Are you for or against the "Fundraising Preference Service"?

The arguments are hotting up. Adrian Sargeant has, once again, offered some very helpful research amongst, he says, one million lapsed donors, so quite a sample to say that they are generally content with the communications they received from the respective charities. He uses this to justify a powerful attack on the proposed FPS.

He says, "The fundraising sector’s response to the proposed Fundraising Preference service has been ‘pathetically’ limp and that all those who are endorsing it without any evidence that it is needed should feel ashamed." Adrian also challenges Stuart Etherington to come up with the evidence to support the various NCVO report recommendations.

Ian MacQuillin agrees and has started his "say no" campaign.

I fear we're too late. We've missed the boat. The Commons Select Committee won't even ask for any fundraisers' opinions or evidence.

Whilst I completely agree that we didn't, a year ago, need a specific FPS we have, I believe, brought this down on our own heads. As I've been grumping about for months the transactional approach we've been trying to use doesn't work very well. Inappropriate, repetitive asks to upgrade one-off single donations to regular monthly gifts does piss people off. This is where the dissatisfaction lies and by doing nothing about it till now, it is hard to argue that an opt out service isn't a good idea. It doesn't stop us advertising, campaigning, asking for donations. But it will give one-off givers the opportunity to avoid automated, repetitive, inappropriate, upgrade asks.

We're going to have to work much harder at communicating effectively, asking for permission and, most important of all, taking time to develop relationships that the givers want - not what we want to saddle them with. It might well reduce response rates, we are going to have to work harder and smarter. And about bloody time too!

Crap fundraising practices

Well the s**t has hit the fan.Hasn't it?

The Institute of Fundraising spends the summer agonising over font sizes, what is a vulnerable adult and how to opt out, gets the report out which goes unnoticed whilst Sir Stuart's review on behaviour (see report) gets him straight onto radio 4. A lot of this is aimed at older people who remain more trusting of charities. How will it affect the attitudes and behaviours of more cynical baby boomers?

So what do we make of the recommendations and how will it affect fundraising?

Clearly, as Stephen Pigeon (chair of the Fundraising Standards Committee until recently) has commented, we took our eyes off the ball and in some cases went right back to transactional fundraising (and worse) in the pursuit of income at any cost.Texting people dozens of times after a single donation is crap fundraising. Phoning people on multiple occasions to upgrade a direct debit is crap fundraising. Why do we never learn from history?

What do you think needs to happen for fundraisers to be able to do their job properly?

Watch this space.

Champagne and Social Enterprise still on offer!

I was at the NCVO and ISIRC conferences in Birmingham last month presenting papers on Philanthropy and Social Investment but listening to a number on developing Social Enterprise(SE). There's still a lot of discussion about what SE is and isn't but between a large number of academics no agreed definition save that "you know one when you see it" and also lots on what it isn't.

So I'm offering (again) a bottle of champagne to the best definition in 30 words or less and as someone pointed out this around the 140 character SMS/Tweet limit. 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 (now a reader at LSBU!), gave a very whitty run down last time 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. Just how much have we heard of late?

I am still convinced 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. Albeit at the moment, with the retreat of government, it's definitely becoming the "Smaller Society"

Sir Stuart Etherington and the 4th Sector!

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.

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

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?

The First Cut is the deepest

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

A dearth of good fundraisers?

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.

The 50 best fundraising blogs

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.