Who is patronising your NGO?

Mark 37 Comments

435px-Rsc_president_prince_charlesIf you put ‘Prince Charles’ into the search engine of the Wildlife Trusts it asks you whether you mean ‘price charge’ – you have to laugh don’t you?

However, if you put ‘HRH The Prince of Wales’ into the search engine then you do find that Prince Charles is the Patron of the Wildlife Trusts.

The Prince of Wales is also Patron of Plantlife  and President of the National Trust, WWF-UK and the Marine Conservation Society (surely that should be Prince of whales).

HM The Queen is Patron of the RSPB (although I couldn’t find any evidence for this on the RSPB website – maybe I looked in the wrong places) but Prince Charles gets quite a few mentions on the RSPB website.

The Queen is also the Patron of CPRE.

The Duke of Edinburgh is the Patron of the GWCT and the BTO.

At WWT, HM The Queen is the Patron and Prince Charles is President.

The Princess Royal is Patron of the Woodland Trust.

Buglife’s President is Germaine Greer.

Butterfly Conservation’s President is Sir David Attenborough.

Pond Conservation’s Patron is the Earl of Selborne.

The Hawk and Owl Trust has Chris Packham as its President – as does the Bumblebee Conservation Trust.

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth don’t seem to have Patrons or Presidents.

There is a question in my mind (in fact, in my mind, it’s a question that has an answer) about whether it is advantageous to campaigning organisations, which are trying to change the world, also to be thoroughly embedded in the Establishment as are some of those above.

What do you think?

 

[registration_form]

37 Replies to “Who is patronising your NGO?”

  1. I am sure the answer you have is very much the same as most of us would give Mark and it can be summed up in just one word, ‘prestige. However, that is not directly answering your question and having just written that sentence I am not at all sure it is a question that can easily be answered by the/us ‘supporters’.

    The RSPB has the old issue of name change to wrestle with and I am sure a lot of genuine prestige comes from having a name that is at least on a par with the RSPCA. Yet, I cannot help thinking it possibly begins and ends there because patrons have no power to influence policy (nor should they try) and as you pointed out, a patron or president may not be readily apparent unless specifically serched for. I suppose this begs the reverse question about whether it is disadvantageous to have a given patron.

  3. An interesting question. Celebrity endorsement seems to be de rigeur for most things these days whether that means having a royal ‘patron’ for your society or getting the winner of the last Big Brother series but three to open your supermarket but it is not always clear what value they bring. I suppose that having a celebrity attending an event may swell the numbers of people that come along but I doubt very much that the name of the patron has much influence on whether or not people join any of the NGOs you mention. In most cases I’d imagine that many members are only dimly aware of who is the patron of the NGOs they are a member of (I was vaguely aware that Bill Oddie is patron of my local WT but when I checked just now I found that there are also three others, two of whom I hadn’t previously heard of).
    Patrons can of course – in principle – also benefit their organisations by using their influence on behalf of the organisation – a quiet word to those who pull the levers of power, as it were. It is very difficult to gauge the extent to which this occurs (at least from outside) and I suppose it varies between organisations and patrons. It is very hard to imagine the Queen actively intervening on behalf of the RSPB whereas Prince Charles is well known for actively promoting issues close to his heart.
    Your question suggests that, beyond whether or not they have a measurable benefit, you feel there is actually a negative side to having someone from the great and the good as a figurehead and so as well as considering what are the positives it is also necessary to think about the possible negatives. I guess that having a Royal Patron confers a notion of respectability and perhaps therefore constrains an organisation to behave in a certain way. You point out that Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace both seem to lack a patron and, of the organisations you mention, they are arguably the most prepared to behave in an overtly establishment-challenging way. That said, whilst the RSPB may not normally get involved in direct actions such as trashing GM crops or invading industrial establishments, I believe that their Royal Charter does not necessarily deter them from getting under the skin of the government or other parts of the establishment. It might also be argued that the RSPB gains its influence from its large membership many of whom would perhaps be less keen to belong to a more overtly contentious organisation.
    Another potential negative is where the Patron does seek to use their influence more actively. Again Prince Charles springs to mind as a patron who is generally keen to speak his mind on conservation issues. Whilst this may be helpful where he is pulling in the same direction as the NGOs he heads, it may be problematic when he takes a contrary view.
    Overall I am left feeling that the benefits of having a patron are not that great but probably the negatives are not, in practice, that great either. It does seem to me to be a slightly anachronistic practice and I would not be troubled if conservation NGOs gradually phased it out. If it is deemed to be a necessary thing to have a prominent person as a figurehead my preference would be for the selection of someone with a demonstrable interest and achievement in the field.

  4. We (the World Land Trust) have three patrons. David Attenborough, David Gower, and Chris Packham. All three have a known and active interest in wildlife, and actually do significant things for the WLT. We wouldn’t consider having a patron who was not actively involved, nor one without a genuine commitment to what we are trying to achieve.

