Association of Grumpy Old Fundraisers who know stuff

What do you think of Fundraising Consultants?

2012-03-02T02:39:00.001-08:00

The original Grumpy Old Fundraiser, John Sauve-Rodd sent me a very interesting survey about what clients think of their consultants and (and why not) what consultants think about their charity clients! Makes for some interesting reading, have a look at: http://www.theagitator.net/dont-miss-these-posts/clients-consultants-punch-bowl-survey-results/

Of particular interest is the observation that "we only used them to persuade our boss to do what we wanted" because in my book that is one of the three worthwhile times to invest in the fundraising consultant. When you are a prophet in your own land, you often need the external "objective" voice to help win the arguement. My old friend Redmond Mullin, who sadly died last year was a consumate professional at persuading trustee boards and senior managment teams of the need to invest in fundraising. They would listen to Redmond in a way that they, sadly, would not listen to their own director of fundraising. (Yes that is the voice of experience speaking).

The second of the usual reasons for employing consultants is simply to provide the expertise or capacity that does not exist in-house. The capital campaign feasibility study, the fundraising audit in an under performing area and so on.

The third and I think least understand, is that of the change agent. The consultants can come in on an interim or time limited project basis, help to implement and manage change and then leave with all the monkeys on their backs. Its what they're paid for and helps the new team or reorganised department function far more effectively.

Each of these areas benefit from the use of consultants, provided that the brief was clear, unambiguous, without unrealistic expectations and, most importantly, fully agreed by both parties. It goes without saying, I hope, that you've got to find the right consultant with the right skill set and approach to be able to work within the culture of your organisation.

Anyway, do let me know what you think of the survey results.

Sir Stuart Etherington and the 4th Sector!

2012-02-15T08:26:00.000-08:00

Stuart is absolutely right (Civil Society News 15/2) to highlight the dangers of current government policy that will allow a small number of for profit companies to dominate the provision of public service which were previously the baliwick of smaller, innovative charities focussing, not on profit, but on delivering the best possible services and outcomes for beneficiaries.

What's worse is the cognative dissonance being shown by the coalition, in supposedly promoting and encouraging "the big society" whilst retreating from and slashing the funding for such services. The reality is that we have a big society which needs investment. As it is we'll finish up with a smaller society which will penalize those least able to speak up and complain.

NCVO reckon there's £2bn coming out of the sector, Cathy Pharoah says £3bn. By my sums I reckon that it'll be closer to £5bn by the time you include all the small local authority grants and funding to community organisations that is being wiped out.

Philanthropy is not fair

2012-01-30T10:10:00.000-08:00

With all the talk of bankers (or as I prefer, banksters) bonus' and whether they could, should, might give them to charity it is worth reminding ourselves of why people give. After all, as some of you know, I'm doing a bloody PhD on the "Nature of Philanthropy" and some of the bankers I've talked to in the past have actually been really quite nice people with a social conscience!

Equally, as the Guardian put it, most people don't want charity, they want fairness. Equality of opportunity whether it's in jobs and homes or clean water and food. Giving philanthropically does little to address those concerns but may still help make the world a slightly better place. It doesn't matter whether it's Bill Gates trying to abolish polio (winning) or malaria (way to go) or a mere mortal making a more modest £10 per month to help bring books to kids trying to get educated. The charitable intention is, I believe, a healthy one and capable of making the world a nice place both in the givers' own community or country as well as where the funds are used.

However, just as inducing a guilt trip for a quick one-off donation is, usually, counter productive for developing good relations with a giver; so, blackmailing a bonus receiver into forgoing it or giving it to "charidy" will probably provoke a backlash in the individual's own charitable motivations and also in his or her working community. Maybe, just maybe, we've got to use intellectual persuasion to change beliefs in order to change attitude and behaviour as those of you who've read the "Spectrum of Philanthropy" might twig.

It's a harder, longer, slower path but I think it could pay dividends.

Happy New Year (or is it?)

2012-01-04T07:57:00.000-08:00

Last year I posed the question where are the baby boomer philanthropists? Bingo the New Year honours list has 14 according to Howard Lake at Fundraising.co.uk. This list includes Doug Ellis and Paul Ruddock as well as my old Cranfield mate Mike Bear (now Sir Michael - so many congratulations!)

Perhaps most notable of these good doing generally baby boomers is probably Gerald Ronson for his (reported by Civil Society) £100m fundraised for charity (and £30m donated!) after a spell in prison in the 1990s. This is a bit reminicent of John Profumo who, (after the Christine Keeler scandel) spent many years working in the East End for Toynbee Hall. Maybe redemption (or the pursuit of) is something we all begin to think about as age beckons. I for one have certainly started thinking about these things far more since hitting 60. So what lessons are there for fundraisers?

Well don't assume we've all found god. Giving motivation is (as I'm discovering) fiendishily complex and anyone who says otherwise doesn't have a clue. I think fundraisers have to start with themselves! How generous we we? And why do we give (or not)? Know thyself (which according to Wikipedia Diogenes attributes to Thales) and you might begin to know Mankind (according to Alexander Pope). More insight and introspection may not make for a happier New Year but it will definitely help your fundraising.

What did the Baby Boomers ever do for us? Part two

2011-12-02T01:47:00.000-08:00

Isn't it Interesting? The UK Giving Report for 2011 shows giving back to 2009 levels, though with more people giving a bit less. The comparisons with the US however are really revealing. In the UK CAF reckon around 60% of adults give to charity whilst in the states it's nearer 80% according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. This reflect the almost straight line negative correlation some of our LSBU research showed between giving in the USA, UK and Denmark against comparitive overall tax rates!

However what is even more interesting (and depressing) is the role of the Baby Boomers in all this. As one of that self obsessed generation I had thought that we're nice socially minded, philanthropic individuals. As Francis Beckett pointed out however, when I took him to task over his critique of this generation, where are the seriously wealthy philanthropists? In the US the top decile give over 2% of their income. In the UK it is less than 1%. What's worse, whilst Cathy Pharoah points to the 100 donations of £1m plus where are the English (or Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish) equivalents of Bill Gates? Gates, along with Warren Buffet is trying to persuade the seriously rich to give 50% of their wealth to charity!

In the UK the likes of Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, Felix Dennis,Philip Green, Nicky Oppenheimer and Andrew Lloyd-Webber are seen giving a bit to charity but pledging 50% seems a giant step too far for them. So is Francis Beckett's premise right? Are we not only wastrels but bloody mean with it?

What did the Baby Boomers ever do for us?

2011-11-28T07:47:00.000-08:00

Meeting Francis Beckett tomorrow so do you have any questions for him? His thesis is that the self obsessed generation took the money and ran, with little regard for the consequences. He might be right. A lot of my friends have made a lot of money in property and financial services. On the other hand there are quite a few Gen X successes with computers and the internet, not to mention Gen Y and professional sport. I think what is really interesting (if sad) is that that the gap in the distribution of wealth is widening not shrinking.

Philip Beresford has commented that when he started doing the Sunday Times Rich List 25 years ago, 85% of the wealth was inherited. Today 85% is first generation. People are creating fortunes rather as they did at the end of the 19th Century and there are perhaps some more rather disturbing parallels.

Unfortunately, as Wilkinson and Pickett comment in The Spirit Level,happiness and good health lies with reduced wealth gaps and greater equality in distribution. Its a good read and very worrying that the UK is moving in the wrong direction. I'm not however convinced that it is all the fault of the baby boomers. The banking problems for example started with Reagan and Thatcher, both Seniors or members of the Silent Generation!

Watch this space and let me know if you think Beckett's got it right?

The Poppy Appeal - good fundraising or too hard a sell?

2011-11-14T08:47:00.000-08:00

Very interesting discussion yesterday on Radio 5. Do take a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0178fy4/Double_Take_13_11_2011/ where the discussion is after 1 hour and 18 minutes and let me know what you think.

There has been some very interesting comment over the last few days about the pressures people are under to wear a poppy for the two weeks up to Remembrance Sunday. My point was that whilst the British Legion have done a great job reviving the appeal and in particular getting individuals and organisations to respect the two minute silance at 11.00am, we hear increasing tales of people being castigated for not wearing a poppy. Forget the English and Welsh football teams, why did everyone on "Strictly Come Dancing" need to wear one? We remember, surely, with our hearts and minds not what we wear on our breasts or arms.

I do feel that the pendulum has swung too far with celebrity poppies and now "Bling" poppies at £60 saying "I can afford more than you!" What killed off the wrist band, in my opinion, is the fact that everyone got in on the act and there was complete confusion in the brand identity. I do worry that Russell Thompson will have to work hard on this one to avoid fragmentation and a lack of clarity.

Street Canvassers or Chuggers - Is Richard Coles right or as grumpy as me?

2011-11-09T06:32:00.000-08:00

Following the Rev's outburst against Street Canvassers at last week (Guardian 28/10/11) the media are having a frenzy about the antics of fundraisers who pursue people onto buses and the like! Personally I suspect dirty tricks! What canvasser in their right mind would think high pressure works in persuading people to give money away?

I was on the Tony Livesey show last night on Radio 5 and we discussed the efficacy of canvassing. The reality is, of course, that it recruits younger givers (donors give blood and party parts) who won't respond to traditional DM or even DRTV. Properly managed it's an important part of the mix. Alexi Short took the opposite stance and suggested that we can do other things as canvassing is too intrusive, threatening and possibly expensive. Interestingly I note that her charity, Winston's Wish that doesn't use street canvassers has about a 42% investment rate so they certainly aren't doing it all with volunteers and coffee mornings!

I tried to make the point, that even the Rev does't get, is that rather than ignore canvassers (who likes to be ignored after all?) people simple need to make eye contact, smile and say no thank you, I've made my charitable donations for this month and walk on. Those who haven't perhaps might ponder why and if they would feel less guilty if they did make informed decisions about who to support.

Charity Chief Executives must be fundraisers!

2011-10-26T04:27:00.000-07:00

It's official. Ed Vaizey agrees that chief executives need to understand and practice good fundraising. Doesn't mean they have to have been a fundraising director (you can still count those on your fingers I suspect) but it's a great step forward.

What with Adrian Sargeant, despite all his research, telling us that supporters have better links with government than charities and Ed telling us to sharpen up there must surely be some opportunities for improved communications (especially internal - THE most important audience) and for revisiting the case for support. Too many charites (and fundraisers) get locked into all the techniques and forget, at their peril, the reason the charity exists. And even worse, they take it for granted that supporters understand and share the case and the passion. I think we we better think it out again!

