New logo or lets house the homeless veterans

[Spectric]

How can organisations waste so much money on something that does not benefit the intended recipients. People donate money during the poppy appeal to support our military veterans so how can they allow some to be homeless whilst wasting money on a new logo, surely the British legion and the Poppy appeal is logo enough.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sted-misuse-funds-spent-100-000-new-LOGO.html

 

[Droogs]

I'm saying nowt as I don't want banned

 

[Rorschach]

I wouldn't dig too deep into almost any charity if this annoys you.

 

[doctor Bob]

I'm not against a rebrand, but £100k is a wee bit OTT. Did nobody set a budget, or think how the public would react.

 

[AES]

Speaking VERY generally (to include businesses, etc, not just charity), I am VERY much against re-naming and re-branding.

IME (e.g. one company I worked for changed name and logo 3 times in 7 years - everything else stayed the same!) such "exercises" are simply for the corporate big nobs' egos and the buyout "barons" and only help the incomes of such "useful" people as "design and marketing consultants" - plus the letterhead etc, printers of course.

It's true that I haven't lived in UK since 1984, but to me, why change a - what I think must still be, surely? - a world-renowned name and symbol such as Royal British Legion - even if it only cost ten quid to change it? (Which it clearly didn't)!

"Bah", "Piffle", "Humbug", "Hogwash", and purely "Marketing flower-arranging" IMO.

 

[flying haggis]

excellent way to lose support. now, no doubt, they will bemoan the lack of income from donations and demand the government aka taxpayers bail them out

 

[TheUnicorn]

Irony with something like the RBL rebrand is if they'd run an open appeal for logos they'd have been inundated with images, no doubt giving valuable publicity to students or fledgling marketing firms, and costing the charity nothing (aside from the obvious cost of paying someone to sort through the images). Also the old image with the poppy and the name in the blue square was better than the new image in my opinion

 

[Doris]

I carved some wooden poppies to raise money on behalf of the British legion a few years ago and contracted them for a collection box, made of cardboard, nothing else.

What I was sent was my collection box plus a t shirt and a few other bits and pieces, think there was a pen in there as well.

Anyway used the box and raised £60 I think and while doing so they go and send me another t shirt for no reason at all.

I know charities need to raise awareness and all but when this happened I actually started to question where this money I was raising was going.

I don't buy poppies anymore. I wear one which I bought years ago as it seems greener than buying a paper poppy only for it to go to landfill.

 

[rafezetter]

Speaking VERY generally (to include businesses, etc, not just charity), I am VERY much against re-naming and re-branding.

IME (e.g. one company I worked for changed name and logo 3 times in 7 years - everything else stayed the same!) such "exercises" are simply for the corporate big nobs' egos and the buyout "barons" and only help the incomes of such "useful" people as "design and marketing consultants" - plus the letterhead etc, printers of course.

It's true that I haven't lived in UK since 1984, but to me, why change a - what I think must still be, surely? - a world-renowned name and symbol such as Royal British Legion - even if it only cost ten quid to change it? (Which it clearly didn't)!

"Bah", "Piffle", "Humbug", "Hogwash", and purely "Marketing flower-arranging" IMO.

WHY did it need a rebrand anyway? - Look what happened in the UK when the Royal Mail spent millions rebranding to consignia (iirc) only swap back after only a few months

Rebranding the Spastics Society (yes it really was called that) I can understand but BL makes no sense other than filling some marketing a-holes pockets that prolly suggested it in the first place "to reach a younger target demographic" or other BS.

 

[--Tom--]

I’m surprised that they weren’t able to get the work done probono as a tax write off from an agency or by crowd sourcing it. I agree to an extent with paying charity workers market wage to ensure efficient and skilful management, this sort of endeavour generally indicates someone out of their depth. They may well have saved 100k in salaries by not having expert leadership though.

Sometimes the press don’t follow the adage of teaching people to fish rather than just giving them fish too. The work done should have had a calculated net benefit to go ahead, investing to enable enhanced future revenue is something charities should do. In this instance it would need someone close to the detail to argue the case though.

 

[Mark Hancock]

If you actually do a search, use the freedom of information act and find out how much charities have stashed away it will come as a shock to all. The amount spent by the British Legion for rebranding is just petty cash, a drop in the ocean. I recently was told the figures for all military related charities i.e. number of charities and the total bank balance of all....just unbelievable and that is putting it diplomatically. I personally will never buy another poppy again simply because the act of buying a poppy benefits the charity rather than the those they are claiming to help

 

[Rorschach]

If you actually do a search, use the freedom of information act and find out how much charities have stashed away it will come as a shock to all. The amount spent by the British Legion for rebranding is just petty cash, a drop in the ocean. I recently was told the figures for all military related charities i.e. number of charities and the total bank balance of all....just unbelievable and that is putting it diplomatically. I personally will never buy another poppy again simply because the act of buying a poppy benefits the charity rather than the those they are claiming to help

Pretty much the reason I don't give to any charity. I help those around me directly as much as possible rather than funding unknown managers and PR firms to the tune of millions a year.

 

[Jameshow]

I'd suggest seeking out smaller charities where the staffing structure is flat and the work done is local. Often they struggle to access funding and it's very much on a year to year basis.

