Philanthropic Attitudes& Sentiments

in Vietnam Today!

A report by:

July 2012

A report by:

for

The LIN Center for Community Development serves grassroots not-for-profit organizations(NPO) and individual and corporate philanthropists.

Through bringing together NPOs & donors, resources such as expertise, knowledge, and fundscan be pooled to help local people to meet local needs.

Given LIN’s aim to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic environment, Cimigooffered to conduct a study amongst the general population of Vietnam to understand theirsentiments toward philanthropic activity.

This report contains the state of play of philanthropicattitudes and sentiments in Vietnam today.

We hope you enjoy this report and continue tosupport LIN’s mission.

2

This report contains the state of play of philanthropicattitudes and sentiments in Vietnam today.

We hope you enjoy this report and continue tosupport LIN’s mission.

Philanthropy in Vietnam Today...

In Vietnam there is a high incidence of giving (82%), but at a low frequency and with relativelysmall sums. People give what they can, but with 63% indicating they have refused to give to acharity due to lack of trust, clearly this is a barrier to opening up more sources of support.

The biggest causes that trigger support relate to disaster relief and charities for children and thedisabled. This may cause problems for smaller NPOs that focus on, for example, communitydevelopment projects as this type of cause is not top-of-mind for the general population.

As anywhere, people have a tendency to support causes more when they relate to that person.For example, Senior Citizens are more likely to contribute toward charities that support SeniorCitizens. This lends itself to opportunities to increase efficiency of NPO activity through reachingout to people who are connected in some way to that NPO’s specific cause.

People tend to find out about charities as a result of direct contact or via friends, perhaps linkedto their need for “trust”. But actual engagement with charities is triggered by a very wide rangeof sources – from local residential authorities through to online. This fragmentation may causedifficulties for smaller NPOs to manage.

3

In Vietnam there is a high incidence of giving (82%), but at a low frequency and with relativelysmall sums. People give what they can, but with 63% indicating they have refused to give to acharity due to lack of trust, clearly this is a barrier to opening up more sources of support.

The biggest causes that trigger support relate to disaster relief and charities for children and thedisabled. This may cause problems for smaller NPOs that focus on, for example, communitydevelopment projects as this type of cause is not top-of-mind for the general population.

As anywhere, people have a tendency to support causes more when they relate to that person.For example, Senior Citizens are more likely to contribute toward charities that support SeniorCitizens. This lends itself to opportunities to increase efficiency of NPO activity through reachingout to people who are connected in some way to that NPO’s specific cause.

People tend to find out about charities as a result of direct contact or via friends, perhaps linkedto their need for “trust”. But actual engagement with charities is triggered by a very wide rangeof sources – from local residential authorities through to online. This fragmentation may causedifficulties for smaller NPOs to manage.

Areas of support for NPOs that LIN may want to explore further…The data would suggest that there are some key areas that LIN and partners may want to explorefurther to help support NPOs in gaining traction with the general population:

Trust: It is difficult for smaller NPOs to build consciousness and credibility with the public, and yetovercoming this barrier is key to triggering support. LIN may be able to help through:

Arranging partnerships with larger brands so that the brand’s image supports the NPO’s Continue to build LIN’s profile so that it can be used as a “referee” for lesser-known NPOs Engage with authorities to build an officially recognised register of accredited NPOs.

Efficiency: Greater outcomes relative to inputs can be yielded by targeting groups of people whohave a closer connection to an NPO’s cause. LIN may be able to help through:

Capability building in the area of segmentation and identification of “target” groups.

Social Media: Online social media combines the benefits of personal referral from friends, directcontact from NPOs, and ease of reaching “target” groups. Cost of entry is also low. Consequently,this might become a key medium for engaging supporters. LIN could support by:

Capability building & training on the deployment and use of social media.

Donation Channels: It may be difficult for people to donate even small sums frequently as it isunclear where or how to give. LIN could support by:

Exploring new means of making donations, e.g. with mobile money transfer services, thatmake it possible to conduct national collections of smaller sums with convenience for all.

4

The data would suggest that there are some key areas that LIN and partners may want to explorefurther to help support NPOs in gaining traction with the general population:

Trust: It is difficult for smaller NPOs to build consciousness and credibility with the public, and yetovercoming this barrier is key to triggering support. LIN may be able to help through:

Arranging partnerships with larger brands so that the brand’s image supports the NPO’s Continue to build LIN’s profile so that it can be used as a “referee” for lesser-known NPOs Engage with authorities to build an officially recognised register of accredited NPOs.

Efficiency: Greater outcomes relative to inputs can be yielded by targeting groups of people whohave a closer connection to an NPO’s cause. LIN may be able to help through:

Capability building in the area of segmentation and identification of “target” groups.