Off to a book launch, "The Charity First Series" take a look because whilst they are short starter texts (very suitable for starters and volunteers) they do all remind us of the case and the need for passion.

Why should anyone give to charity?

2011-10-10T04:08:00.000-07:00

There's, what looks to be, an interesting feature on Channel 4 this week (see www.4thought.tv on at 7.55 each evening) looking at charity and who we should give our money to. Channel 4 are tracking the Big Lottery giveaway of £10 million to community projects and the 4thought programmes are two minute thought starters on and around, my favourite subject, that of philanthropy and giving!

I was filmed as "an academic voice" attempting to put some context to the questions and leave the audience with the message that, of course, it's all about, considered, thoughtful choice. However people benefit by doing their giving joyously in the spirit of, "Do as you would be done by!"

Sadly they now apparently have too many male WASPs so you're going to be spared my dulict tones. An interesting experience however as I was minded to quote the story about Alfred Nobel. He had, as it turns out, the good fortune to read his own obitiary when it was published accidently, when in fact his brother had died. He realised that as things stood he would be remembered only as the inventor of dynamite and an arms manufacturer. At that point he went out out and founded the Nobel Peace Prize.

How do you want the world to remember you?

Enlighted Self Interest - Part of the Spectrum of Philanthropy

2011-09-24T04:21:00.000-07:00

As I've mentioned before I'm finalising the draft for a second edition of "Marketing Strategy for Effective Fundraising" and am looking for some choice quotations/words about the use of marketing to enhance fundraising so this is your opportunity to be immortalized in print!

I've got some lovely inspirational one liners like: "You make a living by what you get. You make a life by what you give." (Winston Churchill) and "No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave." (Calvin Coolidge) but this is your opportunity as a fundraising practitioner, pundit, guru or student to have your say about what you think is profoundly important.

Incidentally, talking about important stuff, have you seen the latest offering in Fundraising Research? Whilst "UK Giving" continues to be a free download from CAF/NCVO "Giving Trends" is a brand new kid on the block from Third Sector Research (part of the publication) which has interviewed 3,000 givers in the UK (as opposed to 1000 adults by NCVO). It looks like there is some cracking stuff there, but for £450 I'm not sure they'll get too many takers. Or am I just being Scrooge (like my kids believe). Let me know if you're going to buy a copy.

And do, please, give me your orginal quotes/ideas by leaving a comment below. No money I'm afraid, just the glory!

More Free Champagne plus Bill Crosby (a seriously grumpy old man)

2011-09-21T02:57:00.000-07:00

Free Champagne! Would everybody who works for a charity PLEASE complete a short research survey being done by one of my students as she's struggling to get enough responses. It's on Survey Monkey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QCVPC5F

I think I'll award Bill Crosby honorary membership of the Association of Grumpy Old Fundraisers. Or will I?

There is a diatribe doing the rounds, ascribed to BC, that starts off, "I'm 76 and I'm tired of....." going on to have a serious grump about the world in general, scroungers, the irresponsible, work shy and so on (all good stuff). However it then, far more worryingly, has a very nasty pop at Islam. This is rather unlike Crosby the comic genius and suspiciously like another email doing the rounds which is a real slur, using all the extremist, fanatical stuff to paint one very unpleasant picture of the religion.

In my 60 years experience I'm seen fanatical biggoted, Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus (not to mention aethiests and agnostics). I've also seen wonderfully kind, thoughtful, peaceful and philanthropic Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, aethiests agnostics and Jedi.

Sweeping generalisations are not only dangerous. They can be toxic.

The Banksters could learn something from charities

2011-09-16T02:22:00.000-07:00

Well well, another $2bn popped it, this time from UBS, and they said it couldn't happen again.

In my experience, if the banks put in something akin to the cost controls that the average charity has (actually Parliament could learn something here) then it really couldn't happen again. The number of signatures, checks, balances and justifications one usually has to make to get repaid for a trip to, say Leeds, would make all but the sturdiest stalwarts tremble in their boots. But it works.

The same applies for sales control as I've just found out. I've spent the last two months chasing around the university to get an invoice raised for a tiny piece of research. Eight weeks, six signatories about about four separate forms all so that the university can be paid by an organisation gagging to pay us! You might say that this is over controlled. I couldn't possibly comment. It does however throw into stark relief the fact that with a few more people looking over the shoulders of the traders and asking the obvious questions, this stuff just could not happen.

Legacy Fundraising - The Last Great Fundraising Opportunity!

2011-09-09T02:51:00.000-07:00

How interesting, some 15 years after George Smith challenged Directors of Fundraising during an informal meeting at the Institute of Fundraising, Adrian Sargeant comes up with the research to prove what we all know! Incidently, the "Remember a Charity" campaign was a direct result of the subsequent actions of the group over the next few years to try and stimulate charitable gifts in wills.

Apparently, "The Last Great Fundraising Opportunity" is a study Showing How Identity Can Help Charities Increase Legacy Giving.

Clearly legacy giving must be a crucial part of any charity fundraising strategy. Adrian's study published in Psychology & Marketing uses dimensional qualitative research(DQR) to reveal how charities might understand identity as part of a supporter's motivation to give, in order to increase gifts in wills.

Adrian goes on to say (about the US but it's the same in the UK) that, "at a time of austerity cuts to social welfare programs are increasing pressure on charitable organisations, however, while legacy fundraising accounts for 10% of charity income, only 8% of the population include a charity in their will, a figure which has not increased for over a century."

Apparently,according to Adrian, one of the motivators, not previously identified is "identification with a charitable organisation,” and he goes on to say that, “Our research points to a clear need to recognise how this identification occurs, and the need to foster this sense of shared values in a variety of ways.”

Hello? Adrian? Agreement with the case for support, and resultant alignment with the charity itself is at the heart of all good fundraising. At least that's what I've been writing and teaching for the last 8 years and practising for 20 years.

Of course to be fair, there is some really good, helpful advice and findings in the study, which practitioners really ought to consider. But come on, don't tell us it's new. The research is new and is going to be valuable in underpinning legacy development strategies, practises and arguements for additional investment. However the idea certainly ain't.

The First Cut is the deepest

2011-08-08T07:29:00.000-07:00

For the boomers (or pop saddos) you'll recall P P Arnold had a huge hit with this in 1967. In 1977 Rod Stewart covered it pretty succesfully though it was actually written by Cat Stevens and sold to P P Arnold for £30!

I'm recalling the lyrics as I read the NCVO report on the impact of the government cuts upon front line service delivering charities. (see www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/cuts-report) Where the NCVO use the government's own spending review figures to highlight a £3bn cut in funding to community groups and charities providing vital services. They admit that the figures are conservative which confirms that LSBU's estimate of £5bn is probably not far off. Effective fundraising can only do so much and replacing government funding is rarely an attractive proposition for givers.

In reacting to these unnecessarily savage cuts charities may fall into the trap of cutting spending budgets across the board, simply in order to survive. However those cuts, if falling on fundraisers could, in fact be the most savage. By cutting fundraising investment organisations will inhibit not only their capacity to weather the storm, but also reduce their ability to provide alternative income streams when they are most needed. The charities and civil society organisations who survive in the best shape to prosper in the longer term have to be the ones that continue to invest in fundraising and continue to develop teams able to do better.

Whilst the first cut is the deepest, it might the the second that kills!

P

The Postman only knocks once!

2011-08-03T07:06:00.000-07:00

Or this could be "more about direct marketing" as it concerns the increasing use of couriers by charities and commercial marketeers alike. It's also in praise of the Royal Mail as, usually, they they do only need to call once.

Ordered three items off the net two weeks ago. One from a charity arrived within three days courtesy of good old postman Paul (we know ours on the Towpath). After 10 days neither of the others (via DHL) had arrived. After various lengthy phonecalls to the suppliers one of the packets turned up. Two weeks later the other still hasn't. The supplier tells me that DHL claim to have tried to deliver "on multiple occassions" (twice or six?) and have left cards through the letterbox. Wrong.

Now it's winging it's way via first class mail and I have implicit faith that it'll be here and Paul will only need to call once 'cause he knows where we live.

How not to do direct mail

2011-07-27T06:05:00.000-07:00

Got an all staff email at the university this morning asking me to sponsor someone doing the same event as me (albeit for ATAXIA a different charity). Given that there are several hundred staff and about 80 of us doing the event, it was singularly untargeted, had no compelling reason to respond and every reason to ignore!

It seems that even with all the luxuries of social networking, the ease of email and just giving pages we can still make all the basic errors of assuming anyone will give money just because we ask them.

Whislt doing a panel session last week for the Guardian, on charity communications a similar theme arose. Lots of people trying to come into the sector but firing off job and volunteer applications with little thought of what the recipient would make of the communication. Back to basics and reminders to stress everything relevant to the position, ensure that you make sure what you offer is (a) deliverable and (b) wanted. It is all about targetting as the gurus of Marketing - Philip Kotler and Michael Porter will tell you. Simples.

And what a brilliant campaign that is. Post modernism at its best. You advertise something entirely different to what the real product is about, but create brand recall AND (most important) an understanding that the product is all about insurance. Eat your heart out Go Compare and Confused. Targeted, skillfully executed and entirely relevant.

That's all there is to direct mail too.

The Philanthropy Summit

2011-07-11T07:58:00.000-07:00

So the Institute of Fundraising convenes a Philanthropy Summit at the convention and invites practitioners, pundits and academics (not to mention the Minister Nick Hurd) - so a big fat tick in the box and A for effort. Well done Amanda Shepherd. However the convention itself had only four sessions loosely connected to research and two genuine pieces of fundraising research. Big black mark against the board. And, a question around all those fine words asking for more research, more rigour and more evidence based reports to help present the big picture (instead of all the guru opinion pieces - fun, but increasingly irrelevant).

The questions posed were really quite good in terms of looking at how we might increase giving (both incidence and propensity) unsurprisingly, I think, they suffered from the lack of leadership that the Institute has (and is) experiencing. That's to take nothing away from Sir Alan (sorry Alan Gosschalk that is) who has in the circumstances steered a pretty steady course since the loss in rapid order of two chief executives and the chair. Now we have a new chair and, we're promised, a new CEO soon. But surely vision and mission doesn't come with the CEO but with the board (especially in the voluntary sector).

