Monthly Archives: December 2020

Pudsey even more in need in Covid times

Posted on by
Reply

By Piotr Boiwka

AS PUDSEY Bear has changed in time, the idea it represents is still actual. Children are in need and for the 40th time, the fundraising event has been broadcast by the BBC.

This year, it was even more important due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected young people abominably in many ways. The number of children affected by food insecurity, anxiety, and stress increased significantly.

Time for charities is extremely difficult. Analysis of more than 1,600 fundraising pages made by BBC showed that the average amount raised by the given organisation decreased from £657 a month in February to £236 in June. This is even more dangerous for small charities which are mostly affected by lack of funds.

But even huge fundraising campaigns like Children in Need observed remarkably lower income, comparing to previous years. This year’s £37 million looks phenomenal, but when we look at over £47 million gained in 2019, it seems a little bit pale.

What went wrong? Simply saying – coronavirus. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns, and economic crisis people are worried about their financial condition, what causes a lower level of donations for charities on all levels.

NGOs are struggling to gain an audience when they are unable to provide traditional forms of events. Strategies based on crowded gatherings on fresh air were mostly impossible to deliver. Fundraisers needed to adapt to create a digital equivalent, often without any previous experience in this area. Many have done that with success, but it still has not matched financial results from the past.

Hopefully, circumstances from this year will result in combining both ways of organising events in even more successful fundraisings. Digital versions are much cheaper and abilities to gain the public’s attention are endless. Innovation and creativity made a huge jump ahead and this year’s experience will surely pay off in the future.

Piotr Boiwka is a student blogger from the MA in Media and PR at Newcastle University

Children in need – Fundraising during a pandemic

Posted on by
Reply

By Lauren Phoenix

COVID-19 has forced many organisations including ‘Children In Need’ to change and adapt to new ways of working, the organisations that don’t respond and be reactive to the pandemic will fall behind.

According to Charities Aid Foundation during COVID-19, there has been an increase in demand for charity services, however, the donations have dropped over 50%, meaning that fundraising is vital during this time. However, with fundraising events being cancelled ‘Children In Need’ need to clearly communicate new, safe ways people can fundraise following the government’s guidelines. If they create positive meaningful communication with their audience and keep stakeholders engaged and aware this will allow them to meet their fundraising targets.

‘Children In Need’ has adapted to the crisis with new ways of communicating and with a stronger focus on shared and earned media. Despite ‘Children In Need’ having strong relationships with the public, they need to continue to build these relationships online to increase awareness using clear, transparent communication to encourage fundraising and highlight the importance of sponsorships.

Social media is very important for organisations during the pandemic as it allows them to easily connect with audiences and create a sense of community online which is important for relationship building. ‘Children In Need’ state on their website “Good news travels fast on social media – and not only will it keep you connected in difficult times; it might inspire others to donate as well!” (BBC Children in Need, 2020). This highlights the importance of earned media to increase exposure and engagement. COVID-19 has provided the opportunity for change with new relevant ways to communicate and reach new audiences, offering virtual and digital events and this type of communication may be where the future lies.

Lauren Phoenix is a student blogger from the MA in Media and Public Relations at Newcastle University

References:

The coronavirus outbreak and charitable giving | CAF Research (2020). Available at: https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/research/coronavirus-and-charitable-giving (Accessed: 14 November 2020).

BBC Children in Need (2020). Available at: https://www.bbcchildreninneed.co.uk (Accessed: 14 November 2020).

Be an ‘Eco Babe’ and avoid Black Friday sales, they are far from sustainable.

Posted on by
Reply

By Isobel Parker

BRITS were predicted to spend £6bn on Black Friday this year and every brand wants you to spend your money with them by offering a host of unmissable offers and discounts.

But at what point do brands go too far, meaning Black Friday becomes a PR nightmare as oppose to a financial success? [1] A clear example of a Black Friday blunder this year came from fast fashion giant Pretty Little Thing, which offered shoppers an ‘up to 99% off everything’ sale leaving Twitter and the headlines in uproar, perhaps unsurprisingly. Dresses were being sold for as little as 8p and bikini bottoms were available for 5p; these prices would make anyone assume that someone along the production line was being exploited and the sustainability of such a campaign must be questioned.

From a company running a 99% off sale you would imagine that corporate social responsibility was unheard of. However, on googling Pretty Little Thing CSR, you are met with a website page titled Sustainability. The page explains how PLT ‘babes’ can do their bit for the environment, by treating their denim right, making it last longer or by taking part in the PLT ‘ReGain’ project by sending the company their old clothes to recycle and receive a discount on their next purchase.  With fashion contributing to 10% of global Co2 emissions every year and the average person throwing away 31.75kg of clothing per year, how can PLT host this sale and then claim to be fully behind sustainability? [2]

This could be seen as an example of greenwashing, using CSR to mask social irresponsibility and covering up potential malpractice by papering over the cracks of corporate wrongdoing. However, in the days of social media a web page about sustainability is not enough to avoid a Twitter backlash.

Black Friday seemed like a dark day for Pretty Little Thing’s PR with earned and shared media being extremely negative, with mainstream newspapers such as the Guardian sharing their shortcomings. We would expect this to be a major hit in terms of the company’s reputation bank-however, on second glance it appears shoppers were still not deterred and the company managed to generate engagement with over 100, 000 people on a singular giveaway tweet. Although there is a growing movement towards sustainable fashion across the world, it seems it will take more than environmental outrage to deter Black Friday bargain hunters.

