On Tuesday, Marketing magazine ran a feature on the problems at the homelessness charity, Shelter. It explained how they were trying to fill a £2m hole in their budget; that the fundraising director had recently left; that they had cut 43 posts; and the chief executive is standing down. Life in Old Street did not sound like much fun.

The next day I got an email from Shelter "Watch our chilling our new TV ad". A slick CGI-tastic TV execution featuring collapsing 'houses of cards' that must have cost thousands to create and will cost even more to broadcast. It does not try to raise money - it has the most meaningless call to action ever - but make people aware of the collapse in the housing market. No really, you couldn't make it up. And I don't care if Radiohead donated the track.

Shelter needs money, not awareness or creative awards. They won't have the money to run the ad frequently enough to gain any awareness and the 17,000 youtube viewers will be Radiohead fans like my son without any money to give. The execution is far too clever to engage anyone outside of professional politics or the social services. All this may play well in the marketing village, but it doesn't deliver on ROI.

Spending money in this fashion lets homeless people down, lets Shelter's supporters down and lets Shelter's staff down - especially those who've lost their jobs.

Never forget people give to help people, not to an advertising idea. A young mother living in a single room B&B with 2 young children is my idea of chilling. Focus on the people and the money will follow.

Why do I care? Because 12 years ago I gave Shelter a very large sum of money to set up a freephone advice number for people in desperate need. It was as service that delivered a real end benefit. Good housing is a cause I deeply believe in. But today, when more people are in serious need, Shelter is throwing its money at campaigns with more chance of an award than an ROI. No surprise they are £2m down and people like me have stopped giving.

P.S. Since I wrote this Shelter has contacted me and reassured me that the advert was created and broadcast with pro bono contributions "for practically nothing" and the Marketing story carries a number of inaccuracies regarding the situation at Old Street. I am obviously delighted Shelter is in better health than the story suggests and I am also happy to accept that, as this is case, it makes sense to run something if you've not really had to pay for it, although I still feel a more focused support message is what they should be putting their energies behind.