Whenever societies or sports clubs would try to procure things at USSU they would always try to get a discount under the ‘we’re a charity’ philosophy; a ‘10% off at Topshop’ strategy that works very rarely in the real world, but apparently works often enough to be written down in folklore as the ‘done thing’ when trying to get something for free for your organisation.
The problem was that offering something straight up for free wasn’t going to bring enough back to the supplying company – an obvious Western paradox, but one that seems to need to be re-explored whenever a new instance of the debate comes up.
Recently, it’s been the Spotify debate, but I think Spotify is probably just the manifestation of an answer to a question that’s been being posed since the Napster era, essentially the question of how free, low-distribution-overhead, digital music can be monetised (see more here). Yesterday it reached new highs when the internet was a-twitter with complaints about the lack of a ‘free trial’ period on the new apps for iPhone and Android.
With Mr. Murdoch about to tell us more about how he’s planning to implement pay-walls in front of his many UK news outlets, and with Jonathan from Spotify reaching more and more people, it seems like the real debate about free is starting to enter the public sphere. Namely ‘what are we prepared to offer in return for this ‘free’ service?’
I have been beginning to wonder if my ears are worth £120 a year to an advertiser, and whether, actually, £9.99 really represents good monthly value, regardless of how many CD purchases it ‘saves’ me.
Lots of people have covered that area before, but what I’m waking up to recently is what it could mean for charities.
Charities are clearly having to work a lot harder for their own money, now that blue chip companies are retreating to their core activity of squeezing as much profit as possible. Those companies are leaving behind their generous sponsorship initiatives that would have kept many charities afloat, putting more pressure on the commercial services (and fundraising) of the able charities to deliver higher margins, in order that they can be reinvested in the charity. For the less able charities, a fairly tight and grim situation has become even worse during the financial crisis.
If an organisation’s stakeholders consider themselves to be worthy of charitable treatment, as in the case of student discounts, or thrift stores, how is a charity meant to offer meaningful service and deliver its objectives whilst at the same time earning enough revenue to be able to continue to offer that same level of service?
Hopefully, the charities’ collective lobby (is there one?) will get involved in the imminent public debate about free. It doesn’t just apply to the services that they are offering, but also to the services that they offer each other, to stakeholders, and to specialist commercial operations like those of Public Zone. It’s a crucial debate; one that I hope will focus on outcomes and value, rather than inputs and cost.
When ‘vintage’ t-shirts can sell for £30 but a second-hand store can charge no more than a nominal £2 or £3 for the same item, it becomes a question of branding, perception, and of management – we don’t just need a public debate on what free means in our everyday lives, we need charities that are really awake to the economic challenges that face them. Furthermore, they need to be in a position to address those challenges through organisational change and re-evaluation.
Maybe, like it always used to be, there will be a re-ignition of value creation through collective action and volunteering. But I'm worried that charities need to behave like corporations now in order to reach their audiences.
Do any of your favourite shops offer student discount?