Why do people stop giving?

So do you really know why people who have been giving you money stop?

Just done four television and radio interviews about whether high pressure telephone, direct mail, digital and canvassing fundraisers are leading more people to say no. The back story is the so very sad story of the suicide of Olive Cooke who's family say she was "bombarded" by charities to give money and felt pressured into giving. In reality she was profoundly upset about £250 going missing in the post but the "incessant" pressure by charities can't have helped.

Whilst I'm the first to defend the right (or even duty) of charities and their fundraisers to ask (appropriately) for money; I equally defend the right (sounding like Voltaire?) of individuals to say no and say it clearly so that we really hear what they are saying. I do think we are, at times, in serious danger of using too much persuasion to put over our case for support. Of particular concern are the older supporters, like Olive, who do have standing orders, direct debits and who do respond to our regular appeals for cash. Some people find it very hard to say no and so find themselves getting asks from dozens of charities. I also suspect that if we sat down with people like Olive we'd find that they have a desire to help everyone but a real interest in, perhaps, half a dozen or so, actual causes.

So is there a case for going beyond TPS and MPS (and email opt-out lists) and creating a shared database that charities have to dedupe against before mailing? That database could include all those giving to charities but opting to receive no further unsolicited communications. And I do mean unsolicited. Just because someone gave to us three years ago is not a good reason to treat them as a long lost friend. I think we have to get far more proactive about this especially as so many charities are going back to transactional fundraising with text and dm calls with concerted follow-ups to convert to regular giving.

One of the callers talked about her dad who gives a one-off donation of £200 to nearly every charity who calls him. Of course they all do! However his intent is that the donation is a one-off, go away, gift and we don't like that do we?

Is there a place for the PFRA or the Institute of Fundraising to start a campaign for a proactive opt-out database?

I think there is but I'd love to hear what you think.

Is it a right or a duty for fundraisers to ask for money?

Went to a very interesting media briefing meeting with the PFRA and the indomitable Ian MacQuillan. Now whilst much of what was said comes under "Chatham House Rules" a very interesting discussion emerged over the aborted(?) Institute of Fundraising campaign that was proposed a few years ago. That was the idea that fundraisers not only need to celebrate the task of asking for support, since that is what changes the world for the better; but actually stand tall recognising that they have a right to ask for money to make the world a better place. Sadly the campaign never happened. Meanwhile the PFRA have used part of this in their more positive media messaging saying that whilst the public has a right not to be harassed, fundraisers never the less have the right to ask. This is proving quite effective in changing the tone of media coverage of street canvassing stories.

In the meantime Ian and I have also debated at length, over a glass of wine, this positive stance and I used a variation in support of street canvassers recently. To paraphrase I said something along the lines that,"fundraisers not only have a right to ask,they have a duty. On the other hand the public certainly has the right to say no!

Should we be getting the tee-shirts printed. As a fundraiser I have a duty to ask for money, whilst you have the right to say no. Maybe a bit too long and needing some more work but I'm convinced that we need to stand up and be counted.Any offers of an improved wording?

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.

More on giving motivations or "why I hate chuggers"

I spend some time on TV and radio defending street canvassing, because if done properly and sensitively it is another very appropriate fundraising practice that helps charities reach younger potential supporters. Many people however talk about how guilty they feel saying no. When Ian MacQuillan sent me this article, by Julian Baggini I knew I had to comment on his verbalisation of what I think a lot of people will recognise when they encounter a canvasser. The full article is in a magazine called Heaver and whilst I don't agree with everything he says I think the sentiment is spot on. That's why I'm electing Julian an honorary member of the association!

Julian writes that, "bitter experience having taught you to be alert to their presence, you spot one in your path as you approach. What to do? Pretend you haven't seen anything? Keep your gaze fixed ahead and avoid any distraction? Try to appease the monster? Whatever you choose, you know the one thing you must not do under any circumstances is stop. Once they've demobilised you, there is no way out that isn't ugly."

He's talking, of course, about what many call chuggers and he reckons they are somewhat dishonest in that for examply, "they have numerous plays designed to make you stop, from complementing you on your scarf to asking whether you've ever met a Nobel prize winner." He elaborates further and goes on to say that secondly he finds that,

"their euphoric, joyful enthusiasm isn't natural. Or at least, it certainly isn't British. Spending a whole day in the often rain outdoors being dodged by people is not fun. So these people are either massive fakers, on heavy medication, insane, or some combination of the above". And he doesn't stop there going on to add that he resents being made to feel guilty! He adds, "I resent being made to feel bad when I'm sure I'm more conscientious about my charitable giving than most of the saps who stop. It should be more virtuous to give under no pressure from the privacy of your own home. But it is those who stop who look kind and those who walk by who look mean. It feels as though we are being judged by how we respond to chuggers when that is no the benchmark of philanthropy at all."

However the punchline is, rightly saved until the end where delivering his "coup de grace" he says, movingly,

"But the truth is, I should feel bad, and that's why I hate them. I hate them for reminding me that, even if I do already give money to charity, it is not enough. There are numerous good causes, all of which deserve my cash or time and while I can't give to all of them, I can and should give more to more of them. I hate them for interrupting my healthy, lovely day with thoughts about disease, death and suffering. I hate them because they remind me that relying on the milk of human kindness is not enough. Chuggers exist because they work, and that means they are plenty of people who just would not give as much as they do if it weren't for chirpy youths accosting them on the street. And I hate them for reminding me that I'm a miserable misanthropic sod who can so easily hate people who are only trying to earn a living in some kind of meaningful purposeful way. In short, I hate them for reminding me of all that is bad in the world when reminding is just what we all need in order to make it better."

Thank you Julian I couldn't have put it better myself! Do you agree or think we're both barking?

Payment by Commission - The Big Debate

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.

Radio 5 Live

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.