prince William - earthshot prize

[Samcro]

could not believe it when I saw the advert for it last night. so PW is presenting this thing. the same Prince who flies all over the world.
obviously won't be watching as him and DA lecturing people about climate change is so hypocritical.
(rant over)

You are the one to talk @smiley, seeing as you slag off Harry and Meghan at every chance and you have done your share of derailment.
.

My post was to posters who specifically asked about the use H&M tour as well as the talk about William's lack of hard work.

I suggest you go and re-read the thread and see how it came to this conversation, instead of singling posters out - which is not your job.

Wow, that is a lot of thank you's from KM. Quite a way to big up a portfolio. I'll be sure to put any thank yous I did on my CV next time

Sounds like you’ve never been in a position of influence or authority, rubiscubicle, if you are so dismissive of the importance of publicly thanking people and acknowledging their efforts. There are plenty of studies, books and TED talks about it out there if you’d care to learn about it though.

I know what it means and have done it myself, but it's not something a lot of people put down on their profiles if you ask what they do.

Seen lots of profiles of people who probably do it even more frequently than KM, and I have never seen them or anyone mention it on their profiles or achievements.

Look, Rubicscubicle, I don’t want to get into further personal accusations. I have said on here that I admire Harry for Invictus and I have not “slagged off” H&M. I admit to derailing and I have. I have no problem with this happening in itself. I was just wanting to know if you had actually watched Earthshot as that is what we are taking about here, and why you feel the need to be constantly so negative about William, even when he has had a good idea?

@rubicscubicle

I know what it means and have done it myself, but it's not something a lot of people put down on their profiles if you ask what they do.

Seen lots of profiles of people who probably do it even more frequently than KM, and I have never seen them or anyone mention it on their profiles or achievements.

Why on earth do you think Kate mentions it on her list of achievements though? I’m very sure she does not.

I listed it when Roussette specifically queried what value her role added to the various organisations she meets. Publicly thanking them, bringing press exposure to their efforts, and increasing the morale of those who are involved in them are all very valuable benefits to them. It’s something any competent CEO thinks a lot about and finds time for too. No-one would put that on their profile though, as it just goes with the territory of the role.

This is why the royal family is so pointless now. Everything they do is divisive. Their actions to raise awareness - whatever the topic just highlights their unearned privilege and how unfair our society is.

Whilst I am no Bill Gates fan, at least he ‘earned’ his wealth.

And I will link again to this.

giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/royal-patronage-is-no-mark-of-a-charitys-quality-72b67xxtd

I think we over estimate the worth of a royal connection, and that massive study proved it

Maybe it's different for a Royal visiting a private business

strange how people have to bring in H&M to try and defend how little PW does.

I didn't watch the programme. as I have said all along the idea of PW presenting it put me off.

And as I said Roussette, you are focussing on the monetary value of the Royal connection to the charity alone, which as the study itself acknowledges was the only outcome they could analyse. They had quantitative data available to them, but seemingly no qualitative data. Both matter when assessing value in a figurehead role.

So of course bottom line cash is not the only benefit that the charities obtain. If the charity did not find value in the connection, obviously they would be perfectly free to ditch it and find a celebrity patron. Do you have any information about charities “voting with their feet” to find new patrons?

As an aside, the Hold Still project will split the net proceeds raised from the sale of the book between the mental health charity Mind and the National Portrait Gallery. I’m sure they will appreciate that greatly.

@Samcro that’s a shame. Most of the programme was presented by David Attenborough as the theme this week was “restoring nature”. William only did a small piece at the beginning, and then introduced the prize finalists at the end. It was really very factual, discussing problems and showing how some possible solutions have been found. I’m sure some will think I am only saying this to “defend” William, but I really am not. I found that this was a change in that it was positive and offering solutions instead of constantly saying that we need to do something but not specifying what exactly. It mad the whole thing seem more achievable somehow and gave some hope, which is certainly welcome at the moment.