That is, I think, where we have a real problem. The Institute of Fundraising could do a number of things really well. It could help to make its qualifications mandatory and incentivise all members to become qualified through a structured CPD programme. It could appeal to CASE and lead the field in growth from educational fundraisers. It could help set the fundraising agenda by holding government to account and, by the by, become a chartered institute in the process.

It could do any of these but, I really doubt that it could do them all. So who chooses and how and why? Nobody seems to know and I fear things might just rumble on as always. I do hope I'm wrong in this instance and prove to be a real grump.

Letter to the Prime Minister from the Boomers

2011-06-15T10:25:00.000-07:00

I'm not usually one for passing on the jokes that go round the internet but this, far from a joke is, a mon avis, a perfect example of the application of Keynsian economics and, although some of the maths is wrong, might just work. Being a boomer and of the 10 million I rather like it:

Dear Mr. Cameron,

Forget the Big Society and instead, implement this suggestion for fixing Britain's economy.

Instead of underwriting a hundred billion to the banks that might well squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

You can call it the Boomers Retirement Plan:

There are approximately 10 million people over 50 in the work force.

Pay them £1 million each severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire - 10 million job openings - unemployment fixed

2) They MUST buy a new British car (if there any) - 10 million cars ordered - Car Industry fixed

3) They MUST pay off their mortgage (or buy a house if they're renting) - Housing shortage fixed and the building societies will have money to lend to first time buyers.

4) They MUST send their kids to school/college/university - Education and maybe even crime rate fixed

5) They MUST buy £100 WORTH of alcohol/tobacco a week ..... and there's your money back in duty/tax etc plus they won't live for another 20 years needing the NHS and social care.

Power to the grumpies (fundraisers or whatever)

The Merry Go Round

2011-06-12T06:16:00.000-07:00

We all know that attrition amongst givers costs a hugh amount of money and the replacement of a supporter is generally far harder to achieve than the retention of someone who is already giving to the charity. Increasingly trustee boards and senior management team understand that we have to invest in cultivation, stewardship, good communications and take time to develop two way relationships with our supporters.

So why do charities continue to hemorrhage fundraisers? Just look at the pages of Third Sector or Civil Society and you seen experienced fundraising practioners, managers and directors changing jobs at alarmingly increasing rates. Ruth Ruderham from Christian Aid to British Waterways, Mike Palfreyman from Help the Hospices to a children's hospice,Liz Showell from Children's Society to Alzheimer's just in one issue. And, of course, you can effectively double that number because of the vaccancies they leave behind.

Investing in staff development, continuing professional development and the opportunity to try new things can significantly enhance individuals' enjoyment and lengthen the time that they stay with an organisation. I used to say of sales staff that if they moved on in under two years we'd done something wrong and we were losing money. If they were still there after seven years I might begin to wonder why. Managers and trustess have a duty to optimise investment and make sure fundraisers stay around, productively for far, far longer.

A dearth of good fundraisers?

2011-05-18T10:16:00.000-07:00

Martin Brookes (of NPC), has a pop a major gift fundraisers and the sky falls in. Or does it? He's talking at the Institute Consultants Group next Tuesday afternoon for anyone wanting to grill him on his prognostications. Meanwhile ACEVO report that the biggest barrier to "the big society" is an excess of red tape. NCVO's Giving Commission take a much more optimistic line that people will give more if only they're asked appropriately. Well there's a thing. I wonder if there is a link after all?

I've been asked to find several interns to help new fundraisers in three different charities deliver ambitious targets. Trouble is that doesn't recognise the lack of experience from existing and new staff (who'll be managing them) and the situation, in my humble opinion, is getting worse. Unqualified fundraisers with some experience but little conceptual understanding of giving models, philanthropic psychology (to quote Adrian Sargeant) and sometimes even the development of a powerful case for support. Surely more power to the Institute's Academy and the universities trying to provide sound fundraising qualifications.

If we think fundraisers deserve a better press we'd better do something about it.

Free Champagne for Social Enterprise

2011-04-13T10:12:00.000-07:00

Been at the ISRPM conference in Dublin this week presenting a paper on Social Investment and listening to a number on Social Enterprise(SE). Lots of discussion about what SE is and isn't but between a large number of academics no agreed definition save you know one when you see it.

So I'm offering a bottle of champagne to the best definition in 30 words or less!

We generally agreed that SE is somewhere on the spectrum between a purely "altruistic" charity and a "red in tooth and claw" commercial company but where and what does that mean?

Come on have a go, but be warned I'm hard to please and four professors have failed so far to satisfy me. Incidentally Stephen Barber, also at LSBU, gave a very whitty run down on the "Big Society" and likened it as liable to be ditched by Cameron if things get too hairy in the same way as Blair ditched the Stakeholder Society when it started biting him. I still reckon that if we mention BS at all it needs to be as the Bigger Society, since we've had a very successful Big Society, in the guise of the work of charities and community organisations for more than 100 years.

Marketing Strategy for Effective Fundraising

2011-03-31T05:26:00.000-07:00

Well well, well, you lucky people you! DSC have finally decided to do a second edition of the definitive book on using marketing effectively to enhance your fundraising. Trouble is I put the proposal in last September and in the meantime they've sold out. Fortunately, I've a few author's copies that might last until the reprint.

Very interesting to look afresh at the copy and how in the five years since publication my prognostications about the future of fundraising to 2020 looks horrendously out of date, shape and everything else. Note to self, any predictations (save for the Cheltenham Gold Cup - Long Run was my selection) are over 50 years not ten. 'Cause, of course, in the long run we're all dead.

Enjoy the legacy development opportunities whilst ye may.

Marketing or Fundraising? The Big Debate

2011-03-24T10:00:00.000-07:00

A most interesting debate at LSBU today as to whether we must integrate fundraising into all our charity communications and fundraising or whether the skills needed for "the ask" are actually separate, complementary but different to those needed for marketing communications.

An initial vote showed 70% supporting the motion.

Patrick Boggon of Tarnside proposed that everything that fundraisers attempt in trying to change the world is driven by marketing principles. In fact unless Maple's five Ps (price, place promotion, product and positioning)are considered carefully and honestly the fundraising proposition is likely to fail.

Peter Maple countered that fundraising unlike marketing is really very, very simple. Taking into account Tony Elisher's fundraising cycle and the ubiquitous case for support all the fundraiser needs is to listen and ask appropriately. Marketing, on the other hand is full of concepts, theories, paradigms, matrices and gurus. He conceeded that one must have an understanding of effective marketing in a not for profit but asserted that it doesn't have to come from the fundraisers.

The audience were largely unmoved agreeing that there are two skill sets but that fundraising like sales )in commerical organisations), needs to be fully understood and integrated into the marketing function.

You had to be there.

Paraphrasing Lady Bracknell

2011-03-15T07:18:00.000-07:00

To misquote Lady B, "to lose one chief executive may be seen to be unfortunate, but to lose two might be seen as careless"

In most organisations people tend to copy the behaviour of the chief executive, since that person has clearly demonstrated their ability to get to the top of that particular tree so perhaps it's not surprising that we get the banksters we deserve. However in the voluntary sector where chief executives are expected to demonstrate the passion, commitment and dedication shown by the volunteers it is sad when their tenure is, to say the least brief.

What will the staff, volunteers and members make of the early departure of Amanda McLean from the Institute of Fundraising after only six months in post. Paul Amadi, then Chair of the Institute said in September: ''We believe that Amanda is the right person to provide leadership and direction to the Institute and its membership." So what changed so quickly?

With the Institute also in the middle of trying to recruit a new chair it does seem that acting chair Alan Gosschalk and interim CEO Bruce Leeke have got their hands over full.

Meanwhile, consultations for the Giving Green Paper have only just finished and the Government has said it'll issue a white paper in weeks. The budget announcements next week may have profound implications for the future of gift aid. The central and local authority cuts are having a devestating effect on community organisations and local charities.

Forget strategy for the moment. Any suggestions for an effective tactical response and coherent campaign to keep pressure on the Government?

Incentives and the rediscovery of Herzberg

2011-02-22T08:10:00.000-08:00

Well I've been saying it for long enough. Monetary Incentives simply don't work!
Now Nottingham University ( see http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2011/february/thetruthaboutbonuses.aspx ) reckon that a mixture of punitive fines plus incentives works better than incentives alone. Well maybe in the laboratory but in the real world comparisons are made and, most important of all, actual job content counts for far much than what Fredrick Herzberg (see http://www.trainanddevelop.co.uk/view_article.php?ArticleID=78) dubbed Hygene factors. That is the things that will demotivate us if they're not OK. That is in turn vastly different to the Motivators - relationships, job content, control and flexibility that really turn us on and get us firing on all cylinders. That's what we have to hold in mind when shaping jobs, organisations and pay/incentive packages. Pity the bangsters never understood.

Meanwhile we've a government obsessed with controlling the uncontrollable and offering incentives to companies to come and run services that, without the spurious controls and measures, could be run so much more cost effectively than they are now or will be under a for profit regime. Today we learned that 14% of the NHS budget is spent simply on the disaggregation of purchaser and provider. Put out the £80bn to GPs and this figure will rise dramatically leaving even less to spend on patients.

What's that to do with fundraising you ask? Not a lot save it will put even more pressure on charities to pick up the non standard pieces and fund them from voluntary income. Time to start taking responsibility for the whole funding mix not just fundraising. That's pure Herzberg!

Aging supporters, green papers and the banksters

2011-02-17T04:30:00.000-08:00

Very interesting research from Cass and Southampton on the aging profile of charity supporters, which confirms what I've been banging on about. IT'S THE BOOMERS STUPID! We're a large cohort, getting older and whether we start dying in 2012 or 2016 there are much larger numbers of people with both the capacity and propensity to give to our favourite causes if asked appropriately.

The "Giving" Green Paper (get your responses in by 8th March) is very long on rhetoric about giving and very short on facts about asking. To paraphrase Gill Moody (of Craigmyle) at the Institute yesterday - fundraisers are rather like midwifes to donors. We help them achieve a transformation and if we do it right they'll carry on for life (and beyond).

Which brings us on, of course, to the Banksters who just don't get it. So much more could be done by individuals and the corporations (free banking for instance) if they could only be helped to understand the big picture.

