The document is a report by Cimigo that analyzes philanthropic attitudes and sentiments in Vietnam. Some key findings include: - There is a high rate of giving (82%) but contributions are low in frequency (2-3 times per year or less) and amount (typically under 500,000 VND). Lack of trust in organizations is a barrier. - Disaster relief, children's causes, and support for the disabled are most likely to motivate giving. Smaller community organizations may struggle to attract funds for less prominent causes. - Demographic targeting could increase efficiency, as people are more likely to support causes related to themselves (e.g. seniors support senior causes). - Direct

1. Philanthropic Attitudes
& Sentiments
in Vietnam Today!
A report by:
July 2012
A report by:
for

2. 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 funds
can be pooled to help local people to meet local needs.
Given LIN’s aim to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic environment, Cimigo
offered to conduct a study amongst the general population of Vietnam to understand their
sentiments toward philanthropic activity.
This report contains the state of play of philanthropic
attitudes and sentiments in Vietnam today.
We hope you enjoy this report and continue to
support LIN’s mission.
2
This report contains the state of play of philanthropic
attitudes and sentiments in Vietnam today.
We hope you enjoy this report and continue to
support LIN’s mission.

3. Philanthropy in Vietnam Today...
In Vietnam there is a high incidence of giving (82%), but at a low frequency and with relatively
small sums. People give what they can, but with 63% indicating they have refused to give to a
charity 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 the
disabled. This may cause problems for smaller NPOs that focus on, for example, community
development 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 Senior
Citizens. This lends itself to opportunities to increase efficiency of NPO activity through reaching
out 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 linked
to their need for “trust”. But actual engagement with charities is triggered by a very wide range
of sources – from local residential authorities through to online. This fragmentation may cause
difficulties for smaller NPOs to manage.
3
In Vietnam there is a high incidence of giving (82%), but at a low frequency and with relatively
small sums. People give what they can, but with 63% indicating they have refused to give to a
charity 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 the
disabled. This may cause problems for smaller NPOs that focus on, for example, community
development 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 Senior
Citizens. This lends itself to opportunities to increase efficiency of NPO activity through reaching
out 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 linked
to their need for “trust”. But actual engagement with charities is triggered by a very wide range
of sources – from local residential authorities through to online. This fragmentation may cause
difficulties for smaller NPOs to manage.

4. 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 explore
further 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 yet
overcoming 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 who
have 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, direct
contact 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 is
unclear where or how to give. LIN could support by:
 Exploring new means of making donations, e.g. with mobile money transfer services, that
make 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 explore
further 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 yet
overcoming 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 who
have 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, direct
contact 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 is
unclear where or how to give. LIN could support by:
 Exploring new means of making donations, e.g. with mobile money transfer services, that
make it possible to conduct national collections of smaller sums with convenience for all.

5. PartPart1.1.
What is our propensity to give
today?
PartPart1.1.

6. The vast majority of people (8-in-10) do make contributions to
charitable organisations, but with low frequency…
Contributed to Charitable Organisation (%)
82 18
Given money, time, or
expertise in Past 5 Years
Yes No
The incidence of giving is high, but the
frequency of giving is low, 2-3x per year or
less.
This may indicate an opportunity to increase
frequency 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 4
Frequency of giving
over the past 1 year
=> Monthly 4-5x 2-3x 1x None
The incidence of giving is high, but the
frequency of giving is low, 2-3x per year or
less.
This may indicate an opportunity to increase
frequency through overcoming barriers;
barriers could include:
 Knowledge – give to whom?
 Trust – is the receiver reliable?
 Channel – how to give?

7. Contributions tend to be monetary, and in relatively small sums…
Value of Contributions in Past 1 Year in VND (%)
64 19 10 11 6
Size of annual
contribution
<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 the
low frequency and low sums may indicate systemic problems that LIN and partners could work
to 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 be
convenient. LIN & partners may want to consider partnerships with emerging mobile
money-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 the
low frequency and low sums may indicate systemic problems that LIN and partners could work
to 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 be
convenient. LIN & partners may want to consider partnerships with emerging mobile
money-transfer companies that would allow for national-scale collection with ease &
convenience for people, and able to handle small-sum transfers too.

