He says, "The fundraising sector’s response to the proposed Fundraising Preference service has been ‘pathetically’ limp and that all those who are endorsing it without any evidence that it is needed should feel ashamed." Adrian also challenges Stuart Etherington to come up with the evidence to support the various NCVO report recommendations.
Ian MacQuillin agrees and has started his "say no" campaign.
I fear we're too late. We've missed the boat. The Commons Select Committee won't even ask for any fundraisers' opinions or evidence.
Whilst I completely agree that we didn't, a year ago, need a specific FPS we have, I believe, brought this down on our own heads. As I've been grumping about for months the transactional approach we've been trying to use doesn't work very well. Inappropriate, repetitive asks to upgrade one-off single donations to regular monthly gifts does piss people off. This is where the dissatisfaction lies and by doing nothing about it till now, it is hard to argue that an opt out service isn't a good idea. It doesn't stop us advertising, campaigning, asking for donations. But it will give one-off givers the opportunity to avoid automated, repetitive, inappropriate, upgrade asks.
We're going to have to work much harder at communicating effectively, asking for permission and, most important of all, taking time to develop relationships that the givers want - not what we want to saddle them with. It might well reduce response rates, we are going to have to work harder and smarter. And about bloody time too!
If we didn't need the FPS a year ago, we don't need it now. Or if we need it now, we needed it a year ago, because the only thing that's changed is how the media have reported fundraising and what government is demanding of it. And they are demanding a lot.
ReplyDeleteSo I too think we have missed the boat, Peter, but I don't think that means fundraisers should stop fighting it or opposing it. It's the actions they take now that will help to define their profession for the future. Do we just want to accept that fundraising can be told what to do and roll over; or do we want to fight for a stake in how our own profession develops? Even if fundraisers fight the FPS and they lose the battle, the very act of fighting will influence future decisions and future outcomes.
You say the FPS would give 'one-off givers' the opportunity to avoid particular types of solicitation. But it gives all donors the opportunity to avoid all solicitations.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments Ian. I agree that we don't really need the FPS but we're going to get it. The point being if, as fundraising practitioners and organisations we'd avoided the scandels through better practice, we'd have been better able to head off Stuart et al. Two points on the service. It will give subscribers the opportunity to avoid named solicitations as a result of a previous contact or demographic profiling ( which is just as the MPS and proper opt out use would already for DM). DR advertising, media coverage and personal solicitations are not excluded. I think the worry now is that by opposing the FPS we might be seen to be defending previous poor practice.
ReplyDeleteFundraising doesn't need a preference service but perhaps donors do - and surely is the point. If fundraisers can't be trusted to act properly then the government is entitled to step in.
ReplyDeletePoint taken though, as many fear, it may do more harm than good in terms of restoring trust in the process.
ReplyDeleteSurely given the situation where everyone is criticising fundraisers and fundraising the FPS has to be a good thing?
ReplyDeleteI think to keep people donating there needs to be FPS, especially due to the recent negative outlook on fudraising from the public.
ReplyDeleteTav