More on the Banksters

2011-02-09T10:06:00.000-08:00

So, the banks are going to contribute £200m to the "Big Society Bank" are they? (see www.civilsociety.co.uk) Well bully for them. Considering that first estimates of dormant funds are somewhere between £500m and £1.5bn and the fact that the money isn't theirs anyway do we see this as a piece of corporate philanthropy or rather more like self-interest. As Maple's spectrum of philanthropy suggests, this isn't even enlightened self interest, it's well beyond the visible spectrum!

There's a new party being formed by Dr Richard Hill to be called something like NHS Concern. I'm thinking we need Charity Concern because the Big Society sure ain't going to do it.

The Perils of Charity Trading

2011-02-02T01:50:00.000-08:00

For some time I've been suggesting that there continue to be some really interesting opportunities for charities to trade profitably in areas long seen as problematic, high risk, low return and time consuming. After all the addition of Gift Aid to shop profits has revolutionised the return on investment for those charities with the will and drive to implement more advanced point of sale equipment to handle the transactions from initial gift through to ultimate sale (something incidentally that came out of a conversation at a charty tax lecture at LSBU)! I remain convinced that for those fundraisers able to motivate themselves and their boards much more remains, despite some fearsome barriers to entry, for the brave-hearted.

The scandal (if that's what it is) at the Salvation Army over their clothes recyling partners making £ millions is a fascinating demonstration of how much there is out there if only we're willing to get our hands dirty. Yorkshire folk have always known that "where there's muck there's brass" and it seems that, until the prices of recycled clothes trebled over the last few years, the Sally Ann was getting its share. However was due dilence done over the arms length contracts? Prices can go up or down so were there multipliers built in for the charity to be protected from falls but benefit from rises? Possibly not.

The FRSB have finally got something to get their teeth into and we all await with great interest their deliberations and the Charity Commission response. Meanwhile keep looking for the ways to turn other people's rubbish into good, solid, legitimate, cash.

Free Banking for Charities - Join the campaign now!

2010-12-09T02:38:00.000-08:00

At the launch yesterday when Paul Hunt (sic) minister for the DCMS announced their "new" Philanthropy Strategy yesterday which, rhetoric aside, is about an £80m matched funding programme for the arts. Whilst matched funding is very welcome and certainly worked for higher education Lord Myners had the temerity to point out that it's not new money and back end loaded over four years.

More interestly, I thought, he went on to ask,"what have the bankers ever done for us?" and suggested that free banking, for charities, would be a start! What a great idea. Corporates want to do gifts in kind and banksters want some good PR so what could be easier than free banking for charities? They charge us an arm and a leg for services that could be free. Charities don't usually run overdrafts and tend to have reserves simply on deposit with their main banks anyway. Join the campaign today, simply add a supporting comment and lets see what happens. Simples!

The 50 best fundraising blogs

2010-12-07T05:35:00.000-08:00

Grumpily but unsurprisingly the agofwks blog didn't rank in the top 50 according to the america guide to schools reported by Howard Lake. There again this is less about how to do it and much more about why to do it better.

Have you caught the report of the Funding Commission yet?(Do read the whole report or at least the summary on the NCVO site). Great launch last night with Stuart Etherington, Richard Gutch, Fiona Ellis and many of the sector's luminaries. Here's the digested read for 12 really doable recommendations that we in the sector can begin to address!

1. Civil Society Organisations have got to step up to the mark. With £100m for transition and possible £3bn loss in April, partnerships, mergers and better value are top of the agenda.

2. Funders have got to make better use of existing resources. Doing less things better and doing smart things smarter is the name of the game.

3. Launch the better asking campaign. Music to my tired old ears. Let's JFDI!

4. Government has got to stop the rhetoric and fund some real long term change. That way avoids the current cognative dissonance.

Let us know what you make of the report and whether you intend to join in.

Accessing little know trusts

2010-11-30T05:18:00.000-08:00

We had a most interesting character, Robert Pike, give a session for the fundraising students last week about the "invisible grantmakers".

Many people assume that if a trust isn't in the DSC directory they're hardly worth bothering about. However Robert, who runs a small agency called "Social Partnership Marketing" has been researching those who remain below the radar but still make significant grants. He's been doing this for 12 years and, it seems to me, that his directory published each year deserves to be seen by others with the tenacity to look beyond the usual sources. Check it out you might just find it more valuable than Prospecting for Gold (sorry Andrew).

Meanwhile, like all good fundraising, it starts and ends with RESEARCH, RESEARCH and more RESEARCH.

21st Century Philanthropy

2010-11-16T06:11:00.000-08:00

There is some really interesting research begining to emerge about how and why people are giving (or not). My pal Beth Breeze has just published the 2010 Million Pound Donors report which follows hard on the heels of Cathy Pharoah's Family Foundation Report. The latter comments that the top 100 family trusts account for £1.4bn of donations whilst the former talks of £1.5bn of £1m+ gifts in last year alone. Some hefty numbers indeed and an indication that giving, at high levels, is remaining buoyant even if the seriously well off feel poor when their portfolios have fallen from £100m to £80m.

What does seem to have slipped below the radar is a Report from CAF about British Indian Donors. At 1m of the UK population with the top 200 accounting for £7bn (and growing 5% a year) this is a section of the population largely ignored by UK charities large and small.

Me thinks that we could be doing a whole lot more about our multi-cultural society.

The Ax descends

2010-10-21T05:07:00.000-07:00

Well George Osborne, the butcher of Downing Street, has struck. £100m transistional relief but £7Bn off the local government spend. No prizes for guesses as to how much will come from that spent on discretionery grants and contracts to local community organisations. Interestingly that's just about what local authorities currently spend in that direction. Melt down in April and so much for the Big Society.

Did anyone go to the EAPG meeting last night at CASS which was going to debate the Big Society. That, in my book, ought not to have taken very long!

e-fundraising - a core strategy or a bolt-on gizmo?

2010-10-11T08:24:00.000-07:00

Interesting isn't it? The consultants group at the Institue of Fundraising are holding what looks to be a really interesting meeting on 24th November with some really good speakers. We try to do the same at LSBU each year with guest speakers looking at the latest trends and what's working well. As do a number of other organisations. Problem is it all changes so quickly, doesn't it?

Well at the risk of being labelled a ludite I wonder if it does. It goes without saying, (well ought to) that one must consider the changing state of technology and our uptake of it and that must be built into our communications strategies to avoid redundancy and being unnecessarily overtaken. However first into the market rarely triumphs. Remember Betamax and later the video laser disc both technologies that were superior to those that followed and cleaned up. I'm not sure if its the hare and the tortoise or simply following the first entrants and making a better job of it. Either way you have to be well informed but an element of risk aversion and pragmatism makes a compelling argument.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson famously said, "The world will beat a path to the door whoever makes a better mousetrap" but not necessarily the person who tries to eradicate mice altogether.

Summer's Over

2010-09-16T08:33:00.000-07:00

Lots to report on the research conference season - NCVO last week and ISIRC this week with some interesting implications for fundraisers so watch this space. Meanwhile a photo of 10 of the first 20 postgraduates from LSBU getting their Institute of Fundraising accreditation from chairman Paul Amadi

The digested convention

2010-07-13T09:09:00.000-07:00

Did you go? Were you inspired? How was it for you?
Seems to me that Nick Hurd set the scene by speaking for 30 minutes without saying anything other than information is power. And there we have the debate. Lots of sessions about storytelling and the power we can harness. Even the sainted Camila Batmanghelidjh told a great story. On the other hand we had the science with excellent sessions on Social Return on Investment, Balanced Score Cards and predictions for generation X over the boomers. Oh yes and a nod to the world cup with the great debate which, some people thought was going to be serious, but with Simon Burne, Joe Saxton, Mark Asterita, Jo Swinhoe (threatening to kill you) and Pauline Broomhead you have to be kidding!

So the outlook for fundraising remains tough, don't hold your breathe for government funds, tell great stories but do the numbers really really well.

Plus ca change but great fun.

The Big Debate

2010-06-23T04:11:00.000-07:00

Did I say it would be cracker? Well it was. Mick Aldridge, just voted the most influential person in fundraising by Fundraising Magazine, and I went head to head over the issue of paying fundraisers by commission.

Where we agreed was that there are always exceptions and no rule ought to be set in stone and never questioned. Mick made the point that, increasingly street and house to house collectors are remunerated partly by commission though, I thought, ducked the issue of the vital difference between incentivizing acheivement and paying only by immediate results. That of course tends to be the biggest objection that such payments can lead to short termist, expedient fundraising which will, over time always lose out to a well planned giver centric approach.

The crucial point however made by yours truely is that commission payment simply doesn't work! Read Frederick Herzberg and you'll see, or remember that money isn't a motivator. If it's not enough it's a demotivator but that is utterly different. That's why the banks continue to pay obscene bonuses because everyone else does.

So let's not go down that road. Motivation, job enrichment (more Herzberg) incentives for producing outcomes (not outputs) has got to be the way to go.

Or are you still (unlike everyone at the AFC annual forum) unconvinced?

Payment by Commission - The Big Debate

2010-06-17T09:16:00.000-07:00

Do come along on Monday 21st June if you possibly can email geoff@craigmyle.org.uk and book your place (1 Moorgate Place EC2)for the afternoon. I'm going head to head with Mick Aldridge of the PRFA who is going to defend the indefensable! Ought to be fun as well as an opportunity to air some important recurrent issues, particularly in these straightened times. For those unable to come I'll let you know how the debate goes and the upshot.

Meanwhile does anyone have strong views (either way) that they'd like to share. I really would be very interested and will respond positively.

Venture Philanthropy - Whither Goest?

2010-06-02T04:42:00.000-07:00

Interesting to see that Scope are the latest charity offering an investment opportunity to venture philanthropists. According to Third Sector, The Grangewood Venture Philanthropy Project involves supporters making donations of £2,800, supplemented by £700 of Gift Aid, and an interest-free loan of £7,000, to be repaid through the sale of the charity's existing property over three years. This is a harder edged offering to the really innovative Crisis Urban Investors package but never the less is worthy of consideration. As is, of course, a straight investment in Charity Bank which spends its time persuading risk averse charities to borrow money!

Something we could all bear in mind is that most of the Venture Philanthropists are, yes you've guessed it, Baby Boomers! We've made our money and are now willing to invest it (well some of it) in changing the world.

