The issue as stands is that I think it would be fair to describe attitudes to H&M as polarising.
Whilst they appear to have a rather enthusiastic (put nicely) fan base this is substantially outweighed (if you look at their public polling) by people who have negative perceptions of them (both as a couple and as individuals) or people who are utterly disinterested in them entirely.
When the Boards or corporations look to make big donations they aren’t acting out the goodness of their hearts. Like any other, it’s a business decision which is calculated as delivering increased reputational benefit that translates to the bottom line (albeit in a non- transparent fashion).
There are thousands of charities lobbying for these big sponsorship deals.
Having a famous patron can certainly be very beneficial in getting the attention of those corporations, especially when there is a positive synergy between their patronage and the aims of the charity where the former elevates and gives focus to the latter.
The problem for Invictus is that H’s patronage is now eclipsing the purpose, messaging and goals of charity because there is increasing evidence to suggest a narrative that rather than the charity and those it purports to serve being supported and benefiting from the patron, it’s the patron that’s benefiting from the charity, possibly to the detriment of the charity’s aims.
H’s attitude to Invictus is summed by him wanting to pass it to Archie. He sees it as a personal “asset”, much like you might give your child a much loved toy from your childhood to play with. There is no thought here about the best interests of the charity nor those it functions to support. Just huge sense of self entitlement and ownership - that’s not patronage, it’s unsolicited acquisition (something also well demonstrated by putting a flip flopped M at the head of the veterans parade).
Corporates (with the budgets that Invictus needs) don’t need to make potentially controversial charitable donations, when so many other rock solid opportunities are presented to them daily.
Whilst some companies do seek out “controversial”
opportunities that is usually because it aligns with their brand values as a market disruptor/agitator.
Invictus however (conceptually at least) is not controversial or “edgy” - arguably it is actually very conservative. So that won’t pull those type of disruptor companies - but H’s (and M’s) polarity and repeated attacks on his family and the UK are deeply unattractive to brands who value those conservative associations.
I can’t see how presently Invictus gets any net benefit from association with H and suspect that increasingly his patronage is becoming an increasing barrier to the charity’s ability to find funding.