£3 DOES NOT SAVE THE PLANET

When are we going to stop over egging it?

An imploring ad that your donation of £3 will provide a life saving kit for a dog, cat or child is simply not credible. It is only vaguely true if the gift is converted quickly at low cost into a regular donation. But that's not what people sign up to. My children (35 and 38!) are fed up with texting £3 and then being bombarded with texts emails and calls. And they, like a lot of their friends, actually want to help. They do believe their donations make a difference.Sadly they are becoming cynical, disillusioned, and less likely to give again.

This summer's debacle has largely been around the reversion to transactional fundraising (text £3 to save the dog or whatever) and the then formulaic,bullying tactics employed to "persuade" those givers to convert to monthly gifts. At least street canvassers are honest. They ask, up front, for a monthly donation - gift aided. That means your £10 becomes £750 over five years. That might change the world, for the better, in a tiny way.

I continue to be gob smacked that many charities who ought to know better are ignoring all the red flags (Sir Stuart's report is to be implemented). When are we going to start being transparent? When are we going to start trying to build a relationship by ensuring that givers understand where the money is going (the whole pound)? And treat givers with respect.

As Charlie Brown used to say, "I weep for my generation"

Tell me, please, that I don't need to worry.

Time to say no to fundraisers?

In the wake of the sad Olive Cooke episode the Institute of Fundraising has launched an investigation into standards and codes of practice in the light of recommendations from the FRSB and calls from MPs and Peers to change the law.

I did a TV interview with David Garmston yesterday stressing that whilst fundraisers have a duty to ask for money everybody has the right to say no. It's not difficult in the street - or shouldn't be as pursuing someone after they've said no is crap fundraising and won't work. However when does it become too forceful to ask by letter, email or telephone in the face of donations that stopped months or even years before? We are are loathe to admit that someone is a lapsed giver but if that really is the reality we'd better get over it and let people get on with their lives. It is a few years since I was a director of fundraising but I sense people still think that size is everything. i.e. I've got a bigger database than you(even if half of them never give) and of course how do we know that they are not still legacy prospects?

Well in the age old method, ask them! Let's have a grown up conversation that allows people freely, without pressure or guilt, to say, please no more requests for money. They might then still be willing to get news and genuine updates occasionally, but, it has to be an agreement that we stick to.

I'm increasingly of a mind that some charities really can't take no for an answer. I had a letter from an older lady's daughter in response to my earlier TV "cri de coeur" that we don't need more legislation. She went through numerous episodes of charities continuing to contact her mother despite their agreed, no more please. Again it's crap fundraising and will in time, bite us in the bum! We have to get better at not sharing names and following up ad nausium. Time I believe for more intelligent asking and back to Ken Burnett's idea of relationship fundraising.

I dare you to disagree.

Always have a plan B

So what are you doing to improve your fundraising effectiveness? Maximising the use of social media? tick. Optimizing the use of volunteers? tick. Going back over all the stuff that didn't work? Ah, no time? Make time. It is in our failures, also runs and non-starters that some of the best alternative plans are fashioned. As Redmond Mullen used to say, "There's nothing new under the sun in fundraising" (though I don't know what he'd make of SMS) but as I always say, " You can always find a new twist"

On the radio this morning defending street canvassers again when FiveLive rang me to oppose what Lord Hodgson is recommending. Well, I do oppose his procrastination over the public benefits test and possibly the payment of trustees, but most of what has been recommended is all good stuff. More of the FRSB and PFRA. More on self-regulation and trusting the charities to get it right. That includes a level playing field for house to house so do away with the exemption certificates for the few but make sure everyone, commercial or charity, has permission to collect merchandise. That of course isn't so newsworthy so the noble lords was, I believe, unopposed cause the Beeb didn't have a plan B.

I failed to persuade enough of you to vote me in as a trustee of the Institute in the main election (tante pis) it was a long shot with 10 people standing for two places. However plan B means I've been elected by my peers (the other chairs of the Institute of Fundraising Special Interest Groups) to represent the groups as a trustee. So job done, well started at least. So let me know what you think the Institute ought to be concentrating on. More member benefits? Better CPD (continuing professional development) or lobbying harder on behalf of fundraising with the likes of Hodgson?

Meanwhile keep working on your plan B.

The Perils of Charity Trading

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.