Midi Akerwusi describes Venture Philanthropists as: risk takers, calling the shots, fast decision makers, innovators (not sustainers),results orientated and, most importantly, ALWAYS RIGHT. Describes the boomers to a tee. So when you're thinking about innovative fundraising, major gifts and how to tap into this whole thing about "social enterprise and venture philanthropy" think - class of '48 the luckiest generation ever (according to the Observer). Then make your plans accordingly.

Marketing and the Saintly Philip Kotler

2010-04-28T06:20:00.000-07:00

Whilst twiddling my thumbs in Tashkent, in transit last week I came across this delightful letter in the Financial Times that, I think, could be shared with everyone who regards him/herself as a marketer or even marketeer! Eat your heart out Adrian S.

“Sir, As an economist trained by Milton Friedman......................I am in full agreement with John Kay on economics’ lack of scientific status.........Any genuine “social science” has to observe human behaviour. But traditional economists have preferred to build a “house of cards” on the assumption of consumer and producer rationality and efficient markets.

Economists have assumed rational behaviour because it lends itself to mathematical treatment that always gives the appearance of science. Had they read a textbook on marketing or followed the articles in marketing journals, they would have seen a huge literature, both theoretical and practical, going all the way back to the early 1900s, on how consumers and producers actually make decisions among products brands, companies and jobs.

Most economists emphasise the role of price in determining choice, to the neglect of other major forces such as advertising, sales promotion and sales personnel that shape and motivate consumer and business behaviour. My argument has been that besides macro and micro economics, economists must add “market economics” (ie marketing) to the study of how the market place actually works. This advance is already being reflected in the rise of “behavioural economics”.

Wadja think????

Not Eyeless in Gaza more Flightless in Delhi

2010-04-26T01:43:00.000-07:00

Well, after five days stuck in a Delhi hotel with an outside temperature of 43 degrees we were promised a Jet Airways flight home on 5th May! Needless to say like thousands of others we found that unacceptable and started looking for an alternative route. Thanks to Uzbekestan Airlines we managed a flight to Athens via, wait for it, Tashkent (isn't there an Alistair Maclean novel about Tashkent?). We thought, worst case, we'd get a train for there to Paris or Calais which takes another three days.

In Athens Tuesday night and lo and behold UK airspace is reopened. Two hours and much swearing later flights secured on Friday morning to London courtesy of Olympic Airways. They then became the real stars, wait listing us and getting us home early, weary and much, much poorer. Bo for the insurance companies saying the volcanic cloud is not an "climatic event" and is an "uninsurable risk." Hurrah for the carriers going the extra mile for their client in very difficult circumstances. Perhaps there needs to be a site set up listing good and diabolical practices?

More about fundraising, in India, in due course.

The secrets of research

2010-03-25T05:34:00.000-07:00

Whilst at an RNIB event today I was asked about my role as a "Social Scientist" - since, of course, fundraising research falls into the academic displine of social science. I explained that whilst Cathy Pharoah takes a, largely, quantitive approach, I am strictly a qualitative sort of guy. As Dr. Frank Bryant in "Educating Rita" says, "You've got to get your ontological position right!"

In other words it all depends on what you base your beliefs - where you are coming from in terms of your outlook. So, with a new budget bashing the seriously wealthy (effectively a 70% marginal rate of tax over £100k of net income)will well healed boomers be minded to give more to charity rather than let Alistair Darling have it? And of course, it all depends on your ontological position!

So if you are already having a conversation with a boomer who has a shedload of money and s/he is minded to support your particularly wonderful cause, then yes you need to have a very serious conversation about gift aid and marginal tax rates. But to run a campaign to "give us your money rather than the treasury?" I think not. But then again I'm the dude who tipped Imperial Commander on the morning of Friday 19th March. I wouldn't however bet against Kauto Star as I've won a wad on him a couple of times. Result no bet at all and Imperial Commander wins the Cheltenham Gold Cup at 6 to 1! Wrong position again. Do as I say not as I do.

First Thursday Club

2010-03-05T03:14:00.000-08:00

Attended a meeting of the London Group's regular master class session in "The Red Herring" thanks to the good offices of Kevin Kibble and James Buchanan. Great evening though I say it myself. Lots more on the behaviour of major givers. Some really interesting questions about the value of using a conceptual model and the role of volunteer leadership both of which the meeting overwhelmingly agreed are worthwhile.

Lots more research needed into the baby boomers, I'm doing my bit, but even the Institute of Fundraising seems to prefer case studies over research for the convention. Rather sad really. Particularly, since there's a new book out by David Willetts called "The Pinch" about the adverse impact the boomers are having upon the prospects of our children - generation X and Y. Worth the read because it might begin to impact what we do about, amongst other things, our charitable giving.

Be curious and have a look. If nothing else have a look at the video James has posted on youtube at - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP7hb6CFOCo

Fundraising Consultants - heros or villains?

2010-02-25T05:44:00.000-08:00

Attended an excellent meeting of the consultants special interest group where Joe Saxton of NfP Synergy and Cathy Pharoah of the Centre for Philanthropic Giving, gave excellent presentations about the outlook for fundraising in the UK over the next year or two. Yours truely also did a turn on the impact for major gifts and major giving programmes. I do urge you to go onto the Institute of Fundraising website and look under the Consultants SIG section for the slides.

In a nutshell the jury's still out (of course)BUT there are a lot of implications for improving what we do, how we do it and to whom.

Naturally that self obsessed generation called the boomers are at the heart of a lot of the potential. Though remember as Linus (of Charlie Brown fame) says, "there's no heavier burden than great potential!"

Let me know what you think because I don't have a monopoly on good ideas, just a great supply.

More fundraising research

2010-02-09T08:49:00.000-08:00

Delighted that on Tuesday the Institute met with some 50 or so interested members, practitioners,academics, suppliers and the like to discuss what needs to be done in terms of making more research applicable to and usable by fundraisers. Of course I have a vested interest I hear you say, you're an academic now. Well that's true but I always have an eye to the usefulness of anything I'm undertaking as 20 years of practice has shown me that you simply can't have too much.

Anyway, as an aside, for a lecture about corporate social responsibility to some third year marketing undergraduates I was forced to do some desk research of my own. Sue Adkins always claims that the American Express link up with the Statue of Liberty restoration in 1983 is one of the first cases of Cause Related Marketing. However I found a Marriott Hotel and "March of the Dimes" link in 1976. Then I was reliably informed that Sunlight Soap had an on pack promotion supporting the RNLI in the 1930s. Can anyone beat that?

Why feel guilty?

2010-02-04T03:30:00.000-08:00

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about feelings of guilt. And that's not easy for someone who has been described variously as being relentlessly cheerful and a remorseless optimist.

Interviewed on in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/video/2010/feb/01/chuggers-street-fundraising) about street canvassing I remarked that people need to sort out their own preferred giving and then stop feeling guilty about saying no to canvassers. In fact, I said, if they still felt guilty they'e better see my wife the pyschotherapist!

However I've just seen a Muscular Dystrophy poster using a child in a wheelchair with the caption " He'd like to walk away from this poster too". In my grumpy view this is guilt fundraising of the worst kind. Why make people feel bad when, with a bit more effort, you can inspire them to feel good about helping to change the world? It got me thinking that maybe I'm dismissing guilt too readily in pursuit of relationship fundraising.

I'm doing research into the motivations of those who give to charity and maybe I need to revise my methodology. After all if we accept that some people simply want to transact with the charity and not have a relationship that maybe we need to look much harder at some of those negative drivers? What do think? Do you feel guilty passing a blatently emotive, heart wrenching ad?

Why I don't do should............

2010-01-15T09:55:00.000-08:00

Haiti has been hit by an unimaginable earthquake. The DEC has launched an appeal. Everyone should do something?

Wrong! In my humble view should is about blame. Haiti has been plundered for more than 300 years. Firstly by the Spanish, then the French - who graciously granted them independence and left a 30 million franc debt in 1803. Since then just about everyone including laterday dictators have stripped the country bare. 80% of the population is on $2 a day. How can you build earthquake proof buildings on that.

But you and I are not to blame. Yes we can do something easy like give money. All of us could, most of us ought, many of us might, some of us will. But should? I don't think so. That's guilt trip we need to avoid as sensitive caring fundraisers. Let's give ourselves because it's the right thing to do, and will help those of us who are directly involved, to ask more sensitively and passionately for people to make a difference. However please never tell anybody that they should give.

A short history of fundraising

2009-12-31T03:28:00.000-08:00

Well, it's reflection time. A decade of trying to change the world and what have we achieved? Most of us are raising a shedload more money, but then we didn't have gift aid for all in 1999. Very few people had any serious internet access or facilities and few charity websites were more than on-line catalogues. Street canvassing had been invented but few charities took it seriously. Now I spend time in radio and TV studios defending the practice.

So has anything changed fundamentally? The need is still as great, if not greater. Are we as fundraisers constraining ourselves to think conventionally? Are unconventional and outlandish approaches needed to gain a paradigm shift? Not sure I've come to any conclusions yet except that individuals, people, still want to make a difference. What do you think lies ahead for the boldest of us?

In the meantime have a great New Year and new decade.

Fundraising Research takes centre stage

2009-12-15T07:34:00.000-08:00

Well, take a bow Lindsay Boswell. Following his resignation from the CASS advisory group he's calling for a think tank to try and innovate, set an agenda, and stimulate some useful fundraising research. Don't like to say I told you so (actully I do), but I did. In 2003 I published research showing we dramatically underinvest in marketing research. Compared to the commercial sector who spend up to four times what charities do, we generally invest less than 0.5% of income on useful marketing research.

Anyone who's heard any of my lectures knows this is a pet hobby horse. If we want help we've got to start helping ourselves. I'm looking at major donors, regular givers, baby boomers, legacy developement and good practice. But, even I can't do it all. Going to the Institute's meeting in February so please, please me and tell me what you think we need to be looking at.

They do know the price of fish!

2009-12-09T08:05:00.001-08:00

Spoke at a very interesting round table session last night for Major Gift fundraisers. Slagged off Cass and the Centre for Philanthropic Giving for not producing useful fundraising research (See Third Sector 8th December) and proceeded to give them the results of some fascinating research into how UK charities look after (or don't) their major givers.

I challenged them to go back to basics and adopt a conceptual model to help understand their donors. All bar two thought this a sound bit of advice even though it was from a self obsessed baby boomer.