#prstudent

[1]https://www.finder.com/uk/black-friday-statistics

[2] https://www.prettylittlething.com/sustainability

The ethical concerns of fast fashion and whether you should still buy from the brands

Posted on by
Reply

By Sophie Smith

FAST fashion has shifted the way in which the fashion industry works. There are many elements that make it ‘fast’, the customer’s decision to buy a garment, the production line, next day delivery and even how often the item of clothing is worn for. This produces the thought of how ethical fast fashion can really be.

Over the Black Friday weekend, brands under the Boohoo Group PLC, such as Pretty Little Thing and Nasty Gal, offered discounts as high as 99% off, meaning you could buy items for 5p. In what circumstances can this be ethical? Who is suffering for the company to charge this little? Fast fashion companies reduce costs as much as they can during the production line by using poor quality clothing and paying workers below minimum wage.

To no surprise, customers were still jumping at the chance to pay so little for multiple items, it’s a deal like no other. At that moment you may not necessarily think about the implications the low costs create. It also gives people the opportunity to buy clothes they may not usually be able to afford, and that is completely fair. However, it is an ongoing issue in the fast fashion industry that their production is not ethical.

For the factory workers employed by fast fashion companies, the pay they receive is not usually sufficient. Boohoo Group PLC and Missguided have multiple factories in Leicester that employ mainly migrant and temporary workers. In 2018 an exposé by the Financial Times found that workers in the city were paid £3.50 an hour, which is half of the minimum wage for a 16-18-year-old. This is even worse in developing countries, in 2019 Statista reported that Ethiopian garment workers received the lowest monthly wage of $26[1].

The impact of fast fashion on the environment is also a cause for concern. The clothing industry is the second highest polluter of clean water, according to the Institute of Sustainable Communication[2], mainly from toxic chemicals being dumped by fast fashion retailers. Most clothes are made from oil-based polyester which has now overtaken cotton as the main fibre in clothing. Fast fashion also uses lead salts to colour clothing because it is cheaper but not particularly safe for you or the environment.

For such an unethical industry, fast fashion continues to thrive. High-street brands such as H&M and Topshop have to compete with the availability that fast fashion provides, they’re now classed as ‘fast’ in their own way. H&M receive new merchandise on a daily basis, so they are providing new items to you very quickly.

I also spoke to a few friends about why they find it hard to shop with more ethical, sustainable brands, with most saying it’s about the range of garments they offer. A lot of sustainable brands don’t produce plus-sized clothing, and charity shops quite often have a small range of men’s clothing. This has encouraged them to shop at these fast fashion companies that offer everything they could need. You also find the problem that sustainable brands can be expensive and for a lot of people that isn’t ideal. I know as a student I like to keep things cheap.

We have seen the ethical issues behind fast fashion, and I think we will always be aware of this. However, because of the growth of the industry, and the lack of choice elsewhere, we are being steered into the direction of fast fashion brands. I have no doubt that we will continue to shop with these brands until we can find a cheaper, more varied ethical way of shopping. Until then, I personally don’t think we should feel overly guilty or ashamed for shopping fast fashion.

If you would like to take a look at what Boohoo Group PLC have on their sustainability page, this can be found here: https://www.boohooplc.com/sustainability/supply-chain-review

[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/17903/monthly-minimum-wage-in-the-global-garment-industry/

[2] https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/articles/why-fast-fashion-is-killing-the-planet-and-your-ethics/

WE NEED INCLUSIVE SIZING!

Posted on by
Reply

By Isobel Parker

Instagram has been in uproar this week, once again furious about an issue that’s been sweeping the sneaker industry time and again: ‘WE DON’T NEED WOMEN’S EXCLUSIVES. WE NEED INCLUSIVE SIZING’.

The streetwear and sneaker industry is renowned for being male centric, we only have to go into Newcastle city centre with shops like END. and the newly opening SIZE?, to see this inequality. Although arguably everything is ‘unisex’ in their stores and they hold a small female range, however, they are obviously male centric passing off size inclusivity by providing men’s XS in their ranges, a men’s XS is in no way the same as women’s.

But what does women’s size inclusivity have to do with PR?

EVERYTHING.

There are copious articles being written, from Vogue to Title magazine, declaring the problems with sneaker drop’s size inclusivity. Whilst Nike attracted a great amount of positive earned media in the summer when they announced the Virgil Abloh x Air Jordan would drop exclusively for women, this positivity was only damped when they announced, following male outcry, that they would instead drop the Jordan in all sizes.

Size exclusivity can be great for a companies’ profile and market image, fewer sizes meaning less availability creating a stir for their product. If something is scarce more people want it to become a part of the perceived exclusive club.

Surely, however, for any brand, whether big or small, by introducing size inclusivity they are showing themselves as brand engaging in two-way symmetrical communications with their consumers. Listening to what your consumer wants can only be a positive start.

It appears these companies are not researching the market enough; women are sneakerheads too! For example, Rebecca Hydahl, a female sneaker collector from Denmark has nearly 150, 000 thousand followers. Companies have a readymade base for influencer marketing on Instagram which they are not taking full advantage of.

I am aware I sound somewhat negative and as though there is no inclusivity for the female market; there have been some big leaps already taken however, time and time again, women’s drops are just pastel versions of the same design; it is just not enough. Give the girls what they want, increase your public outreach and listen to your consumers.

Engagement with and delivering for your consumers is the only way successful way forward.