-
I completely agree that the 'dying again and again' messaging won't chime with most people affected by Alzheimer's or their families/carers. But if it cuts through with potentail donors then...
The comms and fundraising functions and the information/support/coalface functions of a large charity will often be separated by sufficient work siloes/layers of bureaucracy that the former can put out a campaign with messaging that would dismay the latter without being subject to checks and balances.
There are, of course, documented policies and other lip-service to the idea of reflecting real experiences (AS had an explicit policy of putting the 'voice of the client' into every meeting and work output, as do many other charities I've worked for), but at the end of the day income generation will often come first.
E11_FTW-
But if it cuts through with potentail donors then...
That I assume is the risk / reward calculation you referred to.
While it has clearly pissed of a large section of people living with dementia, and AS seem not to have really engaged in the discussion with these people, seems they consider raising money for research of a cure far outweighing the feelings of people and famlies.
Another area they seem weak in is preventative intervention promotion, and interventions that improve cognitive health for people with dementia.
If they raised similar sums of money for these things that improve people's lives now they'd be doing do much more good
skydancer
I am sure you are right. But what big league charities produce a campaign that has greatly disturbed the people they are supposed to support? The experience of every person with dementia is different, and the grief in families is expressed in very different ways. With a broad clinical experience I have not found this to be the norm, and how will someone worried about dementia be encouraged to see a doctor by portraying their future in this way?