Hi Christine, Leonie, Renne & Scotty,

Thank you for your support and for your time to read our report.

It is greatly appreciated :)

cheers,
Andrea & Katy

Thank you Stuart & Graeme for your comments,

It is really good to see that that the CA’s are supporting us on our ideas.

As to your comment Stuart, we think that it is extremely important that the Australian public is aware of how their donations are distributed and used, as donors need to be conscious of their effects of their donations and how it is utilised efficiently. This can provide individual donor satisfaction and encourage them as well as other prospective donors to make future contributions to the organisation. In saying that, the governance charters are a good benchmark to make sure that MSF Australia is complying to the relevant standards in relation to accountability and transparency in the area of funds raised.

Once again, thanks for your comments, they are highly valued.

Andrea & Katy

Thank you for your comments Sam, please refer to the quote from the MSF Australia’s president, Rowan Gillies that you gave to us in your response to our comments on your group: “MSF Australia strengthened its ability to SUPPORT operations over the year, with the development of the Project Unit as part of the operational directorate based in Paris, focusing on the quality of paediatric and obstetric care, as well as PROVIDING FIELD SUPPORT in those areas. (2006 Annual Report pp 10.)

While MSF Australia is taking a more active functional role, it is our understanding it is still a SUPPORTING functional role by the comments made in the 2006 Annual Report and support is provided in conjunction with other sections (France, Japan and US) as you yourself have highlighted. As such we believe any KPIs in this area would be subject to too many influences outside the control of MSF Australia, or to difficult to measure, to be considered one of the 7 key KPIs.

It is our belief that any KPIs based on operational performance should be based at the international level, such as the operational directorate in Paris, and be made in conjunction with the other MSF units involved, such as US, France and Japan. In setting operational KPIs at this level it provides shared ownership and obligation in achieving these KPIs.

If operational KPIs were set at MSF Australia we believe the success or otherwise could be hindered by the actions of other units. For example if we set a simple KPI as the number of patients treated in a country X, where Australia has a significant role, but find that the US due to their domestic downturn in their economy was not able to deliver the funds to support the operation as promised or could not provide enough staff, MSF Australia would not meet their KPI. However if this KPI was at the international level then the obligation would be on the other countries such France and Japan to help fulfil the deficit, so that the operational unit as a whole meets their KPI.

Furthermore in countries where Australia role is not as significant how could Australia measure the success of the funds or personal that they provide when they are part of a greater team? In cases like this the measurement of KPIs should be done at the international level.

The follow on to this is that we believe the KPIs at MSF Australia (and other support units) should then be aimed at providing the maximum funds and personal to support the international operations, either through the partnership arrangement in France, or other operational sections as needed.

From this understanding we developed our KPIs on efficiency, donation growth, recruitment and skill levels, in addition to the KPIs on awareness and accountability which were identified by MSF Australia as areas of concern.

Sincerely,
Andrea & Katy

p.s. we don’t mean to yell at you in caps, we just want to highlight our points as there is no bold or italics :)

Dear Judges, we would like to thank you for the chance to respond to your questions.

In answer to your first question we selected the media exposure KPI based on data MSF Australia is currently collecting and reporting on.

The amount of media mentions was referenced in both 2006 and 2007 MSF Australia’s annual statement. In the 2006 annual statements (page 26) contains very detailed information of the media coverage had in that calendar year and while not as detailed in the 2007 report (pages 8 and 9), total media mentions is included indicating this data collecting is continuing.

In basing our KPIs on data already being collected by MSF Australia we were conscious of keeping any additional costs of measurement to a minimum. While we acknowledge that there are costs in reporting on media reports, either in staff time or paying a third party media monitor, as is most likely happening now, we did not want to add to these costs.

We also applied this principle of using existing data in other KPIs such as our efficiency ratio, growth in donations, and our HR KPIs, meaning the overall additional cost of collecting data to measure these KPIs should be minimal if not very close to zero.

In addition to the current collecting of media data, other methods can include having donors answering a question about how did you hear about MSF Australia when making donations either via phone or across the internet. As mentioned in our report, the management of MSF Australia can analyse the level of donations received during periods in which additional media/fundraising campaigns are taking place and compare these to periods where this does not occur to see if there is any significant increase in donation.

This brings us onto your second question. "growth in media can lead to a decline in donations". Why do you think this occurs, and what could Médecins Sans Frontières Australia do to counteract this?

We see this occurring for two reasons.

The first is when media campaigns aimed at fundraising are not correctly targeted or costed. For instance if MSF Australia was to launch a general major cross media (i.e., paper, radio, TV and internet) the costs in this would be very high and the return on dollar raised versus dollar spent may be quite low or even negative (I.e. spend more money then money raised).

In contrast we could consider the current situation in Burma following the recent cyclone. If MSF Australia was to send additional aid to Burma (noting that MSF Australia currently supports operations here, MSF Annual Reports 2006 Page 45 and 2007 page 11) a smaller media campaign aimed at raising funds just for this project, with TV aids placed in the add breaks on TV after a news story on Burma, or on the same page of the newspaper would more likely successful in raising funds, allowing general funds to be freed up for other purposes, and be significantly cheaper, thus providing a much higher return for every dollar spent. It is possible the considering the nature of the current situation in Burma the different media agencies may be more willing to donate this air time/ page space, rather then funds, in accordance with their own community service charters to further reduce the cost.

As such carefully targeted and thought out (including cost vs benefit analysis) media fundraising strategies can help reduce this issue.