    Incidentally you ommitted the Queen: patron of FFI

    1. John – excellent choices. I remember talking to David Gower about the Indian vulture decline many years ago.

      1. Yes, not many people realise his interest in conservation — stems from a childhood in Tanganyika, where his father was a DC. And when he travels he often goes wildlife watching. Last year year he represented the WLT at a big event in Bombay (raised over £100,000 for elephant conservation). And the best possible representative for us in India, where he is a real hero.

        1. John – well, his test Match average against India was a bit lower than that against New Zealand and Pakistan! A great player with the right attitude to cricket, and life I would surmise.

  5. As other correspondents have pointed out, the best patron would be one with a good knowledge of the core “business”. Indeed, the British Dragonfly Society (BDS) also benefits from Sir David Attenborough’s patronage. However, despite his long association and influence with the BBC, the Beeb is still woeful in ID-ing dragons and damsels, as season after season of Springwatch has testified!

  6. Hi Mark
    As Press and PR for Hawk and Owl Trust I’m delighted to have Chris Packham as a very powerful asset in my PR tool box. Although he is a very busy man, I have a direct channel of communication with him (via email or mobile phone) if I need him to flex a bit of celebrity muscle for us.

    The fact that Chris is inextricably linked with the conservation movement and is not scared of voicing controversial yet scientifically sound opinions is both refreshing and important.

    Like nature, it’s all a matter of balance. Not just a figure head, a working member of the team also.

    Kind regards

    Lin Murray
    Press and PR, Web and Social Media Editor
    Hawk and Owl Trust
    07881 657 944
    [email protected]
    http://www.hawkandowl.org

    PO Box 400,
    Bishops Lydeard,
    Taunton TA4 3WH
    0844 984 2824
    01823 433 805
    http://www.hawkandowl.org.uk
    [email protected]

    Registered charity number: 1058565
    Registered office: The Corn Exchange, Baffins Lane, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1GE

    1. Lin – welcome and many thanks. I am a fan of Chris’s too. After all, he did write a glowing foreword for ‘Fighting for Birds’.

  7. Interesting question. Given the Queen is Patron of Songbird Survival (a completely barmy and unscientific organisation) and Prince Phillip of BASC you have to ask about a consistency of approach by those Patrons and how informed they are. Otherwise there is a serious credibility issue.

    So in answer, probably ‘Yes’ for PR purposes (and NGO’s need all the free PR they can get) but ‘No’ if this causes a conflict (or perceived conflict) with other patronages.

    1. Gert – I don’t think the Queen is the Patron of SS – although she has given them money in the past (Fighting for Birds, Chapter 11, The raptor haters, p212).

      1. Not sure which is worse – a passive patronage or an active financial contributor!

    2. It is also an open secret that Prince Charles will not support RSPB appeals because of the society stance on raptors.

  8. Public opinion polls always used to show that a Royal seal of approval was a policy or organisational benefit. I am not so sure that holds true in the modern media era. Royal patronage for Homeopathy or hunting with dogs hasn’t resonated with the wider public. At a time of austerity, as the king of Spain has found, royal patronage of trophy hunting and shooting has not gone down well with the wider public.
    It would be a good thing if charitable organisations with patrons required their patrons to sign up to actions compatible with their organisations objects. Requiring an end to Royal grouse, deer and pheasant shoots would be a good place to start.

  9. Some interesting thoughts arise out of the above, and perhaps it would be good governance if charities asked patrons to sign up to a manifesto of some sort; in fact probably all Trustees, council members honorary officers ought to be asked to do it. I am not sure how this would fit with Charity Commission guidelines, but it would certainly make charities think twice.

  10. H R H P C,may get mentions on RSPB site but the one he needs to get is save the H H but suppose that would be difficult as most people seem to think his son involved in there demise.

    2. Dennis, it is/was pretty apparent who was involved in the Deresingham incident (as I am sure this is what you are referring to) and whilst a certain prince was on site around the same time he was never implicated in the shooting of the harriers except by the press. I have always thought that the Norfolk police never received the credit they deserved for this incident because there was never a hope the CPS would support the case but they still submitted it even knowing who was potentially involved. Incidentally, I recallseeing a few suggestions around the Internet that ‘the prince’ could not hit a barn door unless he was strapped into an Apache helicopter and whilst this was a rumour probably released by his press office or friends, it is still funny.

  11. I am sure these people are involved in so many organisations that they can’t have an input. I can recall the Prince of Wales opening a local nature reserve when I was a Trustee of my local Wildlife Trust. His speech started ” As” (then turning to his aide said in a low voice “Who am I today”.

