Oxfam's analysis of its 'inclusive language crises'

[ArthurbellaScott]

Fascinating marketing analysis of the impact of Oxfam's inclusive language guide.

https://adroitinsight.com/oxfam-inclusive-language-crises/

Really worth reading for insights as well as comedy value.

Conclusion:

'Future communications can consider issues such as family, motherhood, and fatherhood, to incorporate them into a point of view that is more appealing to more conservative sectors.
This could make it easier to connect with people who certainly do not want anyone to starve to death, but who react more easily if the problem is explained to them from a point of view that incorporates concerns, they have: the family, for example.
In other countries, such as Spain, Italy or Germany, there could be a similar reaction if Oxfam shares this guide, and it is picked up by the media or a group of influencers.
It would therefore be advisable for the organisation to prepare a communication strategy in advance to deal with the controversy and negative comments that could be generated.
In the specific case of Spain, it would be even more of a priority considering that the debate on inclusive language, transgender rights and the reality of non-binary people has already generated a major debate, with laws in favour and currents actively against that have produced a lot of polarisations in society.'

I'd imagine people identifying themselves with pronouns would be supportive of Oxfam's erasure of sexed language.

And many of those putting 'she/her' aren't.

I work in the charity sector and have heard plenty of conversations about not actually wanting 'that kind of supporters'.

Twenty years ago it was generally a way of resigning yourself to losing some people over a particular stance you feel you need to take on the core issue that you work on. Now it's about 'If people don't agree with our impassioned stance on gender/Palestine/BLM [picklist of issues totally unrelated to the charity's cause] then we don't want their money anyway'.

After a whole working life in the sector, I now don't feel able to donate to anyone much, as I just don't trust modern charities not to spend my donation on something else altogether. I was an Oxfam donor for nearly 30 years. No more.

Oxfam is now a nasty organisation. I have not given them money or goods since the revelations about their aid workers in Haiti and other places trading food aid for sex with women and children.

i am sure you all will have seen their TERF cartoon featuring a nasty characterisation of our wonderful JKR shown here months ago.

They should be investigated and closed down. Fortunately we have an Air Ambulance clothing bin near us now so we can boycott the Oxfam one

I might have missed this in the analysis - is Oxfam feeling the pinch re lower donations of cash and stuff/lower sales or footfall/fewer people prepared to volunteer? After all, that’s the way the charity is actually funded, so it might matter a bit?

When I see/read the word 'inclusive' I now assume that whatever the thing is, it's actively exclusive of me.

Thanks@CharityShopChic , that was an insightful post.

I did get my xmas cards from Oxfam last year, having swerved away from Amnesty and this year am supporting a local animal charity.
No longer needed clothes, books and bric a brac have for quite a while gone to my closest charity shop.
I really hope someone from their head office reads this thread.

This article I take as branding/marketing analysis.

They have apparently had a steep decline in income in the past couple of years. Their Trustee's Report blames Covid - I suppose shops being closed etc will have had an impact, but it'd be interesting to see more detail on whether donations etc are still down/going elsewhere.

'In 2021–22, Covid-19 continued to have an impact on
all areas of Oxfam’s work, including its finances. Oxfam
International is funded mostly by Oxfam affiliates, so any
adverse impact on their financial situation directly impacts
that of Oxfam International. During this period, we saw a
significant reduction in income from affiliates, especially
those with Oxfam shops. This resulted in reduced income
for Oxfam International, and in turn, a requirement to make
both temporary and permanent cost reductions during
the past two years. '

Trustees' Report.

I mean, they have general reserves of £9million - as the report on staff strikes said upthread, this is an organisation with plenty of cash to spare.

'THE KEY RISKS FACED BY OXFAM
DURING FY 2021–22

...

'Significant financial pressure on the confederation and
affiliates because of consistently declining income,
exacerbated both by Covid-19 and the operating model
which affects OIS finances. '

https://www.oxfam.org.uk/about-us/plans-reports-and-policies/annual-report-and-accounts/

It's such an enormous, complex organisation, now. It seems that it's changed an awful lot from its origins - moving from a charitable model into what looks to me more like a political lobbying organisation. Oxfam now identifies as 'feminist' and bangs on a lot about 'gender equity'. Which is a laugh.

The sector as a whole is not feeling the pinch. Sales are up year on year, combination of cost of living and a general inclination to be more sustainable. Quantity of donations has not slowed - quality has declined.

