'Threatening' Cancer Research direct mail campaign banned

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraisi ... ail_banned" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld complaints regarding a recent direct mail advert by Cancer Research UK, finding it to be "threatening" to cancer sufferers, their families, and other vulnerable people.

The mass mailout arrived on people's doorsteps in a plain envelope with only the words "It Doesn't Matter To Me Who YOU ARE" in an old-fashioned typewriter-style font on the front. Inside, a letter, written as if from 'Cancer', started: "EVERYONE KNOWS ME. And they know the devastation I cause. I didn't think it could happen to me. That's what a lot of people say. The truth is it happens to more than one in three. For those people, their friends and families, things won't ever be the same again. And it's all down to me. I AM CANCER...I don't care who I hurt..." (full text below)

Four complaints were received by the ASA about the advertisement, which included a donations leaflet and a business reply envelope. One was in regard to the envelope not being clearly identified as marketing material, while three complaints were received about the "threatening" nature of the communication, stating it was "likely to cause serious distress to past or current sufferers of cancer, or other vulnerable members of the public".


When submitting a response to the ASA, CRUK said it was "irrational, illogical and not in accordance with the Code" to consider the envelope in isolation from its contents and that it was intended as a "teaser" to what was inside. The charity also argued that the content set out facts that were widely known and commonly repeated, and that it was "clearly a piece of fiction".

Future ads must not cause serious distress

However the ASA upheld all complaints demanding that the advertisement not be used again in its current form and advising CRUK "to ensure future ads did not cause serious distress and were clearly identifiable as marketing material".

While the regulator recognised a need for balance between distress inherent to a subject such as cancer with the need to raise funds, the circular was found to be unbalanced on this front. ASA's assessors found the advert to be presented in an "aggressive and threatening manner".

The typeface used, that of an old-fashioned typewritten text, was found to be "likely to be received as a threatening message", particularly when delivered directly to people's homes.

The inclusion of a donation leaflet and business reply envelope were not considered to take away from the distress likely to be caused by the mailing.
Nick Georgiadis, head of direct giving at CRUK, said: “We’d like to take this opportunity to apologise to anyone who was upset by this mailing and reiterate that it was never our intention to cause distress.

"The aim of the appeal was to inspire people to fund our research by representing the anger some people feel towards this terrible disease. When the original mailing was sent out we listened carefully to what our supporters said about it – both positive and negative – and in November we decided not to use this appeal again in its current format.”

CRUK worked with advertising agency Rapp on the mailout but a spokesperson for the charity advised that "creative sign-off is our responsibility".


Full text of the letter:

EVERYONE KNOWS ME.
And they know the devastation I cause. I didn't think it could happen to me. That's what a lot of people say. The truth is it happens to most of more than one in three. For those people, their friends and families, things won't ever be the same again. And it's all down to me.

I AM CANCER
... I don't care who I hurt...

WHY AM I WRITING TO YOU?
I used to have everything my own way. When someone tried to fight me, I always won. But now it's getting harder. More and more of you are ganging up on me. People are giving money and funding research. Scientists are outsmarting me. And there's one group threatening me the most.

CANCER RESEARCH UK ARE FIGHTING BACK.
They've been coming after me for a long time. Now they're saying that someday soon, I won't be a death threat anymore ...

I'M STILL HERE.
But before you think the fight is over, you're forgetting one thing. The people at Cancer Research UK need more funding to carry on their research ... But times are tough. Any money isn't easy to come by. Sure, twice as many people might survive compared to 40 years ago. But I'm still tearing lives apart. Every two minutes I take hold of another person ...

DON'T GIVE MONEY.
So let me give you some advice. Don't donate to Cancer Research UK. I'm sure you have better things to spend your money on than trying to beat me. Don't you?

[TeeferTiger]

Who on earth thought that would be an acceptable marketing campaign for a major charity?!

[chooch]

Who on earth thought that would be an acceptable marketing campaign for a major charity?!

presumably the Ad Agency who managed to sell this to CRUK.. ?

[fishtank]

Who on earth thought that would be an acceptable marketing campaign for a major charity?!

That's what happens when you try to turn charities and voluntary organisations into businesses and employ "business men" to run them.
No one who has worked with people with cancer would have found this advertising campaign acceptable,they would have told Crap and Talentless or whatever oily haired throwback to the nineties it was who pitched this "edgy" campaign to sling their hook.
Unfortunately charity is now just another business sector,charities are mainly staffed by people who bizarrely see it as a career path and people who do it purely because they care have been sidelined.