Cheers James

 

[Essex Barn Workshop]

I prefer direct giving. A homeless man asked me for £20 yesterday.
I thought "Do I want this £20 spent on cheap beer and ****?"
The answer was no.
So I gave it to him instead.

 

[Skydivermel]

I'm a vet. Did 12 years. 4 stints in NI & Falklands war. I never buy a poppy, all your doing is giving money to the charity managers. For every £1 given to charity 88pence goes to the management of the charity, the other 12p will eventually find it's way to the front line so to speak.

 

[Davey44]

How short sighted and ill informed. I have worked for a fairly large UK charity for many years and know and understand how finances work for the majority for them and your statement isn't accurate. However, there is a minority of charities which grossly overpay their senior (usually board-level) staff.

 

[AES]

How short sighted and ill informed. I have worked for a fairly large UK charity for many years and know and understand how finances work for the majority for them and your statement isn't accurate. However, there is a minority of charities which grossly overpay their senior (usually board-level) staff.

Just who is being "short sighted", and whose "statement isn't accurate" Davey? Not clear.

But perhaps that isn't so important after all - just like the old saw "justice must be done and seen to be done", it seems to me that if the majority (as "evidenced" by this thread) feel that the re-branding of Royal British Legion was, simply said, just a big waste of money, since it's the same "the majority" that will or will not give in future, much as I hesitate to say it, does it really matter what "the real truth" is about RBL's finances?

IF, as you suggest, the majority of "us" here are being "unfair" (my term) or "short-sighted" (your term), shouldn't the RBL be doing something about redressing the balance of opinion (not living in UK, I can only assume the outcry against what I still consider to be complete spherical objects is/was in fact much wider known than just one thread here)? If so, what, if anything, has RBL done to publish the "real" facts of this matter???????

 

[Jameshow]

Just who is being "short sighted", and whose "statement isn't accurate" Davey? Not clear.

But perhaps that isn't so important after all - just like the old saw "justice must be done and seen to be done", it seems to me that if the majority (as "evidenced" by this thread) feel that the re-branding of Royal British Legion was, simply said, just a big waste of money, since it's the same "the majority" that will or will not give in future, much as I hesitate to say it, does it really matter what "the real truth" is about RBL's finances?

IF, as you suggest, the majority of "us" here are being "unfair" (my term) or "short-sighted" (your term), shouldn't the RBL be doing something about redressing the balance of opinion (not living in UK, I can only assume the outcry against what I still consider to be complete spherical objects is/was in fact much wider known than just one thread here)? If so, what, if anything, has RBL done to publish the "real" facts of this matter???????

I think it does matter when charities miss manage or in this case miss spend charity monies. It's as abhorrent as someone stealing a charity collection box tbh. Infact worse because they do it with impunity and a presumably a conscience rather than being desperate for a full stomach .

Of course not all charities are missmanaged rather the minority.

Cheers James

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Just been looking at the RBL annual report for 2018 - I doubt that much has changed since (covid excepted).

• Total income £163m - main sources - poppy apeal £50m, donations and legacies £50m, lotteries and trading £20m.
• Total costs £175m - capital £9m, poppy appeal £15m, welfare services £57m, care homes £36m, "admin" etc £20m
• Most income raised seems to go on "good works" - approx £140m. Approx £36m goes on admin and poppy costs.

£100k for re-branding is trivial. So the real question is why do they need to do it.

I am old enough to remember RBL as an active part of the community in most towns. Post WW2 and to the end of conscription memories of military service were common throughout communities.

IMHO it is increasingly perceived as a retreat for the aged, and a 21st century irrelevancy. I suspect membership, club attendance and income is declining. Buildings and care home will become increasingly decrepit. Without change it is on a clear downward slope to obscurity.

If you feel this doesn't matter - that's fine. The world moves on, things change.

But those in RBL need to reinvigorate the charity, change what it does and how it is perceived. I think the "poppy" element of the branding is very solid, but the way it is used and presented is dated.

As a 20 year old I may have thought of going to the RBL for a cheap beer. I now walk past without even thinking - perceptions:

• The food (if sold) is likely to have been in vogue in the 1970s. I've personally moved on from sausages, steak and ale pie, etc
• It will likely be full of "old fogies" with who I have little in common
• the ambience is likely to be more local social club not hip, happening, luxurious, classy (or whatever turns you on!)

There will be those who think my perception ill founded - they need to ask themselves whether they are happy with the status quo, and very objectively - does it have a future?

 

[AES]

I'm sorry if my post #17 above was not clear Terry and James. I definitely think that it DOES matter (very much) what the RBL (and other big charities) have for income and how they disburse that money.

What I meant was that taking only the "straw poll" represented by this thread, as the majority feel that such a logo/name change was NOT necessary, then "they" (said majority) are surely unlikely to give to RBL again if they feel that RBL are just "wasting" money " on rebranding/new logo.

That being the case, and if Davey 44 (above) was correct in his statement that feelings of waste are just "short-sighted", my question then was/still is - "OK then. If the RBL name/logo change WAS necessary then what are RBL doing about changing the majority opinion that it was just a waste of money and not necessary?"

Sorry, I can't put it any clearer than that.