Social Media: Online social media combines the benefits of personal referral from friends, directcontact from NPOs, and ease of reaching “target” groups. Cost of entry is also low. Consequently,this might become a key medium for engaging supporters. LIN could support by:

Capability building & training on the deployment and use of social media.

Donation Channels: It may be difficult for people to donate even small sums frequently as it isunclear where or how to give. LIN could support by:

Exploring new means of making donations, e.g. with mobile money transfer services, thatmake it possible to conduct national collections of smaller sums with convenience for all.

PartPart1.1.

What is our propensity to givetoday?

PartPart1.1.

The vast majority of people (8-in-10) do make contributions tocharitable organisations, but with low frequency…

Contributed to Charitable Organisation (%)

82 18Given money, time, or

expertise in Past 5 Years

Yes No

The incidence of giving is high, but thefrequency of giving is low, 2-3x per year orless.

This may indicate an opportunity to increasefrequency through overcoming barriers;barriers could include:

Knowledge – give to whom? Trust – is the receiver reliable? Channel – how to give?

6

Yes No

Frequency of Contribution (%)

11 20 45 20 4Frequency of givingover the past 1 year

=> Monthly 4-5x 2-3x 1x None

The incidence of giving is high, but thefrequency of giving is low, 2-3x per year orless.

This may indicate an opportunity to increasefrequency through overcoming barriers;barriers could include:

Knowledge – give to whom? Trust – is the receiver reliable? Channel – how to give?

Contributions tend to be monetary, and in relatively small sums…

Value of Contributions in Past 1 Year in VND (%)

64 19 10 11 6Size of annualcontribution

<500k 500k-1m >1m-5m >5m-10m >10m Not Money

People often give what they can and the headline is not meant in a disparaging way. But thelow frequency and low sums may indicate systemic problems that LIN and partners could workto overcome:

Trust – are people giving less because of “misuse” worries? Understanding – do people give money because it is easier or is it they unaware that

physical effort or expertise can also be “given”? Channel – people may not know how or where to give. The sums are too small for banks

(and many won’t have bank accounts). Collection points may be too dispersed to beconvenient. LIN & partners may want to consider partnerships with emerging mobilemoney-transfer companies that would allow for national-scale collection with ease &convenience for people, and able to handle small-sum transfers too.

7

People often give what they can and the headline is not meant in a disparaging way. But thelow frequency and low sums may indicate systemic problems that LIN and partners could workto overcome:

Trust – are people giving less because of “misuse” worries? Understanding – do people give money because it is easier or is it they unaware that

physical effort or expertise can also be “given”? Channel – people may not know how or where to give. The sums are too small for banks

(and many won’t have bank accounts). Collection points may be too dispersed to beconvenient. LIN & partners may want to consider partnerships with emerging mobilemoney-transfer companies that would allow for national-scale collection with ease &convenience for people, and able to handle small-sum transfers too.

PartPart2.2.

Which causes are likely tostimulate us to give?

PartPart2.2.

Vietnamese people are most likely to come together to alleviate adisaster or to support the disabled & children. But this mayhighlight problems for smaller, community oriented NPOs…

Causes Most Likely to Support (%)

42

52

62

Childrens' Rights & Dev.

Help Disabled People

Disaster Relief

Whilst revealing the widespread support for themajor causes, it also reveals the difficulty thatmany smaller, grass-roots NPOs may have inattracting funds.

If these smaller NPOs are focused on communitydevelopment issues, for example, this may not betop-of-mind for people to donate to.

This perhaps highlights the importance oforganisations such as LIN to help stimulatefunding of these smaller, but still worthy activities.

9

12

15

23

25

30

39

42

Community Dev.

Healthcare

Senior Citizens

Environment

Education

Poverty & Welfare

Childrens' Rights & Dev.

Whilst revealing the widespread support for themajor causes, it also reveals the difficulty thatmany smaller, grass-roots NPOs may have inattracting funds.

If these smaller NPOs are focused on communitydevelopment issues, for example, this may not betop-of-mind for people to donate to.

This perhaps highlights the importance oforganisations such as LIN to help stimulatefunding of these smaller, but still worthy activities.

17

32

35

49

Senior Citizens - 15-24…

Senior Citizens - >50…

Children - Males

Children - Females

Causes Most Likely to Support (%)Some Demographic Differences

Targeting groups and segmenting donors may help in the efficiencyof gathering donations…

Some variations were observed withindemographics, but in largely obvious ways.For example older people were more likely tosupport Senior Citizens’ charities thanyounger people.

This suggests, as with marketing brandedproducts, a segmentation of donors is likelyto yield greater efficiencies.

LIN and partners may be able to help NPOsidentify target groups that will be moreresponsive to engagement with thatparticular NPO and cause.