Oxfam also has long ties with M&S and before I left we had dozens of boxes (40-50 probably) of internet returns and slight seconds from Zara as a corporate donation which flew off the shelves for good money. Plus there's all the payroll giving, corporate bequests, Glastonbury income. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people at Head Office who would happily do away with the stores altogether in favour of pivoting into a campaigning/lobbying organisation. The HO staff are certainly in no hurry to get their hands dirty at the sharp end of sorting bags and serving customers.

I noted that their largest donors are big organisations - the UN, several governments. Could be they are trying to move away from the second hand shop model altogether.

I also think that Oxfam - and other similar organisations - need to keep significant cash reserves. They are there to respond when a disaster happens and that can't be predicted. They need cash reserves to charter planes and get the stuff where it needs to be, hire local staff. You need cash in the bank for that, you can't launch an appeal and keep desperate people waiting while you fundraise from the public.

And yes - Oxfam shops (and other charity shops) were closed in Scotland March - July 2020, then again 3 weeks November-ish, then again 24th Dec 2020 to April 2021. And even when we were open, there were ALL sorts of rules about quarantining donations for 72 hours, limits on customer numbers and many people who had volunteered pre-pandemic didn't come back. Takings for 2020 and 2021 were massively affected, 2022 was back to more normal trading. And there were no large fundraising events like Glasto, or the London Marathon.

Various third sector Scottish organisations show the danger when you start to rely on government and corporate handouts. You are no longer independent and have to start parroting your funders line, you are unable to represent your supposed beneficiaries interests. And when special interest groups get involved in the funding cycle you set up an unhealthy echo chamber between funder and charity.

Ah, but the charities produce very long and involved Reports which back up the government's position, and the government looks very generous by supporting the charity. Everyone wins! (Apart from the group that the charity is ostensibly supposed to support). It's a fantastic circle jerk.

That would be because the Scottish government has a clause in all funding contracts that says that the charity must not contradict the Scottish government on anything publicly or they have to repay all the money they received, oh and you can't even apply unless you are trans inclusive

If It is explicit then that is terrible. But it doesn’t need to be explicit. If you are relying on a regular hand out then it is pretty implicit that biting the hand that feeds you may have a negative impact on funding and ergo your job.

Only 16% of Oxfam's income comes from trading. Our finances and accountability | Oxfam International

If their income is significantly down, shops being closed is not really an adequate explanation.

Shop income is particularly important to charities though as it's unrestricted income; most grant givers aren't very keen on funding the running costs of an organisation. (To be clear I think running costs and admin are important things to fund, as long as they're actually spent on running the organisation and not pointless navel gazing, lecturing supporters for wrongthink, or campaigning for things which are unrelated to the organisation's charitable purpose)

@SaffronSpice yes its that explicit the times did an article on it a year or so ago.

If you are interested generally in this the book Dead Aid by Moyo is good about aid as an industry. She claims most African countries have gone from 10% poverty in the 70s to 70-85% now partially due to aid which isn't helping. These big executives have an interest in being needed more than actually helping. Aid as imperialism by Hayter is another. Quite different ideologies (moyo is neoliberalism, hayter more neo Marxist) coming to similar conclusions about the likes of oxfam .

From the report: “A 34-year-old may not have been born with social networks at their peak, but they have lived the Internet since childhood and …”

Maybe proofreading is also “phobic”.

How much money did this “Analysis” cost?

China is now using aid extensively to gain control in various countries, including a lot of African countries. Not the first, of course, but big just now.

It reads like a student project. I would reject it if it came for peer review and not accept the quality if I'd commissioned it from an agency.

Thanks! Interesting. This was the final straw so I cancelled my donation during this debacle. I am certainly not conservative but i am a fierce feminist and there are many other charities I can give my money to

Yes, ordinary people think that aid is basically kindness: somebody needs something that you have more than enough of, so you give them what they need, you have the satisfaction of having helped somebody in need, then everybody is happy.

Absolutely not; money 'given' in 'aid' by governments is no different from money invested anywhere else to get goods or services, or to gain advantage and control. It's ironic that most of the world now quite rightly condemns slavery, yet aid can be a much more crafty and subtle way of effectively perpetuating the same status quo - but on a national level, rather than individual.

The IMF (and their cronies) is nothing more than a loan shark: they aren't lending you money because they want to help you out and maybe earn a little extra in the long run for their effort; they're on the lookout for how they can take you down until you are utterly helpless and dependent on them, and then they can do whatever they want to you.

Personally I will never support a charity like Oxfam that uses chuggers, it preys on vulnerable people, impedes people getting about their day and ultimately just lines the pockets of private business for years before money actually goes to the charity

At the weekend I took some stuff to BHF, who said they had too many donations and take it to Oxfam (across the road). Told her I didn't donate to Oxfam on principle (in retrospect wish I'd said 'to child rapists').