We also talked about generational differences and how the next wealthy generation - "Jonesers" might also be researched to find out if and how they think differently. But that of course needs some research funding. Back to the Office of the Third Sector and the lack of practical useful fundraising research. Eat your heart out CASS!

Do they know it's Christmas?

2009-11-25T10:35:00.000-08:00

Looks like Children in Need are going to be down this year. Not by much but, according to the word on the street, a bit. CAF and Cathy Pharoh say individual giving's down 11%. We all know corporates are sitting on their hands, dispite the return of the bonus. So what are the portents for the annual round of Christmas Appeals?

I'll stick my neck out and say that I think they'll be down by more than 11%!*!*!*

Why, I hear you ask? Well I hope you're asking after my last optimistic missive. Of course there'll be some winners and losers - c'est la bloody vie - but overall, I reckon down, because...........

We live in uncertain times. Yes even more uncertain than last autumn when we knew everything was going south. Now floods are hitting places horribly after 14" of rain. That's more than you get in a tropical rain forest. As yet no certainty in the UK that growth will go positive next quarter. And anyway unemployment wll continue to rise for some time after that swing. Remember the Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times". Well they are certainly that and as a result I think people will cut back in areas that so far we've hardly seen. For once being a grump could be seriously part of the zeitgeist and for that reason alone I'm battening down the hatches.

New shoots or dead dog bounce?

2009-11-19T02:55:00.000-08:00

There's some really interesting stuff around even for a grump like me.
Blackbaud reporting the fundraisings are forecasting increased income next year (but not as much as their French, Italian and Dutch counterparts). It is, of course, attitudinal but after all the gloomy prognostications over the last 15 months it is a breath of fresh air. Or is it?

In another vein trusts and foundations have been far less affected than we all thought. At a session for Institute of Fundraising consultants David Emerson of the ACF along with Linda Kelly of Lloyds TSB and Shirley Scott of Richard Reeves all reminded us that trusts tend to be rather conservative, careful and cautious. As a result many have very diversified investments with really quite stable incomes not relying either on low interest rates or crappy equities. In fact many have property portfolios and whilst there might be 20% off the balance sheet value the rent roll has actually gone up over the last 12 months! What was reported however is a decline in the standards of applications and, even worse, increasing numbers of ineligable requests - a cardinal sin showing poor or no research.

So are fundraising directors being schizophrenic? That is being bullish about the potential for growth but then using shot gun approaches to their general fundraising asks in the vain hope that something will stick? This is not strategic, is poor fundraising and needs to stop.

I-Fundraising

2009-11-11T03:15:00.000-08:00

An awful lot of hot air is being produced about how to raise funds successfully using the internet, mobile communications and digital media. Howard Lake is already running a Twitter masterclass, Sue Fidler does an excellent job explaining it to those who think they know what it's all about and those who know they don't. Loads of others are pontificating without much real content (and isn't content still king?)

Recent reports indicate that commercial organisations spend a lot of their budgets on Search Engine optimisation (getting up the Google rankings)and that with a limited budget that has to be your priority. But, and there's always a but, whilst charities are doing a good job with site recognition (see the November dotmailer report) far fewer are making it work for fundraising income. Maybe that other grumpy old fundraiser, John Sauve Rodd might disagree but I digress.

Aren't we forgetting something again? The I doesn't just stand for internet. It stands for I, me, myself, numero uno, the main man(or woman). If we come at it from the perspective of the individual we may have a chance. THAT's where the social networking sites have got it right and charities (to my grumpy eyes) have got a long way to go.

Reasons to be cheerful, one, two three (with apologies to Ian Dury)

2009-11-04T08:10:00.000-08:00

So things are going to get much worse (Third Sector 3rd November)! Joe Saxton rightly points to probable deep cuts in government funding in three years time. Stephen Bubb thinks it'll be sooner (After the election feels like a safe bet).

So that's the doom, gloom and Cassandra predictions and they are probably right in as far as they go. But it's not the whole picture is it? And fundraisers, more than most, are able to buck trends, be creative and tap new sources of income.

Hurrah! The Boomers are coming. From 2012 (post the Olympics just a 1000 days)the baby boomers are going to start dying in big numbers. In fact people are going to be dying who have never died before. As a boomer I'm entitled to be bloody grumpy. As a fundraising I have to keep telling charities to invest in legacy development (sorry thats "a gift in your will" The whole bit - and some of these are Joe's own numbers, about the boomers holding 85% of the UKs wealth is mind boggling. Events, investments, social enterprise, tribute funds, the list actually is endless.

So stop winging and start doing some strategic planning - a four year window looks good.

We are the champions

2009-10-30T04:38:00.000-07:00

Despite Richard Bacon's best efforts I think that face to face canvassers came out on top last night on Radio 5 Live. Actually Mansfield's third most well know personality admitted that he has indeed signed up with four charities through street canvassers.

The main criticism seemed to be around the "guilt" that canvassers engender - both in people who don't stop (and feel guilty) and those who do and then get sucked into what they describe as a sob story. I pointed out that people give for a variety of reasons but mostly because they are asked.

Couldn't resist the dig that if people feel guilty about saying "no thank you" with a smile, they really do need to review their existing charitable giving, or, go and see my wife. SWMBO is, some of you may know, a psychotherapist and rather good and helping people with guilt complexes.

Go to:http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nhv0x/Richard_Bacon_29_10_2009/ and listen between 1.39 and 2.00 for the full story. Be really interested to hear what you think.

Radio 5 Live

2009-10-29T06:20:00.000-07:00

Been asked to comment on the great debate: Street Canvassers - chuggers or champions?

It's a midnight session so grumpy old men and women may not be able to stay up for it but I am very interested in what people currently think about canvassing. On a personal basis is it an intrusive assault or an informed conversation. From a fundraising view is it a vital part of the fundraising mix - targeted at the hard to reach generation Y, or is it an increasingly expensive, hard to manage, frustrating technique that will go the way of other short lived phenomena? Incidentally the PFRA seems curiously silent on the debate and unresponsive to requests for information yet aren't they are the ones out there canvassing for support?

I'd really like to know so please let me have your comments and come back tomorrow to hear how it went.

"There may be trouble ahead........."

2009-10-20T06:15:00.000-07:00

A very suitable line for all the bankers who've survived the recession because they were bailed out by the Government. What's more they seem to be echoing the refrain and,as the Irving Berlin song goes on to say, "Lets face the music and dance", they seem to be doing exactly that. In the face of massive criticism some of the banks are awarding huge utterly inappropriate bonuses forgetting entirely that the reason they've returned to profit has little to do with performance and everything to do with the shareholder funds that have been put at risk.

Profit always was about generating a return on investment - for - wait for it, the investors! Performance related pay has always been a very iffy incentive. ANYBODY who has read Herzberg knows that money is not a motivator at all! (read it, lack of money is a demotivator). Sales staff work best of all when facing realistic targets and with incentives that encourage the long term view. Sometimes up to 10 or 15% of income may be tied to performance when it can be directly attributable. Any more is in fact counter productive.

The same goes for fundraising investment. It's a no to performance related pay but a big yes to appropriate incentives to reward genuine effort, creativity, effectiveness and carefully assessed risk taking.

You heard it here first. The world is, I'm convinced, about to rediscover Frederick Herzberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivator-Hygiene_theory for a quick and dirty explanation).

Have I finally lost the plot?

2009-10-16T06:51:00.000-07:00

That's it I thought. Haven't seen Third Sector for three weeks, it must be casualty of the recession and Stephen Cook's looking for work. But it seems not. On phoning the Institute of Fundraising I find they have thoughtfully, helpfully checked my "opt out" box. Why would I do that I say? Answer was there none and we agreed that a database error had occured. I'm promised back copies by next week - Royal Mail permitting.

However it underlines the conversion I had with the inimitable Messrs Rodd and Florey - the doyens of the database world and champions of proper CRM for the not for profit sector. They and I agree that we need to produce a course for fundraisers explaining the intricasies of getting it right and the cost of getting it wrong. So watch the LSBU site for news of a potentially hugely important course development. JR and PF tell me that after 20 years of helping people put right bad decisions about fundraising databases that they find themselves doing the same thing over again for the same organisations! That's deeply scarey and rather depressing that organisations are not good at corporate memory. So, I suppose, at least I'm not totally alone out there.

The 30 Second MBA

2009-10-14T08:01:00.000-07:00

In trying to get my head around the potential of social networking for fundraisers (see Howard Lake's excellent 50 ways to fundraise by Twittering at UK fundraising) I came across this collection of seminars, anecdotes and bonne mots. One of them at:
http://www.fastcompany.com/mba/node/64 talks about "the business case for giving" starting with the assertion that there isn't one! How wrong can you be.

However the commentator, Mike Rowe does make a rather interesting point. He says you can adopt the Mercenary position if you want to pursue the business case, or the Missionary position if you want to give. He points out the it's the Missionary position that will keep you on top! So perhaps he hasn't completely misunderstood.

In defence of fundraisers

2009-10-09T06:39:00.000-07:00

At an EAPG (European Association for Philanthropy and Giving) roundtable the other night I presented my current research into major gift fundraising. One of my observations is around the surprising lack of engagement with volunteers who could provide leadership and do some of the asking. The resulting conclusion that I drew is that charities would benefit from more effort with volunteers, to increase engagement and participation. The big gift model usually provides for extensive volunteer leadership.

However Martin Kaufman leapt to the defence of fundraisers who make the ask. His view is that volunteer leadership is an outdated model, that still works in the US but not in the UK!

Well, that's news to me. I have to agree that, increasingly, fundraisers are often well placed to espouse a complex case for support and that often senior staff are able to make a very effective ask. However I maintain, very strongly, that a combination of well trained staff and well motivated volunteers provide the best possible team to make the most effective asks.

Green Shoots or what?

2009-09-29T07:50:00.000-07:00

How interesting that our erstwhile Institute Chairman is going to be the one to replace the legendary Giles Pegram at the NSPCC. Actually I think it's a very shrewd move! Although Paul hasn't been at RNIB all that long he is one of a few younger directors of fundraising who have the insight and understanding of this sector to go on investing when fainter ( and ofter older) hearts who ought to know better, are cutting budgets as a knee jerk reaction.