10

28

39

47

57

17

Education - HCMC

Education - Hanoi

Disabled - Hanoi

Disabled - HCMC

Senior Citizens - 15-24…

Some variations were observed withindemographics, but in largely obvious ways.For example older people were more likely tosupport Senior Citizens’ charities thanyounger people.

This suggests, as with marketing brandedproducts, a segmentation of donors is likelyto yield greater efficiencies.

LIN and partners may be able to help NPOsidentify target groups that will be moreresponsive to engagement with thatparticular NPO and cause.

PartPart3.3.

Who are we likely to give to?

PartPart3.3.

Whilst international NPOs, religious bodies, and governmentagencies have most support in total, it is clear that there is roomfor independent NPOs as well...

Your 1st Choice for Donations (%)

32VN Independent Orgs. (e.g.localorphanages, disabled schools...)

Perhaps with government agencies in the North and religious organisations in the South, thereare few surprises in the geographically driven differences. It is interesting though thatVietnamese independent organisations are well supported too which shows the potential forgrassroots NPOs to gain engagement.

12

9

23

30

13

25

9

13

17

30

32

Corporate Programs (e.g. Vinamilk fund;Vina Capital Foundation fund)

Intern'l Orgs (e.g.Operation Smile,Handicap international)

VN Govermental Orgs. (e.g. FatherlandFront,Women's Union)

Religious Orgs (e.g. Pagodas, Churches)

VN Independent Orgs. (e.g.localorphanages, disabled schools...)

HCMC Hanoi

Issues with reliability and transparency have caused 6-in-10 peoplenot to give to a charity at some point…

Ever Refused to Give to a Charity (%)

63 38Refused to give?

Yes No

Reason for Refusal (%)

A reason for some of the majorgovernmental and religious bodies to bea first choice may be due to theirlongevity of establishment and thussupposed trustworthiness.

With 6-in-10 having refused to give tocharity at some point, clearly there’s anopportunity for LIN and partners tosupport the perception of credibility ofmany other NPOs.

13

Reason for Refusal (%)

2

12

22

63

65

Other

I don't know how to

Not enough time or money

Process of funding is unclear

Organisation is not "Reliable"

A reason for some of the majorgovernmental and religious bodies to bea first choice may be due to theirlongevity of establishment and thussupposed trustworthiness.

With 6-in-10 having refused to give tocharity at some point, clearly there’s anopportunity for LIN and partners tosupport the perception of credibility ofmany other NPOs.

A way to stimulate trust as well as funding may be to work hand inhand with manufacturers or other brand owners…

More Likely to Try a ProductIf Profits Went to a Charity (%)

4% I would give it a try

If given a choice between two products, withone having some of the profit go to a charity,nearly half of people said they would trythat product.

With smaller organisations perhapsstruggling to demonstrate credibility, it maybe possible to partner with establishedbrands for mutual benefit.

The benefits are not just in the funding fromthe brand owner, but also the halo effect ofa trustworthy brand supporting a lesser-known NPO.

14

47%

49%I'd still need toconsider otherfactors(Price,brand,etc)I would not try it

If given a choice between two products, withone having some of the profit go to a charity,nearly half of people said they would trythat product.

With smaller organisations perhapsstruggling to demonstrate credibility, it maybe possible to partner with establishedbrands for mutual benefit.

The benefits are not just in the funding fromthe brand owner, but also the halo effect ofa trustworthy brand supporting a lesser-known NPO.

PartPart4.4.

And how can we get the wordout…

PartPart4.4.

Online social networks may need to become a key channel as theycan be “mass” and yet still maintain direct & personal contact tobuild necessary trust…

Sources of Information onCharitable Organisations (%)

33

38

Friend Referral

Direct Solicitation

Perhaps because of the “trust” factor, directcontact with a charity or friendships are importantsources of information. However, theseapproaches are people-heavy and difficult to turn“mass”.

Given that the vast majority of young people andhigher-income groups are now online in urbanareas, NPOs probably need to consider thischannel, particularly via social networks, to gettheir cause heard & supported.

Social networks combine the factors of directapproach, friend referral, and ease of access.Social media capability building could be a keyarea of support that LIN and partners couldprovide.

16

22

9

24

26

33

Other

Radio

Newspaper

TV

Online

Perhaps because of the “trust” factor, directcontact with a charity or friendships are importantsources of information. However, theseapproaches are people-heavy and difficult to turn“mass”.

Given that the vast majority of young people andhigher-income groups are now online in urbanareas, NPOs probably need to consider thischannel, particularly via social networks, to gettheir cause heard & supported.

Social networks combine the factors of directapproach, friend referral, and ease of access.Social media capability building could be a keyarea of support that LIN and partners couldprovide.

