Last month’s revelation that alcohol charities were receiving funding from drinks companies was no great surprise. Charities always walk a tightrope on funding. If they take money from alcohol companies, people say there are influenced by them. If they take money from pharmaceutical companies, people will say there are influenced by them. The list of corporate villains from whom charities should take nothing is almost endless in the eyes of many.

When Granville Sharp found escaped slave Jonathan Strong outside his brother’s surgery for the poor in Cheapside in 1765, it was the spark that started the campaign to end the slave trade. Strong’s face had been beaten to a pulp by a pistol-whipping from his owner. Over the next two years, Sharp and his brothers restored Strong to full health. But then his owner demanded him back…

Charities worry quite a lot about their independence. However, they tend to worry about independence from government and interference from politicians. What our research shows is that charities are hemmed in on all sides by the perceptions and stereotypes of stakeholders. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that independence is a mirage; charities will always have a multitude of stakeholder ‘prejudices’ to take into account, rather than simply doing what is best for beneficiaries.

Most charities segment their supporters by the easy stuff. For donors, this means how recently have people given, how frequently have people given and how much they have given (or RFV in the fundraiser lexicon). For many charities this works well, but for some it is a segmentation strategy that limits the ability to understand the dynamics of their supporter base.

The new research that we released this week shows that, on average, the public think seven or eight months is about the right amount of reserves for a charity to have in the bank. Around half of those who expressed a view thought six months of expenditure or less was the right level. Interestingly though, when the same people were asked how much a £12 million charity should keep in reserve, the average dropped to around £3 to £4 million.

So the latest slogan of the fundraising movement is ‘proud to be a fundraiser’. At first sight, this is an admirable sentiment. Fundraisers bring in vitals funds that make the amazing work of charities happen. Of course people should be proud to be a fundraiser.

I, like many others, happily acquiesced to the idea. Or that was until I was watching the news about pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine. I realised they were almost certainly proud to be Russian. Is it too fanciful to compare Russian nationalists with people who are proud to be fundraisers? Probably.

I am speaking at the CharityComms seminar next week on brand and reputation, both of which are invaluable components of a charity’s success.

So, based on our research, here are some simple ways to help build the trust and the reputation of your charity in the eyes of key supporters.

1. Emphasise localness

When we ask the public what improves their trust in a charity, they repeatedly tell us that knowing a charity does something locally is really important, particularly our older respondents.

Research for our new report, ‘A Healthy Audience’, looks at the relationship between the number of people with a particular medical condition or disability and the size of the largest charity supporting those affected. Here are some interesting nuggets from the report.

It’s a word in vogue, is transparency. It’s used as a term of chastisement for charities - ‘charities need to be transparent’. It is often used with its twin sister term; accountable. These two together, ‘transparent and accountable’, have edged out the now less popular ‘trust and confidence’.

Fundraisers are being subjected to a form of torture. On the one hand, they are highly dependent on fundraising techniques which cause a high degree of aggravation. On the other hand, it is those very fundraising techniques which are the most effective in raising money. They are pulled in these two different directions; the need to raise money and the pressure to reduce annoyance and irritation.