The second reason is highlighted by what happened in Sri Lanka in 2006 (as per 2006 annual report page 50) where MSF had to withdraw due to false and misleading accusations, damaging media surrounding events like this could lead to a downturn in donations and a surge in media publicity.

In cases like this MSF Australia will need to repeat what it did, that was withdraw support to minimise the damage, this way it can be seen to be doing the right thing, again reducing the problem of increased media leading to fewer donations. In doing so MSF Australia can aim to increase their reputation to better perform their goals of raising awareness and providing support for the other operational sectors of MSF International.

Hope this answers your queries.

Sincerely,

Andrea & Katy

Hey guys great job!

Comprehensive explanation of each of your KPIs, I especially liked the one which addressed the independence of MSF via the internal/external governance charter. I thought many of your examples were well supported by stats also adding to the feasibility of such KPIs.

Conclusion was good in bringing together your points. Nicely presented PPT but perhaps a little too busy with text?

Once again well done and best of luck.

Hello ‘account on us’,

I can’t stop loving the pun. Unfortunately, I’m not totally satisfied with the response to the awareness KPI, relating to increased media decreases donation. Obviously negative publicity would decrease donations, but your analysis of ‘general major cross media coverage’ seems a bit misleading. For instance, why would major companies religiously pursue ‘general major cross media coverage’ if it had no benefit, or negative effects. I have worked in the media industry or ask any marketing student, and they will tell you that broad based advertising is the most efficient way to peoples minds and wallets.

Apart from my apache on this KPI, all the others seems really well done.

Thank you Kyle and Andrew for your comments.

As to your comment Andrew, MSF Australia & MSF International has defined themselves as an independent organisation without any political influence. Therefore the governance charters are extremely important for MSF Australia and they are a good benchmark to make sure that MSF Australia is complying with international best practice in relation to accountability, ethics and transparency in the area of funds raised.

All our KPIs are carefully considered in regard to MSF Australia’s current situation, the use of examples shows how they might be used, ad we used existing data where possible to be cost effective. In this along with our KPI of efficiency in following the 80/20 rule we want to maximise the funds MSF Australia has available to support projects overseas.

Once again, thanks for your comments, they are highly valued.

Andrea & Katy :)

Thanks for you comments Carlo.

You need to consider our answer in terms of the context of the question from the judges, which was “growth in media can lead to a decline in donations", why do you think this occurs.

In answering this we started with “when media campaigns aimed at fundraising are not correctly targeted or costed”. As such, in regards to your first comment “why would major companies religiously pursue ‘general major cross media coverage’ if it had no benefit, or negative effects.”

MSF Australia needs to careful in their planning process for media advertising, think out their strategies, undertake cost benefit analysis, check that the campaign is appropriate, to ensure it will have a positive benefit, particularly as it is a not for profit organisation and the high cost associated with this form of advertising. We understand that the money collected by MSF Australia within the society comes from individuals that want to make a difference in the world, and all the donors want to see that the money is been used cost efficiently. This leads to your second point.

We would agree to you in regards to brands. General broad based advertising is a great way to raise brand awareness, as people like to be associated with brands. For example people then want to be seen with white ear plugs to show they using an Apple I Pod, kids want to go to McDonalds so they can tell their friends I went to McDonalds, etc. It should also be noted that ‘major companies’ usually have large budgets in the area related to marketing and advertising, but charities operate differently.

When it comes to donating money to charity you have no ear plugs to wear or places to visit to be associated with brands, thus not making it possible for donors to be seen to be associated with MSF Australia in the same way wearing white ear phones is seen to be associated with I-Pod.

As such general broad based advertising is not always as successful when asking for donations. While it may increase awareness of the organisation the amount of donations received may be less then the cost of the advertising campaign. This will be a ‘waste of money and time’ advertising campaign for organisation like MSF Australia.

Where as targeted fund raising campaigns such as the happened with the Red Cross Boxing Day Tsunami Appeal, can be extremely successful as individuals personally sympathise with those in need. Most people donate or volunteer to help others, not “to be seen” as happens with brand association.

Targeted campaigns may still be cross media (and thus broad in that sense) but more strategic in its placement within this media to coincide with related news. While not increasing the in awareness of the organisation as much, raises more funds per dollar spent.

How often have you seen Red Cross TV ads just advertising Red Cross (i.e. not ask for donations)? In contrast how many McDonalds TV ads have you seen just advertise McDonalds (without mentioning any McDonalds products)?

As such the point behind our answer was MSF Australia needs to be careful and strategic in how they spend their marketing budget to ensure the best possible return, in both awareness and funds raised. Failure to do so may result in inappropriate or overly costly media advertising campaigns that have little or no net benefit in terms of funds raised, even if they do increase awareness of the organisation. Thus answering the question the judges asked us.

Thanks again for taking your time to read our report.

Andrea & Katy :)

Heya guys!i reckon your KPIs are fantastic:)and your thorough research is evidenced by the clarity of (account on us)'s submission.for these reasons, i think my criticism a bit unfair so im kinda sorry for it:)...well,im critical of your conclusion.i think your report's so good: it's a shame to implicitly undermine it's significance by beginning your conclusion:'From a CA student's point of view.'expanding on this,i dont think you should suggest you've any naivety in the corporate world when recommending novel business procedure...you may brand yourself unecessarily.indeed, the statement:'From a CA student's point of view' detracts from the report's majesty:p.good luck to ya!i think you'll do very well