What comes to mind when you think about ILC’s work? This was one of the questions we posed earlier this year to our funders, partners, and friends. We spoke to Parliamentarians and civil servants, as well as journalists and people working for charities.

We wanted to get a feel for how the external perception of ILC had changed over the past five years. We aimed to take stock, steer and shape our strategy, and refine the way we work. We sought insight into how you perceive our impact.

We surveyed 4,000 people on our mailing list and received 105 responses. We also employed an external consultant to undertake longer, one-to-one interviews with fifteen stakeholders from different backgrounds.

Being conscious that you spent time responding to our survey and taking part in an interview, it is only right that we share what you said.

The good news is that the way you describe ILC is just as we would. The most common words mentioned were “research, insightful, relevant, important, and international”. Only five negative words were mentioned.

When we asked who we are, the answers aligned with how we try to describe ourselves—i.e., the expert on the impact of longevity on society.

A Chief Executive working in housing described us as “Highly professional and innovative in answering the right questions and seeking answers.” Another respondent said we were “A credible organisation for information, research, and insights relating to longevity.” One company said that “ILC is a voice with integrity, bringing facts to the front, and they spark conversation.”

Respondents from industry and academia described us as an excellent partner. “An excellent partner organisation with reach into politics and policy,” said one university stakeholder.

Our engagement with the Government was recognised. “ILC is an aid to government but non-political. It acts as an umbrella for broad ideas that address the future direction of government spending.” Our events and convening power were highly rated.

There was some nice recognition that we try to do things differently: “A serious thinktank that is never dull, always insightful. A breath of fresh air amid the stale fumes of jaded policy statements out there,” said one person.

It wasn’t all positive. One person described us as “Scattergun, arrogant, blinkered… shouty.” And there was a view that we try to do too much: “More recently, the ILC, like many other charities, has had to fight hard for funding and perhaps spread itself too thinly…”

But within these constraints, it was lovely to hear that ILC “is already achieving miracles despite its modest resources, as a result of the high quality of its staff.” Five of our fifteen long interview participants said (verbatim) that we “punch above our weight.”

And while most people understand that we are interested in demography, we are still struggling to communicate that we are not an older person’s charity. One person described us as “An international organisation taking care of the problems older people face.” We need to better communicate who we are.

We were pleased with how you valued our relationship. You find it easy to work with ILC, consider us an “accessible” and “less mysterious” think tank, and view us as a professional, well-connected organisation, producing quality work. We asked you how you would rate working with ILC, and the majority of respondents scored us 4 or 5 (out of 5).

So, what happens next? Well, you had some ideas for us, for example:

• “Keep focus on younger age groups—education, young people—I don’t see many others (if anyone) thinking about longevity with those audiences. Could be a big differentiator for ILC.”
• “Adopt a more aggressive persona and establish a political presence.”

One key bit of implicit feedback for us was to focus on impact and on communicating our impact. You wanted us to use the media more.

It’s clear that we have made progress since our 2018 review. Six years ago, you liked us and valued our events but struggled to describe us. You didn’t understand our international work and felt we were more funder-led than respondents this year said. People didn’t like our old brand or logo, and as a result, we undertook a brand review, which led to a new look and feel (and logo) for ILC.

So, overall, it feels like we are making progress. But for those of us who want to drive change quickly, it feels too slow.

Two-thirds of our respondents said they would like to work with ILC more. We’d like to work with you. How can we make it happen? Get in touch if you are interested via the button below.