I'm 50 later this year. It is therefore with a personal interest that I read today of the Charity Commission report into Heyday, Age Concern's membership project for those aged 50-70. The seeds of disaster surely lie in that very statement. Is someone around 50 really thinking of themselves of "approaching retirement" as the charity seemed to suggest? Maybe that's one reason why Heyday only attracted 40,000 members, rather than the planned 3 million? They did spend £22 million getting there, though.
Other charities should look at the lessons. Many are grappling with the challenge of widening their appeal and bringing more potential supporters into their charity - an admirable and valuable aim. Heyday should have attracted older people who previously had not seen an 'old age charity' as relevant. I imagine Age Concern wanted to copy the Saga model and got it wrong. Why? Because most of the time charities are very good at being charities and not so good at being commercial operations, let alone branches of the entertainment industry.
In fast-changing consumer markets, charities cannot take decisions quickly or easily enough (there are 34 on the Age Concern board). Initiatives are limited by charitable objectives. Decisions are hampered by internal politics (e.g. service delivery vs marketing). They might have good data on donor profiles, but not on the more complex factors driving consumer behaviour. Many are ill equipped or poorly positioned to adopt the tone of voice and style necessary to talk to people on issues outside of charity's immediate area of expertise. They are often too worthy and too wordy. And they don't, or can't, sell hard enough.
I guess any charity currently planning a 'Heyday' needs to remain closer to its core activities and supporter profile. Stick to what and who you know. Are there any charity gurus - client or agency - out there who have a view?