Should people be paid for charity work?
Not in my opinion.
Not because those that do it out of a willingness to help others don't deserve some kind of reward for the many selfless hours they put in but because money attracts the wrong kind of people it always does,people who would think this advertisement campaign was acceptable and who would think that It Doesn't Matter To Me Who YOU ARE was a "teaser".

Apologies for the rant TT.

[TeeferTiger]

Well I volunteer with a few charities and whilst I don't agree that there are bigwigs on a lot of money when I'm giving up (a lot of) time to raise funds for the services required, I can also appreciate that they wouldn't be able to get anyone to volunteer to do it! We're struggling as a committee with our local fundraising group. I'm currently doing 5 roles, and that's just one charity! We have people who are more than happy to come to the meetings and will perhaps do a little bit of leg work, but they don't want a role as such.

Our local hospice has a rather large presence in the area and we do struggle to 'compete' with their established and well known events. Their CEO type guy is on £70,000.

[Lounge Lizard]

Well I volunteer with a few charities and whilst I don't agree that there are bigwigs on a lot of money when I'm giving up (a lot of) time to raise funds for the services required, I can also appreciate that they wouldn't be able to get anyone to volunteer to do it! We're struggling as a committee with our local fundraising group. I'm currently doing 5 roles, and that's just one charity! We have people who are more than happy to come to the meetings and will perhaps do a little bit of leg work, but they don't want a role as such.

Our local hospice has a rather large presence in the area and we do struggle to 'compete' with their established and well known events. Their CEO type guy is on £70,000.

"I don't agree that there are bigwigs on a lot of money"
.
Charity == Chief executive == Latest salary in £s (plus benefits but excluding pensions)
Cancer Research UK == Paul Nurse == £140,000
British Heart Foundation == Leslie Busk == £115,000
British Red Cross == Nicholas Young == £125,000
Macmillan Cancer Relief == Peter Cardy == £100,000
National Trust == Fiona Reynolds == £115,000
NCH Action for Children == Deryk Mead == £116,384
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children == Mary Marsh == £105,000
Royal National Lifeboat Institution == Andrew Freemantle == £105,000
.
Maybe all not 'a lot of money' compared to
Royal Opera House Covent Garden == Tony Hall == £205,000
Genuinely not a lot of money is Salvation Army == Alex Hughes == £10,540

[fishtank]

The word "charity" is unfortunately becoming tainted with the pressure selling techniques that used to be the preserve of seedy double glazing firms and time shares.
It is having a serious affect on both the number of volunteers and the level of donations that smaller local charities are experiencing.
I have very little time for the major "professional" charities now.If i give money to charity i want to know that the bulk of it will end up making a difference,not a couple of pence in the pound.

[Lounge Lizard]

Well I volunteer with a few charities and whilst I don't agree that there are bigwigs on a lot of money when I'm giving up (a lot of) time to raise funds for the services required, I can also appreciate that they wouldn't be able to get anyone to volunteer to do it! We're struggling as a committee with our local fundraising group. I'm currently doing 5 roles, and that's just one charity! We have people who are more than happy to come to the meetings and will perhaps do a little bit of leg work, but they don't want a role as such.

Our local hospice has a rather large presence in the area and we do struggle to 'compete' with their established and well known events. Their CEO type guy is on £70,000.

"I don't agree that there are bigwigs on a lot of money"
.
Charity == Chief executive == Latest salary in £s (plus benefits but excluding pensions)
Cancer Research UK == Paul Nurse == £140,000
British Heart Foundation == Leslie Busk == £115,000
British Red Cross == Nicholas Young == £125,000
Macmillan Cancer Relief == Peter Cardy == £100,000
National Trust == Fiona Reynolds == £115,000
NCH Action for Children == Deryk Mead == £116,384
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children == Mary Marsh == £105,000
Royal National Lifeboat Institution == Andrew Freemantle == £105,000
.
Maybe all not 'a lot of money' compared to
Royal Opera House Covent Garden == Tony Hall == £205,000
Genuinely not a lot of money is Salvation Army == Alex Hughes == £10,540

- and those figures, courtesy of the Guardian, are ten years old so are no doubt mostly higher now.