  12. Mark, from what I read on page 285 of your book, I would hope that the BTO would be very embaressed and wanting to make some changes pdq!
    Doesn’t Phil-the-Greek have history of shooting tiger and then going on to be president of WWF? In his eyes I guess he thought he was conserving nature 😉

  13. I have not watched countryfile for many years, this is because it has become farmingfile. However, I saw a small snatch of it today. Prince Charles was talking to schoolchildren about a strawberry plant in a pot. He asked if the compost was peat free, so he is aware of some conservation issues. By the way, the answer was yes it is peat free!

  14. Not much point in being a patron or president of an organisation whose work you are not interested in. I don’t think the ‘who’ really ought to matter, what is important is their commitment. But sadly the media [in the widest sense] controls its ‘readership’ and generally celebrities are more likely to be a PR asset. There must be hundreds of people who would make excellent patrons and presidents but none will get appointed as they don’t fit the PR requirement. No one is going to attend a lecture on e.g. saving HH’s given by Joe Bloggs but heaps would go if the lecturer were Sir DA. No competition. Perhaps we need to rethink the job spec of patron/president?

  15. Hi Mark, Horncastle is about 4 miles north of the 1983 Woodhall Spa Roller, surely you were there? Lincs awaits your talk with bated breath and a number of us have already invested in Fighting for Birds. Looking forward to it.

  16. I think one point has been missed though (although H.O.T makes the point) is that even though my cycnical mind says it’s just good PR for members of the Royal’s to lend their names it works both ways as it can be good PR for organisations involving a celeberity/royal etc, I don’t think it even truly matters. I think we all know if Prince William via interenet delivers a pre-written speech about ivory it’s only to raise the issue to a wider public..benefiting both parties, I think it makes a massive difference if you know the famous face has real passion for what they’re talking about and an equally sized base of knowledge of the subject and that in my opinion is when “celebrity” patronage works best.
    The most engaging celeberity campaining on a issue I ever met was weirdly Anette Crosby (One foot in the Grave etc) talking about racing greyhounds, she’d scare/out shout George Galloway anyday 🙂

  17. I don’t think conservation organisations need be too fussy about the details of their patrons – assuming that they won’t make genuinely daft appointments. Conservation is only supported by a trivially small proportion of the population compared with the number of people we need to influence to effect the real change that is needed.

    Against that background, a patron – in the way that most charities ‘use’ them – has to be a good thing. The more high profile the celebrity, the better. The mere fact that HRH might endorse an issue or attend a launch will attract a level of press coverage that most NGOs could not afford in advertising. Royal presence at an event will perhaps also entice the odd official or authority to attend who would not have otherwise, and thereby hopefully increase their interest or even commitment to the cause. And, in the main, the Royals will be seen as a safe pair of hands (their personal judgement and that of their advisors should ensure they don’t endorse just any old thing), hopefully reinforcing the importance of the issue for the wider public, as well as raising its profile.

    All of which should, you’d like to think, promote and endorse and garner wider support for the issues the NGO sees as important. It’s advertising with benefits. And generally (I guess) free. I’d not like to quantify the difference they make, but I’d be fairly confident it’s a positive one.

    The Chris Packham’s of the world will, I guess, be more passionate advocates. But aside from Sir David Attenborough, I’d doubt there are many A list patrons who are experts with that wider appeal that will reach beyond conservation NGOs’ normal audience.

    So, to your question, are these NGOs ‘thoroughly embedded in the Establishment’? Perhaps I’m being naïve, but I very much doubt that’s the case. I presume the relationship is pretty superficial, and that no-one – from the public to decision-makers – sees it as more than that?

    Unless, Mark, you know different?

  18. My local wildlife trust BBOWT has Steve Backshall as its president. I hear that pleases a few of the female members, but in all seriousness, I’m not sure if it actually matters much. Never did.

  19. I don’t think any NGO appoints a patron to enhance the prestige of the patron. We all do it because we think it will benefit our organisation. In other words we aim to exploit their fame/notoriety. No doubt some are better than others and the WLT seems to have adopted the right approach and got the right patrons, others may get less benefit. Nevertheless provided there is little or no ‘cost’ to appointing a well known person as patron, if they attract one extra donation or one extra member it could be seen as a success.
    It would be quite interesting to know just how much benefit different patrons bring. Then we could choose more wisely -and, no doubt, create a market!

    1. It would be interesting, as Paul says, to find out what benefit patrons bring. Perhaps it could be a question asked by NGO’s when they regularly ask the views of their memberships. I suspect though that for many members it makes little odds. It might also be an idea to ask patrons themselves why they have agreed to be a patron of a certain organisation. I bet ego isnt mentioned much!

  20. Greenpeace is headed by a Rhodes Scholar, and so is probably funded by Rothschild, or some other high level Freemason, Banker.. and probably a Knight of Malta.

Comments are closed.