People became engaged with a charity through a very broad rangeof sources making this a complex area for smaller NPOs…

From local authoritiesat residential areas

Fromworkplace/school

From television

Sources of Engagement onLast Charitable Activity Made (%)

As can be seen, a wide range of sources triggeredour sample’s last engagement with a charity.

With this diverse range of potential engagementchannels, NPOs may need support and capabilitybuilding in the area of managing this.

Mass media is desirable, but may be difficult forgrassroots organisations to mobilise. Therefore,for such organisations a focus may need to be onother channels (e.g. online) that are open and canbe used to effectively reach various interestgroups in the population.

17

21%

20%10%9%

8%8%5%

19%From television

From the press

From the Internet

From friends/family

Fromchurches/pagodas

Other

As can be seen, a wide range of sources triggeredour sample’s last engagement with a charity.

With this diverse range of potential engagementchannels, NPOs may need support and capabilitybuilding in the area of managing this.

Mass media is desirable, but may be difficult forgrassroots organisations to mobilise. Therefore,for such organisations a focus may need to be onother channels (e.g. online) that are open and canbe used to effectively reach various interestgroups in the population.

AppendixAppendix

Respondent Profiles andDetailed Charts

AppendixAppendix

Gender Ratio of Respondents (%)

51 49Gender

Male Female

Geographic Ratio of Respondents (%)

46 35 19Geography

HCMC Hanoi Other

Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents

Data collection was conducted bya mixed-mode method ofTelephone and Onlineinterviewing.

Total number of respondents wasN=1028

19

Male Female

Age Ratio of Respondents (%)

28 25 33 13Age

15-24 25-34 35-49 50-64

HCMC Hanoi Other

4543

4841

46 47 54

2023

1725

20 1914

4 6 3 7 4 3 2

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

None

1x

2-3x

Frequency of Giving in Past 12 Months (%)By Key Demographics of Gender & Age

11 10 11 12 12 8 9

20 18 22 17 18 24 22

0

10

20

30

40

Total(N=864)

Male(N=404)

Female(N=460)

15-24(N=272)

25-34(N=354)

35-49(N=164)

50-64(N=74)

2-3x

4-5x

=> Monthly

20

56

51

42

42

61

53

35

42

64

51

49

35

Total(N=528)

Male Female 15-24

Disaster relief

Help to disabled people

Child's Rights & Development

Poverty & Social Welfare

61

50

40

44

67

53

46

44

65

55

46

33

50

47

30

30

35-4925-34 50-67

Causes Most Likely to Support (%)By Key Demographics of Gender & Age

42

31

27

26

19

6

42

34

25

22

14

13

35

27

25

24

15

10

Poverty & Social Welfare

Education

Environment

Help aging & Senior citizens

Health care

Community development/Improvement

44

29

27

17

14

18

44

23

20

22

13

11

33

32

19

25

16

7

30

42

41

32

16

13

21

SOS Children Village(Làng trẻ em SOS)

Red Cross (Hội Chữ Thập Đỏ)

Disability Resource andDevelopment (Chương trình Khuyết

tật và Phát triển)

UNICEF Vietnam

47

40

28

23

41

44

22

24

52

37

32

22

51

38

28

28

43

42

27

18

44

42

28

32

49

38

28

20

Total(N=528)

Male Female 15-24 25+ Hanoi HCM

Specific NPO Support (%)By Key Demographics of Gender, Age, & City

(Asked of Online respondents only)

VN Fatherland FrontMặt Trận Tổ Quốc)

Youth Union (Đoàn Thanh Niên)

Audio library for the Blind (Thư ViệnSách Nói Cho Người Mù)

Cycling for the Environment club(Câu Lạc Bộ Đạp Xe Vì Môi Trường)

Women’s Union (Hội Phụ Nữ)

16

12

7

6

5

21

14

6

5

2

12

10

7

7

8

9

13

6

8

3

23

10

8

4

8

21

7

4

4

5

11

13

12

8

6

22

52

19

13

Directsolicitation

Friendreferral

Online

38

33

33

40

35

30

31

38

39

49

19

25

53

22

33

30

43

31

Total(N=831)

Male Female 25-34 35-49 Hanoi HCM50-67

26

49

43

15-24

35

31

36

Sources of Information on Charities (%)By Key Demographics of Gender, Age, & City

29

18

4

25

TV

Newspaper

Radio

Other

26

24

9

22

24

21

9

23

28

24

6

21

24

21

14

28

30

20

11

17

22

25

8

18

26

28

9

15

27

26

9

21

23

TheThe Voice of the CustomerVoice of the Customer

www.cimigo.vnwww.cimigo.vn

giangvuong@cimigo.comgiangvuong@cimigo.comClient Service DirectorClient Service Director

www.cimigo.vnwww.cimigo.vn

giangvuong@cimigo.comgiangvuong@cimigo.comClient Service DirectorClient Service Director