8. PartPart2.2.
Which causes are likely to
stimulate us to give?
PartPart2.2.

9. Vietnamese people are most likely to come together to alleviate a
disaster or to support the disabled & children. But this may
highlight 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 the
major causes, it also reveals the difficulty that
many smaller, grass-roots NPOs may have in
attracting funds.
If these smaller NPOs are focused on community
development issues, for example, this may not be
top-of-mind for people to donate to.
This perhaps highlights the importance of
organisations such as LIN to help stimulate
funding 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 the
major causes, it also reveals the difficulty that
many smaller, grass-roots NPOs may have in
attracting funds.
If these smaller NPOs are focused on community
development issues, for example, this may not be
top-of-mind for people to donate to.
This perhaps highlights the importance of
organisations such as LIN to help stimulate
funding of these smaller, but still worthy activities.

10. 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 efficiency
of gathering donations…
Some variations were observed within
demographics, but in largely obvious ways.
For example older people were more likely to
support Senior Citizens’ charities than
younger people.
This suggests, as with marketing branded
products, a segmentation of donors is likely
to yield greater efficiencies.
LIN and partners may be able to help NPOs
identify target groups that will be more
responsive to engagement with that
particular 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 within
demographics, but in largely obvious ways.
For example older people were more likely to
support Senior Citizens’ charities than
younger people.
This suggests, as with marketing branded
products, a segmentation of donors is likely
to yield greater efficiencies.
LIN and partners may be able to help NPOs
identify target groups that will be more
responsive to engagement with that
particular NPO and cause.

11. PartPart3.3.
Who are we likely to give to?
PartPart3.3.

12. Whilst international NPOs, religious bodies, and government
agencies have most support in total, it is clear that there is room
for independent NPOs as well...
Your 1st Choice for Donations (%)
32VN Independent Orgs. (e.g.local
orphanages, disabled schools...)
Perhaps with government agencies in the North and religious organisations in the South, there
are few surprises in the geographically driven differences. It is interesting though that
Vietnamese independent organisations are well supported too which shows the potential for
grassroots 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. Fatherland
Front,Women's Union)
Religious Orgs (e.g. Pagodas, Churches)
VN Independent Orgs. (e.g.local
orphanages, disabled schools...)
HCMC Hanoi

13. Issues with reliability and transparency have caused 6-in-10 people
not 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 major
governmental and religious bodies to be
a first choice may be due to their
longevity of establishment and thus
supposed trustworthiness.
With 6-in-10 having refused to give to
charity at some point, clearly there’s an
opportunity for LIN and partners to
support the perception of credibility of
many 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 major
governmental and religious bodies to be
a first choice may be due to their
longevity of establishment and thus
supposed trustworthiness.
With 6-in-10 having refused to give to
charity at some point, clearly there’s an
opportunity for LIN and partners to
support the perception of credibility of
many other NPOs.

14. A way to stimulate trust as well as funding may be to work hand in
hand with manufacturers or other brand owners…
More Likely to Try a Product
If Profits Went to a Charity (%)
4% I would give it a try
If given a choice between two products, with
one having some of the profit go to a charity,
nearly half of people said they would try
that product.
With smaller organisations perhaps
struggling to demonstrate credibility, it may
be possible to partner with established
brands for mutual benefit.
The benefits are not just in the funding from
the brand owner, but also the halo effect of
a trustworthy brand supporting a lesser-
known NPO.
14
47%
49%
I'd still need to
consider other
factors
(Price,brand,etc)
I would not try it
If given a choice between two products, with
one having some of the profit go to a charity,
nearly half of people said they would try
that product.
With smaller organisations perhaps
struggling to demonstrate credibility, it may
be possible to partner with established
brands for mutual benefit.
The benefits are not just in the funding from
the brand owner, but also the halo effect of
a trustworthy brand supporting a lesser-
known NPO.