Even the recent CAF/NCVO survery of UK giving is hesitant to say more than there have been fewer large donations in the last 12 months; whilst Cathy Pharoah in the new Charity Monitor talks about very small growth and "real terms" declines. My own research amongst 30 charties involved in major gift programmes shows a very patchy picture which accords with what NfPSynergy predicted about the recession 12 months ago.

In the face of some grants and contracts being cut and some declines in individual giving fundraisers need to cross their legs and hold their nerves. Overall budgets may need to be trimmed in the short term but cutting investment makes no sense at all. What's more those fundraisers bowing to such cuts are doing the profession a lot of harm.

September Professional Fundraising

2009-09-15T06:08:00.000-07:00

Isn't it interesting how you say one thing and people hear something else?

The new pf has a decent report about the research I summarised at the end of July about how UK charities generally don't practice what they preach in terms of looking after and developing relationships with major givers.

They've picked up on my comments about the lack of conceptual frameworks, models and examples to help understand those who support a particular charity - and that is certainly an important observation.

However, I thought, my piece de resistance was that fact that whilst everybody acknowledges the fact that peer to peer asking is the most effective, powerful way to ask for gifts, very few charities are actually doing it!!!

Something in the air (As Thunderclap Newman would say).

2009-09-03T06:10:00.000-07:00

Back off holiday and had to turn the central heating on last night so it must be autumn.

The association for the containment of Christmas is complaining about card catalogues going out before 1st November - they should be so lucky - I had my first offering, from the British Red Cross on 4th August followed by several others in the next couple of weeks. Is being first really the best way to gain market share? Frankly I doubt it. Charities seem unwilling or unable to innovate in established areas and are in real danger of missing a sea change (yet alone a seasonal change).

Frank C Dickenson seems to have got his PhD on the thesis that for fundraisers, "The Way We Write is All Wrong" (without mentioning his overuse of capitals) I agree.

He's analysed 1.5 million words of fundraising text from 880 (admittedly American) charities and concludes that, basically, it's crap! We've stopped writing personal stories and its all left brain information, mainly in the third party. Good Grief! The saintly Ken Burnett and Stephen Pigeon have been preaching for years to write stories to our favourite aunts (actually that was George Smith). So are we in the UK any better than our American cousins? I'd really like to hear your views.

No grumps today (much)

2009-08-03T01:32:00.000-07:00

Had a very successful evening last week presenting the first phase of my "donor motivation" research at LSBU where it was, it seems, very well received by an audience of around 70 third sector fundraisers, trustees and academics. In fact I've been asked to do a reprise, twice! Really interesting thing though, which is a sort of grump, is the lack of major donor/volunteer involvement there is in most major gift programmes. The ask is generally done by a fundraiser and whilst volunteer boards are aspired to; few charities do anything about it!

Considering that, and the gift pyramid, is at the heart of all successful capital appeals, why aren't we practicing what we preach?

So called relationship fundraising

2009-07-23T07:54:00.000-07:00

And another thing that dear Ken Burnett and the most of the fundraising pundits bang on about is about building relationships with our donors. But most of them don't want a relationship with us! Take my wife, no, do please.

She is seriously pissed off with charities trying to "build a relationship" with spurious mailings, telephone calls and the rest. What she wants is genuine NEWS about how her hundred quid is making a difference, but she gets a barage of thinly disguised appeals. They don't even do the "Botton Village" thing and ask her how often she'd like to hear from them. And they are household name large charities with apparently "sophisticated" communications strategies.

She's not a major donor, but does give a few hundred a year to things that really interest her. What's more she's not alone. Cash donors are going to get a lot pickier over the next couple of years, mark my words!

Donor or Compassion Fatigue

2009-07-13T06:38:00.000-07:00

When are fundraisers going to wake up to the fact that there's no such thing!

It's trotted out as a lame excuse and by the medja when they want to have another go at fundraising but it simply doesn't exist. How can anyone be tired of helping to change the world; helping, in a small way, to make it a better place?

What people are heartily sick and tired of is sloppy, inappropriate fundraising. Direct mail that just tries to piggy back on the fact that someone has given to other charities or has expressed a philanthropy interest. Inappropriate fundraising that asks for money from people who have no interest in that charity, that cause or (even if expressed effectively) that case for support.

That's what people are fatigued about. Asks that are never going to be considered because they are inappropriate, wrongly timed, poorly executed and attrociously constructed. I'm still getting pen packs! For goodness sake fundraisers, stop moaning and start fundraising with passion, good technique, thoughtfulness and, most importantly, humility.

If anyone wants an understanding of that, look at Leonard Cohen's latest concerts. He's 74 performing fantastic music but has nothing but respect for his audience and surprise at his continued success. We could learn a lot from such graciousness.

Institute of Fundraising Convention

2009-07-09T12:20:00.000-07:00

So, another year has come and gone. Some really interesting sessions on the changing face of legacy marketing and the possibility of change in how we talk to major donors but where was the research???

Yes Adrian Sargeant did his thing but nothing from Cass, the Institute itself, LSBU, Kent, Sheffield Hallam, or I think, anywhere else. Bloody pathetic.

Come on convention board. Your job is to sniff out the new stuff, the genuine research and trends analysis. That's what the convention could really lead the world on if it had the bottle.

More later!!!

It's still too hot

2009-07-01T13:19:00.000-07:00

Back in the UK, it's 32° Andy Murray keeps winning and something is terribly wrong!?

The work in progress paper on the Spectrum of Philanthropy was well received by all the academics but what about the practitioners? Well as I hinted the good old I of F in its wisdom choose not to run a paper on brand new research into charity behaviour to donors soooooooo if you want to understand what it's all about you'll have to come to LSBU on 29th July for the dissemination seminar. Sorry 1200 members but the committee knows best (not)!

If you would like an invitation email me at LSBU that's maplep@lsbu.ac.uk

Stay cool

29C in Valencia

2009-06-19T07:57:00.000-07:00

Yes it´s too damn hot. Forced to stay in Valencia to present an update paper on "The Spectrum of Philanthropy" at the International Congress of Not for Profit Marketing in downtown Valencia. Poor old me but someone has to do it. More on this next week as it does involve the Institute of Fundraising losing out again. But there we are!

I'm not alone

2009-06-02T05:25:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the delay between blogs. Been in the Highlands where it rained for three days on the West coast and was sunny for three days on the East coast. No wonder the Scots moan about the English, we did little but complain about the weather. Apart, that is, from some heroic eating and drinking.

Well, as soon as a grumpy old fundraiser moans so the Institute reacts! Third Sector are publicising the Institute of Fundraising's new campaign to blow the whistle on the crap, unethical and downright dangerous DM campaigns that some charities continue to inflict upon an, increasingly, cynical public. No grumps today, just an A+ to Lindsay Boswell and Louise Richards. Watch this space however because I am shortly to have a major grump about the Institute's lack of focus regarding the convention.

Fundraising in a recession

2009-05-19T06:21:00.000-07:00

Everyone seems to be whining about how hard it is out there, instead of finding things that will work.

Ollie, an old pal and sometime reluctant fundraiser has just sold his Golf Shop business. Worked well for years as he's a bandit and could do a lot of business on the course but with the recession has sold up and moved on.

He's now importing "Borsalina" merchandise*, to sell to up market bag and luggage shops. "He must be bonkers or on class A drugs" I hear you say, moving into luxery goods in a recession???

Well actually top branded goods are still selling. Not perhaps in the volumes of two years ago, but there are still loads of WAGS out there needing their new £500 accessorised bags, boots or whatever. It's the £50 bags that have stopped selling.

Fundraisers have some really interesting opportunities to position their products and activities very carefully. Retailers and consumer product companies knowm that when volumes are down you go for higher margin items. Why would that be any different for charities? Let's get innovating and doing some deals with the companies still making money.

* Rather neat little gismos that keep your expensive bag or laptop off the floor (and away from beer spillages or thieves) and hooked under the table where you're sitting. They, of course, match your branded bag!

Am I alone?

2009-05-15T08:11:00.001-07:00

Am I alone in thinking that the Institute is missing a trick (again). It's one thing to ask for poor examples of direct marketing materials (and I see a few). But surely as the arbiteurs of excellence in fundraising they could be naming and shaming poor practice all round?

I'm not talking about stuff that might lead to complaints we've already got the FSRB - hurrah!

No I'm talking about the cringe making telephone campaigns, crap ads and even worse brochures that have no case for support and even less reason to give. What about a site for a wall of shame? MPs need not be alone.

Fat Cat (or perhaps Pig) Bankers

2009-05-13T04:31:00.000-07:00

Just had a supposedly targeted flyer through from MBNA offering me (with a half decent credit rating) 19.9% APR on a supposed new deal!!!!!

Hello, is anyone in? The bank rate is 0.5% which means any bank with a half decent credit rating (OK I agree there aren't so many of them now) can borrow Bank of England money rather cheaply. How much mark up do they need? That sort of increase is nothing short of a loan shark.

Charity affinity cards have, it seems, been out of favour for some time, though some are still making useful money through existing users. So what about "A new deal?"
A nice ethical bank like the Co-op getting together with a syndicate of nice helpful empowering charities working in the community and launching a new card which promises an ethical approach. That is, if you can afford the repayments and are not deep in debt, you get a single digit interest rate on loan or outstanding balances. Still a hell of a profit for the bank and the charity(s).

New opportunities to trade and help the economy.

Managing Expectations

2009-05-08T03:34:00.000-07:00

Talking with some of the fundraising students on the part time MSc course at London South Bank University yesterday about fundraising management. We agreed that sometimes it's the expectations that are the hardest thing of all to manage. From trustees who ask "How long will it take to raise your salary" to the supporters who ask, "What, you get paid?"

Great expectatations can be a heavy burden (think of Linus in Charlie Brown who says "There's no heavier burden than great potential). And so, one of the most important lessons fundraisers can learn (and give their teams license to say)is the ability to say NO! It can of course be moderated.....No, not unless we invest more, or stop doing something else - but essentially managing unrealistic expectations.

It doesn't come easy to those used to being optimists and whose glass is always half full. Never the less it's a powerful tool used sparingly.

I don't believe it!

