Why the England team lost

So Stephen Gerrard thinks that by telling the England team how painful not qualifying is, he is going to motivate them to win? Well that worked well didn't it? Sports Psychologists know (or ought to) that to improve your winning edge you visualize, not failure but success! Did Johnny Wilkinson line up his penalty kicks thinking, " this one might veer left?" Not in a month of Sundays. He visualized the ball sailing between the posts. Over and over again. Similarly penalty takers are taught to see the ball in the back of the net, not sailing over the crossbar.

The England team were ranked 8th but conspicously under achieved, at least in part, because they were filled with the fear of failure instead of being given the licence to play to their strengths and visualize the taste of success.

So how do we apply these lessons to fundraising? Simples. Give your fundraisers the license to fail, don't make taking risks a blame game. Allow them to take chances (carefully calculated of course). Encourage an atmosphere that celebrates success and learns from failure. We generally learn much more from something going wrong, provided that we allow people to analyse and reflect in a non-judgemental environment.

Try it sometime and see the difference in performance.

How to raise more money?

That's the holy grail or the question to the answer 42 (sorry Douglas Adams) yes?

Well, perhaps not. I did an interview with John Bingham at the Daily Telegraph about the latest OECD report discussing the question of whether, "are we in the UK becoming more generous?" There is some evidence, but my take based on the research and personal observations is that the jury is still out. Consequently any increase in generosity is much more likely to be a legacy of the recession. After all, how many of you really feel better off now than 12 months ago?

So maybe we need to be thinking more about those crucial questions of capacity to give and propensity to give before we try to home our fundraising techniques. Just because somebody appears in the Sunday Times Rich List and so is worth at least £85m (used to be around £10m)does not mean that they are interested in, or will ever be interested in your case for support no matter how potent or powerful your ask. That said, recent experiences of Crowd Fundraising (Claire Squires and Steven Sutton) show that asks can go viral if everything fits. Though how do you make it fit?

I think therefore that my session at the DSC fair next Friday "Marketing Strategy for Effective Fundraising" is going to pose some particularly jucy, pertinant questions and what's more I'm going to have a go at winkling out some of the answers! So I do hope to see some of you there. Meanwhile what are your thoughts on the question of whether we are indeed becoming more generous? After all, if it is true, it's sure going to make fundraising even more effective.

To the regulars, I'm sorry that I've been away for some time with family problems but hope to be updating regularly from now on.

What's philanthropy got to do with fundraising?

Seriously, I'm seeing an increasing use of fundraising technique with little regard for the basis case for support. Am I alone in worrying that we are really in danger of alienating potential supporters with repeated, inappropriate demands for money, time and involvement without paying any attention to what the supporters really would like to see? Hands up those of you who have talked to or heard committed supporters moaning about endless appeals, inappropriate asks, six figure salaries and the like? The media will always be ready with a pop but I am not alone in detecting a very worrying rise in the number of serious givers who are variously changing their giving habits.
It's one of the reasons we're asking the question at a round table session on 29th January. Come along if you've got something to add, or would just like to hear some informed comment. You can book a place through Eventbrite.

And, please add your five eggs worth here. I think it could be the big question for 2014. Are we losing givers faster than we're recruiting them?

How to get the Case for Support right?

I've just being editing a cracking case for support for a new charity working with people in poverty in Ghana. What is particularly interesting is that Ghana is generally viewed as "middle income country (WHO) but in fact some areas are dirt poor as a young teacher doing VSO in Lawra found to her considerable cost. Remote, hot, very very poor the kids spent all day hunting for food rather than walking several kilometres (in that heat) to sit in a shack.

However instead of just getting on with the VSO role (to help improve teaching methods) she set about raising the funds to build a kitchen. Working with parents and teachers (who run the free lunch facility) the charity she set up build the facilities, laid on clean water and provided a regular supply of local food. Now attendenc has risen from 76% to 96%. The kids all get a free meal and their performance has improved dramatically.

It's so simple, it's a story. Sarah came home, gave up teaching and splits her time between fundraising and running three projects in and around Lawra. Tell it how it is. What do they do? why do they do it? And why you should support them? We overcomplicate these things. Of course a grant application might need a 10 page description but it's still the same three questions that have got to be asked. ATE Ghana is set to raise and invest £100k in their first year of operation. Not bad for a young girl! Take a look at the story at: www.ateghana.org What's not to like?