Oops, meant to add, if you watch it on iplayer you could ff through the William bits 🤣

Unfortunately, charities do need the bottom line that is cash, they end up closing otherwise. I believe another one of W&K charities closed just this summer.

I didn't watch the programme. as I have said all along the idea of PW presenting it put me off.

So you won’t watch it because PW is presenting it. That’s a bit shortsighted isn’t it?

It’s about the bigger picture, the dangers to the planet we all inhabit. I don’t decide on whether to watch something important and news worthy based on the person presenting it.

I would happily watch anything to do with Invictus as it’s a very worthy cause.

For me it’s about the subject matter not the individual.

Bottom line Serenster, charities need cash to survive

@Roussette

Bottom line Serenster, charities need cash to survive

Yes, that’s why they pretty much all have professional fundraising teams in place. That not the job of the patrons.,

Never said it was.

It was a huge study talking about whether royal patronages bring in more donations.
Bottom line, no it doesn't.
It's not an opinion piece, it's a study with data gleaned from thousands of charities.

You can dispute it all you like, the facts stand

twitter.com/carolinefiennes/status/1283664444502007808?t=SMA0oN9v-zbQFOxvz7rcVA&s=19

This Twitter thread summarising the results is easy reading

@rubicscubicle

Unfortunately, charities do need the bottom line that is cash, they end up closing otherwise. I believe another one of W&K charities closed just this summer.

Is that a charity they are patron of or one they actual have set up and run? There is a difference.

You can dispute it all you like, the facts stand

Yes, and as last time you cited this I pointed out that as one the facts contained in the very first page is a flat-out error I reserved my rights to approach it with scepticism, and that point still stands…

So a report with a database with over 3million entries, and contact with thousands of charities should be discounted because you found one single error.
Got it!

Thanks @Roussette

It looks like they are lacking even in the public engagement part too. It also says there is no evidence of royals having 'macro' effect on generosity. More deprived regions seem under represented. They found the data published by the rf to have many errors, duplications and omissions.

I wonder who is the 'Companion Rat" .

On a side note : right under those tweets, I see one where they are showing the queen was booed in front of the Scottish parliament opening this weekend. I did not see that in the news.

As I was saying, from that twitter thread:

Not sure if I want to get my news from social media such as Twitter. Isn’t it just folk having their opinion, well informed or not as the case may be.

A good thing to look at SM if the press, is not reporting on everything. That video was from SKY news, but I never saw it on the BBC, ITV etc. Would not have know about it otherwise.

As for the patronage analysis, that is Caroline Fiennes who is the Director at Giving Evidence.

The other point to note, as discussed in the thread is that charities are unevenly distributed with the Queen having the lions’ share, while the younger Royals (William, Kate and Harry) having less than 20 each, is that this reflects statements made by Prince William’s office they they want to change the operating model they’ve inherited to enable them to take a more active role in smaller number of charities.

That change in approach isn’t reflected in the data as used by the study - it’s all just lumped in together when then conclusions are drawn. So you see that the data about how seldom charities are visited by their Royal patrons (largely driven by the senior Royals who have literally hundreds each, and so logistically cannot visit each one each year, for example). That’s then compared with the facts that charities founded by the Royals get more visits - of which it is clear that the younger Royals, who already work on this model, will make up a large proportion of this data set.

Analytical output is only ever as good as the data input. If I had been looking at conducting this analysis I would have identified the different data sets relating to the different approaches (figurehead of literally hundreds of charities vs. Close relationship with a much much reduced numbers), analysed both approaches, and then looked to see if there were any differences between the two models. Partly because that would have been really useful to see if you could point to benefits of one approach over the other.

Not sure if I want to get my news from social media such as Twitter

@SallyLockheart

It isn't 'news from a twitter thread'

It's a well resourced researched report and here is what you should read.

giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/

Ignore the twitter thread, I only linked it because one of those involved summarised it on twitter. For those that don't or haven't read the full report. It's not 'news' on Twitter.

I've got it Serenster you'd have done it different