15. PartPart4.4.
And how can we get the word
out…
PartPart4.4.

16. Online social networks may need to become a key channel as they
can be “mass” and yet still maintain direct & personal contact to
build necessary trust…
Sources of Information on
Charitable Organisations (%)
33
38
Friend Referral
Direct Solicitation
Perhaps because of the “trust” factor, direct
contact with a charity or friendships are important
sources of information. However, these
approaches are people-heavy and difficult to turn
“mass”.
Given that the vast majority of young people and
higher-income groups are now online in urban
areas, NPOs probably need to consider this
channel, particularly via social networks, to get
their cause heard & supported.
Social networks combine the factors of direct
approach, friend referral, and ease of access.
Social media capability building could be a key
area of support that LIN and partners could
provide.
16
22
9
24
26
33
Other
Radio
Newspaper
TV
Online
Perhaps because of the “trust” factor, direct
contact with a charity or friendships are important
sources of information. However, these
approaches are people-heavy and difficult to turn
“mass”.
Given that the vast majority of young people and
higher-income groups are now online in urban
areas, NPOs probably need to consider this
channel, particularly via social networks, to get
their cause heard & supported.
Social networks combine the factors of direct
approach, friend referral, and ease of access.
Social media capability building could be a key
area of support that LIN and partners could
provide.

17. People became engaged with a charity through a very broad range
of sources making this a complex area for smaller NPOs…
From local authorities
at residential areas
From
workplace/school
From television
Sources of Engagement on
Last Charitable Activity Made (%)
As can be seen, a wide range of sources triggered
our sample’s last engagement with a charity.
With this diverse range of potential engagement
channels, NPOs may need support and capability
building in the area of managing this.
Mass media is desirable, but may be difficult for
grassroots organisations to mobilise. Therefore,
for such organisations a focus may need to be on
other channels (e.g. online) that are open and can
be used to effectively reach various interest
groups in the population.
17
21%
20%
10%9%
8%
8%
5%
19%
From television
From the press
From the Internet
From friends/family
From
churches/pagodas
Other
As can be seen, a wide range of sources triggered
our sample’s last engagement with a charity.
With this diverse range of potential engagement
channels, NPOs may need support and capability
building in the area of managing this.
Mass media is desirable, but may be difficult for
grassroots organisations to mobilise. Therefore,
for such organisations a focus may need to be on
other channels (e.g. online) that are open and can
be used to effectively reach various interest
groups in the population.

18. AppendixAppendix
Respondent Profiles and
Detailed Charts
AppendixAppendix

19. 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 by
a mixed-mode method of
Telephone and Online
interviewing.
Total number of respondents was
N=1028
19
Male Female
Age Ratio of Respondents (%)
28 25 33 13Age
15-24 25-34 35-49 50-64
HCMC Hanoi Other

20. 45
43
48
41
46 47 54
20
23
17
25
20 19
14
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

21. 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

22. SOS Children Village
(Làng trẻ em SOS)
Red Cross (Hội Chữ Thập Đỏ)
Disability Resource and
Development (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 Front
Mặt Trận Tổ Quốc)
Youth Union (Đoàn Thanh Niên)
Audio library for the Blind (Thư Viện
Sách 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

23. 52
19
13
Direct
solicitation
Friend
referral
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

24. TheThe Voice of the CustomerVoice of the Customer
www.cimigo.vnwww.cimigo.vn
giangvuong@cimigo.comgiangvuong@cimigo.com
Client Service DirectorClient Service Director
www.cimigo.vnwww.cimigo.vn
giangvuong@cimigo.comgiangvuong@cimigo.com
Client Service DirectorClient Service Director