When does a gift (or a giver) become major?

As followers of this blog will know, I believe that donors give blood and body parts, whilst people give money to charities so should be shown some respect and called, givers, whatever the value of their gift.

We had a particularly interesting meeting at the Institute of Fundraising Consultants Group AGM when Theresa Lloyd talked about philanthropic motivations from the perspective of seriously wealthy UK givers, Eddy Hogg talked about £1m givers from a global perspective and Martin Kaufman talked about what value consultants add to the whole major gift process from a uniquely personal perspective. What all three emphasised is how well universities do at major gift fundraising and that there are lessons for everyone looking at those experiences.

We also discussed, at some length, at what level of gift someone is considered a "major giver?" Some reckoned it's £10,000 or even £25,000 whilst others suggested that £5 per month over 15 years gift aided (£1125) might be considered a possible! My own view, confirmed by published research, is that anybody who can write you a cheque for £1000 can, if so motivated, put an extra 0 on the end. So whilst you may not treat your £1000 givers as major givers you would be foolish not to treat them as major gift prospects! Especially when you add in the possibility of a legacy. Remember the average residiary charitable legacy gift is more than £50,000 and even the average specific legacy gift is approaching £5,000

But what do think?

The art or science of Philanthropy?

Lots going on in the field of Philanthropy it seems. There's a month of philanthropy events at Charterhouse I went along on Monday and was treated to a very interesting historical perspective. I'd suggest it's worth getting along to one if you can.

Then there is the new book out by Beth Breeze and Theresa Lloyd which is an excellent follow-up on Theresa's original "Why Rich People Give" ten years ago. It revisits 40 of them and adds another 40 "newer" philanthropists. Interesting isn't it that philanthropy is often seen as the preserve of the rich and yet it is the poorest 10% of the population in the UK who give the most as a percentage of their income?

What's more, good old Wikipedia reminds us that, "Philanthropy etymologically means "love of humanity" in the sense of caring for, nourishing, developing, and enhancing "what it is to be human" on both the benefactors' (by identifying and exercising their values in giving and volunteering) and beneficiaries' (by benefiting) parts" In other words, anyone can be a philanthropist! Dawkins reckons we have to teach altruism because it isn't in our Genes, whilst Darwin considered that we actually are very altruistic animals. Economists have a word or three to say about it too, but then they have something to say about most things, just a shame they can never agree. By the way, Theresa, Eddy Hogg and Martin Kaufman are all talking at the Institute of Fundraising Consultants Group meeting on 19th November so if you fancy coming along you can book here.

My own research is beginning to show that what Scott Fitzgerald and Hemmingway were (wrongly) reputed to have argued:
"The Rich are different to us" "Yes, they've got more money" is in fact pretty spot on. Whether people are giving £5 or £10 pounds a month to their favourite causes, or a £1 million a year, they are largely coming from the same place.

For fundraisers the key is to understand where each of their givers and prospects are coming from in order to make the most appropriate, timely, well-informed and relevant ask. Simply when you spell it out but probably Alchemy rather than Chemistry. Or is it?

Are the newly privatised Royal Mail already up to something?

Wow! £3.5bn from the sale of shares and a £10bn pension liability over the next few years. Do the discounted cash flow and you'll see more political dogma than economic logic. What's worse they might already be trying to exploit their position.

I understand that significant and potentially costly changes being made by Royal Mail with effect from 4th November 2013. Basically charities receive a rebate on all freepost envelopes that are returned with a stamp (often 50% of a dm programme)

Apparently Royal Mail have informed Valldata that from 4th November new Business Reply Envelopes must be used with new barcodes and that any mail received in the current envelopes after 4th November will not be admissible for rebate.

Here's the catch 22. All new envelopes need to be submitted and approved by Royal Mail but you can't submit them until the 4th November as the barcode generator will not be available until then!

Valldata and others are continuing to lobby hard on behalf of all their clients to secure an overlap period where existing BRE’s will continue to qualify for the rebate. Because if for example your Christmas mailing has already been produced with the existing envelopes you can expect a cost of £100s if not £000s in additional postage.

This is a difficult and grossly unfair situation and we all need to do something to challenge this. In view of the current media hype around Royal Mail shares I wonder if this would be something that they wouldn’t want the sector bringing to the attention of the general public? What do you think?