2009-05-01T08:27:00.000-07:00

Talking with Sue Hind Woodwood yesterday who admits to being a GOF and we couldn't help but bemoan the fact that all the evidence suggests those organisations who survive recessions and prosper most afterwards are those that do not cut investment in people. That is whilst you might, because of reduced cashflow be forced to make savings, you don't through away the loyalty you've built up amongst staff, volunteers and supporters, by ignoring the need to continue developing staff, relationships and reputation. And anyway what are reserves for if not a rainy day? I've news for those refusing to dip into reserves. It's pissing with rain outside!

Even Victor Meldrew would get that one.

Got a pal Peter Bishton cycling back from Greece to Worcester (he cycled out in 2007). Check out www.returnfromlesbos.blogspot.com Nothing earth shattering about the technology but last time he raised £2000 for his chosen charity and this time, I suspect, will be more. Just another volunteer eventer? Well I bet his chosen charity (ActionAid) hadn't cut back on their communications to him!

What a shamble

2009-04-30T09:21:00.000-07:00

Has anyone seen Matthew Little's article in Third Sector on research? He's done a good job at unravelling it, but the whole thing is tortuous in the extreme.

If the Office of the Third Sector had set out to design an inpenitrable process to obfuscate potential areas of really interesting research they couldn't have come close.

Is it really too much to expect that a clear research brief be prepared, with regard to NEEDS and then placed with a single provide to maximise the impact and cost effectiveness? Sadly it seems so.

Shock Horror - fundraising let down.

2009-04-23T05:55:00.000-07:00

Oh mia culpa. I prepared two rants and, thought that I'd uploaded them over Easter but neither appeared. Firstly about arrogance and secondly about incompetance - quite appropriate really!

Lindsay Boswell is asking for responses to the Institute's consultation paper on payment by commission and/or results. Come on. Does nobody remember Hertzberg. Money is not, and never was a motivator. Lack of it is one hell of a demotivator and so peer pressure kicks in and if one person gets a bonus everyone wants one. The private sector are just relearning this painful lesson. Please, everyone lets bombard the institute with an unequivolcal no to commission linked pay.

More about Prophets and Gurus

2009-04-02T03:18:00.000-07:00

Still smarting about the rejection notices but I'll console myself with the fact that most successful authors suffer these things at the hands of those who don't or can't understand the gold dust that they are rejecting.

Talking with a major gift fundraiser about the recession and have to agree that when your portfolio has gone from £100m to £60m you feel (relatively) poor. All the indications are that supporters are continuing to give at previous levels but it's very hard and takes much longer to get prospects to the point of solicitation. Where charities can defer asks, they probably should as asking too soon invariably results in a much smaller gift. That was, I recall exactly the probably we had back in 1992 with a large capital campaign and pressure to get the cash in.

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Perhaps being well informed just makes you grumpy. What do you think???

A prophet in his own land

2009-04-01T06:59:00.000-07:00

Was talking with Richard Gutch, formerly head of Futurebuilders when we found ourselves having a GOM moment. I was bemoaning the fact that a paper, featuring brand new research about donor motivations to be published this summer, has been turned down by both the Institute of Fundraising and the International Fundraising Congress. Is it that I need to change my deoderant I asked Richard? Sniffing cautiously he demurred and agreed that it's all too easy to get overlooked by the bright and shiny new stuff (aka New Kids on the block). Yes I admit it there's 61 years on the clock - including successfully surviving at least three other recessions. Sometimes its hard being the proverbial prophet. Especially when you know you're right!

Never cold call again

2009-03-27T05:21:00.000-07:00

It's always interesting to see what people in other businesses are doing and what we might learn from them.

I came across this supposedly freebe online whilst searching, of all things for street and house to house canvassing agencies, which incidentally didn't appear very prominently.

http://www.nevercoldcall.com/ Is a very American site from a sales guru with live video multimedia doing a high powered pitch for his book "Never cold call again" He goes on to suggest that he'll send you the first 10 chapters free of charge if you fill in your email address. However once you've done that you are "forced" into also providing other email addresses to receive a - wait for it - cold email advertising the book. Of course that email is hidden behind a testimonial from you to your friends saying what a great read it is!

Appart from this being a blatent cold sell there are some rather interesting ideas within those first 10 chapters (you can bypass the testimonial pages by typing ...thanks2 into the page ......thanks1). This is around work rates and that most people make a buying decision after one or two visits/conversation. So, he advises cut out the endless follow-up calls and get on with the job of selling. I think there's something interesting there for fundraisers.

These days we spend a lot of time cultivating prospects. Perhaps if they don't "buy" the case for support after two or three conversations we should move on?

Elisher does it again!

2009-03-24T04:59:00.000-07:00

Whilst Tony often goes off on such a tangent that you think, "what class A substance is he on?" This time I think the old boy's got it rather nicely.

Think Consulting and the Institute have launched, what I think, is a rather helpful "Fundraisng Health Check Tool" at:
http://www.fundraisinghealthcheck.org/

It is of course very simple but, the very act of simplifying your own numbers down, focuses the mind wonderfully. I've tried it for a charity I work with. The comments then generated are thoughtful and thought provoking. Anyone struggling with their net income figures and/or their trustees wanting cuts in investment need to give themselves a health check.

Thumbs up to Tony and no grumps today (well not yet anyway). DO check it out, whether your income is £100K or £10M your mix and returns are worth looking at in a fresh light.

Payment by commission

2009-03-23T10:56:00.000-07:00

Great. The Institute of Fundraising is coming out with a new code on remuneration, including the old chestnut about payment by commission. Third Sector has tried to get a debate going by finding someone to speak for commission - though the argument is about payment by results which really isn't the same thing at all.

I'm all for clarifying the total inappropriate nature of commission based fundraising - in my book there are no grounds ever for a commission based pay structure. Not because it's unethical or may lead to problems (which it will), but principally because it won't work.

Anyone who has read Hertzberg understands that money is not a motivator! Lack of it can be a hell of a demotivator but it's just a hygene factor. Perhaps the bankers will realise this truth sometime soon.

Massive fall in charity income

2009-03-19T06:20:00.000-07:00

So, according to CASS and the Smith Institute (Third Sector online report), Up to £200m is expected to be wiped off legacies IF charity bequests fall in line with predicted fall in house prices!

Or as Homer Simpson would say, dooooooo! That really has to win this week's prize for a statement of the bleeding obvious. Perhaps CASS should start awarding MBOs rather than MScs.

The Chinese pictogram (or is it a pictograph) for the word CRISIS consists of two icons. One representing DANGER the other representing.................OPPORTUNITY.

That surely is the real challenge in these "perfect storm" days, to minimise the danger and exploit the opportunities.

Patronising, paternal attitudes

2009-03-17T04:39:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting interview with Jacqueline Novogratz, CEO of the Acuemen Fund in the McKinsey Quarterly Report entitled - The State of Philanthropy.

Unfortunately she sets off on a very high horse about how private sector initiatives are very new, exciting and different to anything that the charity sector can offer. The interview is a very revealing example of the continuing paternal (or perhaps maternal) attitudes that aid agencies have been criticised about for decades. It is sad to see that atttitude promoted by what otherwise appears to be an excellent agency. The suggestion that a "private sector" approach to charging interest for services is the way forward, and that charities are not good at trading is just patently wrong. Micro finance has been embraced and extended by charities, to many areas never previously envisaged and in ways that could not be contemplated within the constraints of a straightforward repayment system.Privately funded initiatives, whilst very welcome in offering alternatives and additional funding need to work in partnership with agencies who know and understand the problems they are trying to solve and can do it without patronising and disempowering the beneficiaries.

What's more it seems to link directly to the trap that other financing agencies, offering loan finance to charities, rather than grants, can fall into. That is, the one where they, the funder know best. The voluntary agency can be forced to jump through inappropriate hoops and create costly processes just to comply with the perceived needs of the funder. Some organisations having developed a model, follow it slavishly, unable to respond to change, flexibility and other experiences, not least the expertise built up over many years of successful interventions.

It happens every spring (with apologies to Don Partridge)

2009-03-16T04:30:00.000-07:00

Hi ho, the sun is shining, the birds (but no bluebirds in the UK Don) are singing, the daffs are are out and on a morning like this it's hard to be grumpy. Then I read Stephen Bubb's blog on the Grauniad site and think "not again".

As a master of the bleeding obvious he suggests that the recession will pose huge challenges for the third sector and then goes and spoils it all by suggesting "combined fundraising" modelled on the Disasters Emergency Committee" and I think, what particular class A drug is he on?

The DEC works because there is a very simple, well stated case for support that overides most other objections. Annual and Biennenial events like Comic Relief and Children in Need focus increasingly on outcomes that those supporting will get and feel good about donating to. How can that possibly translate into regular, reapeatable, sustainable, activities that a syndicate of charities might be able to utilize? And yet......

There are some really good examples of payroll canvassing syndicates, catalogue trading partnerships and carefully planned events where, a simliar or linked case for support means that supporters do get it and aren't confused by the potentail for conflicting asks. The numerous attempts at linked internet trading channels/arcades/sites have patently failed to garner much support because they do try and appeal to everyone so finish up attracting nobody. Yet Everyclick would probably argue that they are helping a huge range of charities through a successful cause related marketing idea.

On balance I can't see it happening myself but perhaps someone at Futurebuilders (no names please) or Capacitybuilders might finally twig that by investing in fundraising capacity they will significantly enhance the potential to deliver services.

£££ Million plus donors

2009-03-13T04:16:00.000-07:00

Went to the excellent launch of the Coutt's (who else?) report compiled by Beth Breeze at Kent Uni (where the report is a free downloadable pdf) about donors who gave £1million or more last year. 193 of the FRBs gave - mostly to higher education or trusts/endowments. What odds on more or less in 2009?

It's, of course, quite true that if your portfolio has fallen from £100m to £60m you feel relatively poor but whilst those, last year, giving part of their seven figure bonus' away might well feel the pinch doesn't the fundraiser's challenge come to the fore? Transformational giving is great for the donor and the recipient charity. There's evidence to suggest even the seriously rich feel the extra nought on the gift is something rather special and even prefer to hand over a cheque rather than simply use CHAPs. Back to Redmond Mullins adage that you cannot thank people too much or too often.

AGOFWKS

2009-03-12T05:16:00.000-07:00

Here it is - inspired by the ramblings of John Sauve-Rodd:

NOS OBLITI SUMUS PLUS QUAM VOS UMQUAM SCIETIS
We've forgotten more than you'll ever know

For baby boomers who remember "the good old days" and actually know how to survive a recession.