supermarket for a charity is fine if I 'like' the charity and chose to support it. More for charities I'm passionate about. Take an example. Last year I put £50 in the Royal British Legion poppy collection.... Remember how threads go about poppies? Some MNers despise them and think they stand for something sinister. I don't, therefore I donate. I wouldn't whines at a MN who didn't feel the same way and didn't want to.

[BettyBolognese]

What I'm trying to say is make it personal... MN coming up with 5 charities, and saying go online and shove in your bank details is not personal.

[EATmum]

I work for a charity and fundraise, and do give to many charities regularly - but admit I didn't donate here. I think it passed me by (I certainly wasn't opposed to it) and I don't get as much time on Mumsnet some weeks as others. So I would definitely advocate more publicity/reminders, and a longer giving period. I was wondering also whether it could link with another matched giving campaign like the Big Give? Then potentially a donation could be quadrupled?