perhaps it's just me but i really dont like being called a 'Parky' .....i'm Matt...it just so happens i've had PD for 33 years
sorry about that ...it's been bugging me for ages!
What im trying to say is that i feel labelling like that is very negative . It gives people the impression almost that you ARE the disease...and i ,for one, feel ive got SO much more to offer than that...as im sure we all have!
In the Daily Mail on Saturday there was a whole page with an elderly gentleman's face on it with the message saying he had Altzeimers but you couldn't guess just by looking at him. I found it drew your attention to it and made you think about the illness. I'd love to see something similar about PD especially a young face as it would have a great impact and maybe get people interested.
There's a really good Dementia TV ad campaign going on at the moment: sympathetic, educational, effective.
I have read a number of items you have submitted over the last week or so, particularly your points regarding
Charity advertising re-branding and the Parkinson’s uk management team .
First advertising below is a selection of charities with their income and their spend on Marketing Income£mil Marketing exp £ mil
Pdsa 83.66 11.7
Oxfam 307.3 19.78
Nspcc 157.51 35
Alzheimers 51.7 6.2
Cancer research 498.2 84
Gt Ormond 60.32 15.7
Parkinson’s 18.18 2.91
For our charity Parkinson’s uk the costs of advertising on television, full pages in the Sunday papers, would be at present out of our reach. Look at the income of the charities you have already mentioned in your post, surely you can see that we can not compete. You would be better spending time asking for information about the running of the marketing effort when you consider the following
In industry companies budget on average 10% of their turnover on marketing and have a pretty good idea what it is spent on through their management accounting.
Charities however are not as efficient at understanding their marketing costs, the following from surveys.
Marketing most charities are unable to specify where 81% spend is applied
Direct sales Public relations 1% promotion 3% People cost 14% Other 81%
General advertising (media) 1% 76% of charities admit they fail to monitor results of their marketing spend This inability to relate costs to benefits is a serious issue
With the reduction of the public’s free money the givers are demanding close accountability of the funds they donate
58% of charities do not set any performance indicators such as Reach and Impact for Marketing activities before they undertake them .
For our charity Parkinson’s uk the costs of advertising on television, full pages in the Sunday papers, would be at present out of our reach. Look at the income of the charities you have already mentioned in your post .surely you can see that we can not compete . This is the reason that our charity management, Board, and trustees have embarked on the re-branding of the Parkinson’s image.
As to the decision to re-brand, from the undertones of your post you are unhappy at this decision
31% of charities Re Brand in the last 2 years
Branding can be the most important t intangible asset that a charity or business can have In 2006 best global brand was Coca- Cola worth 66% of the market capitalisation of the company think that the charity manager’s, the board and the trustees are well aware of the importance of their decision and what it will mean to the charity.
Charity advertising re-branding and the Parkinson’s uk management team .
First advertising below is a selection of charities with their income and their spend on Marketing Income£mil Marketing exp £ mil
Pdsa 83.66 11.7
Oxfam 307.3 19.78
Nspcc 157.51 35
Alzheimers 51.7 6.2
Cancer research 498.2 84
Gt Ormond 60.32 15.7
Parkinson’s 18.18 2.91
For our charity Parkinson’s uk the costs of advertising on television, full pages in the Sunday papers, would be at present out of our reach. Look at the income of the charities you have already mentioned in your post, surely you can see that we can not compete. You would be better spending time asking for information about the running of the marketing effort when you consider the following
In industry companies budget on average 10% of their turnover on marketing and have a pretty good idea what it is spent on through their management accounting.
Charities however are not as efficient at understanding their marketing costs, the following from surveys.
Marketing most charities are unable to specify where 81% spend is applied
Direct sales Public relations 1% promotion 3% People cost 14% Other 81%
General advertising (media) 1% 76% of charities admit they fail to monitor results of their marketing spend This inability to relate costs to benefits is a serious issue
With the reduction of the public’s free money the givers are demanding close accountability of the funds they donate
58% of charities do not set any performance indicators such as Reach and Impact for Marketing activities before they undertake them .
For our charity Parkinson’s uk the costs of advertising on television, full pages in the Sunday papers, would be at present out of our reach. Look at the income of the charities you have already mentioned in your post .surely you can see that we can not compete . This is the reason that our charity management, Board, and trustees have embarked on the re-branding of the Parkinson’s image.
As to the decision to re-brand, from the undertones of your post you are unhappy at this decision
31% of charities Re Brand in the last 2 years
Branding can be the most important t intangible asset that a charity or business can have In 2006 best global brand was Coca- Cola worth 66% of the market capitalisation of the company think that the charity manager’s, the board and the trustees are well aware of the importance of their decision and what it will mean to the charity.
To Merve re 19/03 posting
The last para
Just noticed this paragraph, again sweeping statements about advertising. .
We are not a big charity we are ranked 379 for income 318 for expenditure and 564 for funds, based on published figures
Big charities
at 1 is the British Council £644 mil of income
at 4 Cancer Research £498 mil of income
at 15 Barnardo’s £214 mil income
If it was as easy as you suggest £10 mil invested would net £20 mil All the charities would be borrowing from the bank and doubling their investment .
You can not guarantee cost effectiveness it takes considerable effort and cost to establish was it better to advertise
Or was it better to keep your money
I think the Parkinson’s uk staff and advisers would be looking at this question very closely in the coming months.
The last para
Just noticed this paragraph, again sweeping statements about advertising. .
We are not a big charity we are ranked 379 for income 318 for expenditure and 564 for funds, based on published figures
Big charities
at 1 is the British Council £644 mil of income
at 4 Cancer Research £498 mil of income
at 15 Barnardo’s £214 mil income
If it was as easy as you suggest £10 mil invested would net £20 mil All the charities would be borrowing from the bank and doubling their investment .
You can not guarantee cost effectiveness it takes considerable effort and cost to establish was it better to advertise
Or was it better to keep your money
I think the Parkinson’s uk staff and advisers would be looking at this question very closely in the coming months.