Oxfam revisited

On 2003-09-04 at 21:30:16 PST I wrote:

I have only just this minute sent off an e-mail to Oxfam,
with links to the various threads in which we have
been talking about them and inviting them to help us
out where we're making the wrong inferences. Perhaps
they'll be able to clarify all this for us.

I have no wish to resurrect the Oxfam threads (http://tinyurl.com/pwo9,
http://tinyurl.com/pwoj, http://tinyurl.com/pwon, http://tinyurl.com/pwo4),
but since I had had no reply a month later I contacted Oxfam again, and got
a reply from Allan Clarke, data manager of the trading division, answering
the points I raised and saying that my first e-mail must have slipped
through the net.

Firstly, he agreed that their shops are not making much more money now than
ten years ago or so. In fact, he went further and said that in 2000/01
Oxfam's gross income from trading was just £6.2m, little more than a third
of its level in the mid-nineties. The reasons cited were "a tough
combination of changes in retail employment law, sharp rent increases and an
increase in low-cost retailers".

The following year, Oxfam conducted a comprehensive review, which "led to
our Shop Managers being more empowered to make decisions local to their
shop - as it is our shop managers who know their local markets so well. As a
result of this, our profits have sharply increased to £15.4m in the
financial year 2002/03" (i.e., profits from shops are back to their level in
the mid-nineties).

The on-topic part of this posting is the following: "One of the ways we have
achieved this [i.e., the increase in profits from trading] is by being
trusted by our donors of books to get a decent price for them. This success
has led to Oxfam becoming the largest second-hand book seller in the United
Kingdom." He didn't attempt to answer the point about whether their
"collectible" books were always as collectible as they claimed, but he
probably isn't qualified to deal with that issue. From what he says, though,
it would seem that the shop managers are largely responsible for pricing, so
I would imagine that would lead to a tremendous amount of local variation.

He went on to say, "As well as being the most profitable charity retailer,
we are also the most efficient at turning sales into contribution. This is
in no small part due to the contribution of time by 23,000 volunteers."

Then came the question of the apparent increase in total Oxfam expenditure
from £11.1m in 96/97 to £74.5m in 2001/02. He explained that the £11.1m
figure does not include retail expenditure, since at that time the law did
not require charities to report that expenditure. "The law changed and now
charities include...shop costs in expenditure, which is why it looks to have
risen so dramatically."

He wanted to make it clear that the expenses of retail outlets were financed
entirely out of the income received from shops and money from cash donations
was completely separate and was never recycled into subsidising the
expenditure on retail outlets. "Somebody giving Oxfam £5 in cash will see
most of that money going to the programme... None of this £5 will go on shop
costs. If you were to purchase something for £5 in a shop, then shop costs
will come out of this £5."

Anyone wanting further information about any of the above can contact Oxfam
directly at .

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com