A recent Ipsos Mori report found that the UK was the fifth most accurate country of 14 included in a study of the gaps between perception and reality. Despite this relatively high ranking, the report reveals a dizzying array of under and overestimations. Britons overestimate the proportion of immigrants by a factor of four, underestimate election turnout to be just under half when the real figure is two thirds and guess unemployment is three times its actual value.

In the charity sector, public perception is powerful. Perception of a charity’s brand, of its cause or of how it manages its money can all dramatically influence its levels of support. But, as the figures above show, the public is easily misled. In an age of increasing information from an increasingly disparate and not always reliable range of sources, we can be left with a skewed vision of reality.

From our own research, we know the perception of charities can be just as skewed as for other sectors. In charitable spending, the public estimate that 37% of a charity’s income goes on admin, 26% on fundraising and a mere 38% on the cause. According to the Charity Commission website, for the year up to the 30^th September 2014, charities in England and Wales actually spent 83% of their total income on ‘charitable spending’. This is defined as “costs incurred by charities in supplying goods, services or grants to meet the needs of their beneficiaries.” It does not include costs of income generation (generating voluntary income, trading to raise funds and investment management), nor costs of running the charity (governance). In other words, charities spend not 38%, but 83% of total income on the cause.

This gulf between perception and reality highlights an important problem which requires discussion across a multitude of sectors. Where public engagement is present, public knowledge must also be. In political debates and particularly around election time, ensuring the public’s perception is accurately informed is crucial. In fields such as climate change, immigration and crime, voters must be aware of the reality before choosing which course of action to support.

But can we hope that public perception will ever reflect reality? One of the most influential drivers of public perception is the media, which has recently been under scrutiny over its representation of UKIP versus the Green Party. Whilst a rigid curtailment of media freedom seems both inappropriate and ineffective (it could simply spur other less reliable sources of news and comment), there is an urgent need for the media to recognise its role in informing society, and to act responsibly in light of this. The media must be sensitive to its power over public perception.

However, the traditional media is not the only source of public knowledge today. Whilst social media and the internet have in part fuelled the spread of misinformation, they are also critical information channels for charities to reclaim. By speaking directly to the public rather than letting their information filter through the media, charities today have a fantastic opportunity to inform people and ensure perceptions don’t stray too far from the truth.

What is perhaps most important for charities to take from this is that when it comes to the public, perception is just as important as reality, if not more so. No matter how accurate, it is the perception of a charity which drives its support, both financial and otherwise. In the example from our research above, the public significantly underestimates the efficiency of charities and therefore the power of the donations they have made.

By minimising the perception gap, charities can be celebrated for the reality of their work and hand the public the power of an informed choice.

Have we gone up in your estimation? Or should we guess you didn't agree? Leave us a comment below.