Why We Ask for Consent Before Telling Anyone's Story

The most effective fundraising image is a child in visible distress. Everyone in this sector knows it. It is also the reason charity communication has a bad reputation, and we have decided not to do it.

This article explains what we ask before publishing anything about a person, and why we hold to it even when it costs us.

What we require

For an adult: their agreement, having understood where the story will appear and roughly who will see it. "Can I take a photo" is not consent. "This may go on our website and social media, where anyone can see it, and it will stay there" is.

For a child: the written permission of a parent or guardian, obtained before publication, and where the child is old enough to understand, their own agreement too. A guardian can permit, but a child who does not want to be photographed should not be.

For medical information: explicit permission covering the specific detail. Someone consenting to a photograph has not consented to their diagnosis being published.

For anything identifying a home: care with detail. A story naming a village, a school and a family situation identifies a household even without a surname.

Why written, and why beforehand

Not because we distrust people, but because memory is unreliable and circumstances change.

A parent agreeing verbally during a difficult week may not recall what they agreed to. A written record protects them as much as us: it says exactly what was permitted, so nothing can quietly expand later.

Beforehand matters because consent obtained after publication is not consent. It is asking someone to approve something already done, which is a very different question, particularly when the person asking has been helping their family.

The power problem

This is the part that is uncomfortable and worth naming.

When an organisation that has been delivering food asks a family to be photographed, the family is not in a neutral position. They may fear that saying no affects what they receive. They may simply feel they owe something.

So we say explicitly that declining changes nothing. The supplies still come. The visits still happen. Nobody is quietly moved down a list.

We also try to ask at a different moment from delivering help, so the two are not tangled together. It is imperfect. Being aware of the imbalance is better than pretending it is not there.

What consent does not cover

Even with permission, some things we will not publish.

A child in visible distress. A crying child raises more money. It also strips a person of dignity at the worst moment of their life, and they cannot meaningfully consent to how they will feel about that at twenty-five.

Medical detail that serves no purpose. If a story works without a diagnosis, the diagnosis stays out.

Anything a child might later be ashamed of. The internet does not forget. A child photographed today may be applying for a job in fifteen years with that image still findable. Guardians consenting today cannot fully consent on behalf of that adult.

What it costs us

Honestly: reach and money.

Our photographs show a team at work, supplies being delivered, an ordinary afternoon at a centre. They are less affecting than the alternative, and they will raise less.

We think that is the right trade. An organisation whose purpose is protecting vulnerable people cannot make an exception when protection becomes inconvenient. The first time you decide a particular story is too valuable to leave untold, the principle is gone.

What you can expect

If you are a family we work with: nothing about you appears anywhere without your agreement. If you change your mind, tell us and we will take it down. You do not need a reason.

If you are a supporter: the stories you read here are real and told with permission. Where we cannot get permission, you will get a less vivid account rather than a compelling one about someone who did not agree.

If you are a business or a partner: we will not stage photographs of beneficiaries for your marketing. That is not us being difficult, it is the same rule applied consistently.

If you think we have got something wrong, tell us. We would rather hear it than have it stand.