Impact Days - New Cambridge way of doing things

[antelopevalley]

What do we all think of this new proposal?

"Instead of visiting deprived communities, giving them a day in the sun and then hoping money will be raised as a result, the Prince and Princess of Wales want to reverse the process by using the build-up to a visit to generate money, which they can then announce and disburse when they get there. It is something of a gamble because it will, in effect, put a cash sum on the value of royal visits. It is a gamble he is more than happy to take.
Royal aides say the two words the Prince has kept repeating as he has formulated his new idea are “impact” and “legacy”, reflecting the undeniable fact that he felt the traditional way of doing things was generating neither.
The pilot of the scheme in Scarborough on Thursday had been in the pipeline before Queen Elizabeth died, but the Prince’s elevation to heir to the throne has markedly increased his ability to put his own stamp on the royal way of doing things. He has the blessing of the King, who shares his son’s desire to modernise. Both men know that they must pull off a delicate balancing act between maintaining traditions and moving with the times – something successive generations of the Royal family have agonised about since the end of the age of deference.
If the pilot is a success, we can expect impact days to become a regular fixture in the Prince and Princess’s diary. Royal aides have spoken in the past of the Prince’s desire to focus on “big bets”, rather than endless charity visits. But the Prince has had to readjust his sights in the aftermath of Megxit, which ruined his plans to use the Wales-Sussex “fab four” to tackle the world’s ills."

www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/11/03/prince-william-breaks-monotony-royal-visits-wont-wave-away/

That article appears to be completely unsourced (the quotes from 'Royal aides' are more general about increasing impact, not about specific fundraising)

Today's visit to Scarborough - which coincides with the announcement of a Royal Foundation grant - appears to be what lies behind the article.

But surely the Royal Foundation has always existed to give grants? And they normally visit the projects they have chosen to support.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see how it goes, but I don't see anything particularly new or newsworthy in what they're doing, or in the bits of the article that are sourced

Eagerly awaiting the Sussex Squad to pile in with a bashing.....

This is not about giving grants. This is about encouraging others to give money. I was trying to find the article that came after this visit, but I am sure it said £345,000 was given by the public to the charity.

It is different. They are saying they will use their visits to get people to donate money to the charity they are visiting.

Maybe because the OP is in green your explanation of this @antelopevalley had me visualizing Robin Hood.
i like the concept. After all, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
look at how much people are willing to pay at foundation dinners to hear guest speakers? I can see this concept being healthier for all involved. Because currently their “role” is not.

The £345,000 was from the Royal Foundation and another grant giving body, the Two Ridings Community Fund

www.royal.uk/prince-and-princess-wales-visit-scarborough

They don't appear to be saying they will use their visits to get people to donate money - and The Telegraph article is entirely unsourced in the sections that suggest that. The only parts which are sourced to 'Royal aides' are talking about impact, not fundraising.

It's not news that The Royal Foundation is a grant giving body. Nor that charities find that royal connections boost their fundraising.

It's all well and good that they want to have maximum impact, but that's pretty much their status quo. Though now they've moved up the Royal hierarchy, they might be using that as a spur to look at how best to spend their time now tey are in more senior roles

Thanks. Then I agree this is status quo, nothing different at all.

@EdithWeston
Actually it's not true that royals help boost charities coffers
The royals would like you to believe that they do . Along with the line that they boost tourism - not true

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

Charity is PR for the royals . Makes them look them
That they are doing something.
The royals benefit more than the charity

Well if they don't, why do charities have them?

Your link doesn't say they have no impact on fundraising, it says they don't visit in person some of their charities very often. It does not explore the full impact of royal patrons (or any other sort of patron) in the wider sense of the value of the association or activities other than actual visits.

The graphs are detailed, but what is inescapable is that they are not comparing like-for-like, because their assertions do not look consider the obvious confounders, and they also explicitly exclude soft benefits

The Royals do not impose themselves on charities - they have the roles because the charities invite them.

@EdithWeston

I don't know if you remember the thread but this was all gone over a while ago .

Here is another link - I haven't read it all , so don't @me if doesn't give figures but if you go through the original 'giving evidence 'link , I think it does

www.thirdsector.co.uk/royal-patronages-provide-no-discernible-benefits-charities-research-concludes/communications/article/1689654

As for why charities might seek royal patronage ( and many have no interest in such a link) - because they assume it will help ?? Lemming like behaviour is my own opinion but you probably know that .
Charity = PR for royals esp in an increasing poor UK . But people do learn eventually . That Earthshot 'charity' is more about a splashy PR evening to big up the royals green washing .
Anyway here is the director of giving evidence explaining the issue :

Caroline Fiennes, director of Giving Evidence, said: “The message for charities is pretty clear: they shouldn't seek or retain these things thinking it will help them with their fundraising and they are not likely to get many engagements with their royal patron.
“I have certainly heard of charities trying to get royal patrons in the hope of both of those things

Those two links are to the same report, and there are clear weaknesses in the methodology (and also important elements are simply not described)

The person you quote represents the authors of the report, so of course they's say that. But it does not mitigate the weaknesses in the report itself.

Clear weaknesses? Really?
I'm sorry Caroline Fiennes' work is not up to your standards .
Her work has been featured in Nature - but ok...

carolinefiennes.com/about/