Burning Man - what a fundraising opportunity! Geronto Philanthropy in Action?

Sorry for the long absence. I've been "off grid" for three weeks in the middle of the Nevada Dessert.

It's an annual festival attended by 70,000 mostly white, middle class Californians and demonstrates, some would say, an amazingly philanthropic attitude. Below is a photograph of the artwork I helped to build, funded incidentally by a grant from the organisers - who claim to be one of the biggest US grant makers helping new works of sculptural/architectural merit. The other funding came from a Kickstarter request - crowd funding in operation and working quite well.

The really interesting thing though is that the whole week long festival operates on a "gift economy." That is once you've paid your 800 bucks or whatever, for your ticket, all the camps, cafes, bars and events you visit are completely free. Drinks, food, whatever! What's more it seems to me that the whole thing is run by and (largely) for baby boomers. There are, of course, people of all ages there. However the predominant feature is of grey beards and kaftans (or in the extreme, a naturist garb).

So what's going on? Millions of dollars raised and spent on art and promoting an amazing experience. Yes lot's of reciprocity and some enlightened self interest. I think however there's quite a bit of altruism going on. Take a look at the site and let me know what you think.

Maybe it's just an extravagance but perhaps there is something for fundraisers to learn from?

Geronto Philanthropy. Why getting it right with older givers is so Fracking important

Theo Schuyt has coined the term "Geronto Philanthropy" to describe the giving of older people and I think it is spot on because, as we all know(?) propensity and capacity to give increases with age. He and Rene Bekkers suggest that academics and fundraisers need to think more carefully about the views and news concerning those approaching their prime. As my friend Peter Maguire, another ageing rock god says, "we're not old, just hugely experienced". Theo was talking at the European Research Network on Philanthropy(ERNOP) conference in Paris this week. Schuyt and Bekkers presented some pretty compelling evidence which fundraisers need to consider carefully. It is something, as a self-obsessed (and confessed) baby boomer I've been banging on about for some time.

There were some other very interesting and important papers at the ERNOP conference. The Institute of Fundraising Convention wasn't bad either but fundraisers interested in what is happening in philanthropy really ought to consider this conference in their research budget. For example, that truism about giving increasing with age up to about 70 needs to be revised to 80 when considering legacy gifts. And if you're not investing more in legacy development, why the hell not?

Seriously, with the fall out from the Olive Cooke furore and the Dail Mail exposee (and even the Guardian is having a pop)we need to get our approaches sorted out right now. The Government is already announcing more legislation and Stuart Etherington is going to chair another enquiry so we have to go way beyond those pontifications and practice what older givers want us to. That's still changing the world and still asking for the money to do it but without the hassle.

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.

How do we prevent supporters from stopping their gifts?

The very sad saga around Olive Cooke continues. You and Yours ran a piece on Friday about "hard sell" charity fundraising. Dominic Nutt, a public affairs consultant, suggested that gifts to syndicated events can lead to multiple asks and, in effect, a huge increase in the numbers of asks by the charities involved. Similarly single or occasional donations to a number of charities, as a response to their direct marketing asks, can lead each to an increasingly urgent, even desperate, cycle of fundraising letters, emails, SMS messages and phone calls. I talked to one of their researchers yesterday and "You and Yours" are also planning a follow-up next week, so do watch this space.

Incidentally talking about desperate comms, Peter White once interviewed me at Leonard Cheshire. I vainly tried to list all the sponsors in the middle of a question and got it wrong three times. He patiently repeated the question until the lights went on and I said, "you're not going to use this are you?" Peter simply smiled and asked the question again!

Alistair McLean chief executive of the FSB, reported that complaints have increased and that an investigation is to be conducted. The issue of "vulnerable older people" was aired and it was suggested that more must be done in clarifying and simplifying the communications from charities.

I believe one of the biggest issues is for fundraisers to come clean about "lapsed" supporters. A one-off donation to a charity does not make you a supporter. I have, over the years, tested the responses of a large number of charities and find many continue to mail me despite no response from me for years. Now I know we're terrified of stopping communications with people who might leave us a legacy but these missives are not "communications" or "legacy development" but increasingly urgent and varied attempts to "reactivate" me.

It's simply not good enough.

We have to get cleverer and sorting out who is willing to hear from us and who isn't.
Going right back to Botton Village and Laurence Stroud's revolutionary (at that time) letters, asking supporters how often they would like to hear about the work. It worked then and if, appropriately modified, used today could dramatically improve the relationships with remaining supporters. It would also give improved opportunities to talk about legacies - a vital long term objective.

Who's going to be brave enough to try it?

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.

Why people don't give

Many practitioners and academics (me included) spend a lot of time thinking about the reasons behind why people give money to charity. It's a fertile and important area of research as insights can help fundraisers dramatically improve their fundraising effectiveness. In that I'm hoping to publish my doctoral research this summer so watch this space.

In the meantime however as I interview charity supporters (and a few non-givers) I'm increasingly intrigued as to when and why people don't give. Claire Axelrad and I have been having an interesting debate in the Major Donor SIG pages about the importance of considering gender issues when crafting communications - written or verbal. I'm convinced that inappropriate messages are turning people off in an alarming manner. It's almost as if some people look for a reason not to give or to reject an ask. Look at the continued furore there is about street canvassing. It's even made it into Wikipedia.

However when you look at the research, as opposed to the urban myths some interesting observations become clearer. CAF report every year that around 60% of the adult population gave money to charity in the month prior to the survey. Cathy Pharaoh, who supervises the research maintains that this conspicuously underreports the actual percentage of people giving. Others consider that the American statistics of around 80% of the adult population as givers, are probably approached by the UK if we could get a more accurate measure. That is still however a very large number of adults not giving when Darwin (as opposed to Dawkins) reckons that we are all fundamentally altruistic animals.

What is not disputed is that giving across the population, as a percentage of GDP, has fallen very considerably over the last 100 years. In the last 20 years that I've been a fundraising practitioner and academic I see more charities asking for more money in more and more inappropriate ways. I still think compassion fatigue is a myth but I'm certain that, by our own poor practices, we are encouraging more people to say no.

So why shouldn't charities pay celebrities?

The Sun, Mirror and the Mail, not to mention Radio 5 (who interviewed me today) have all got very hot under the collar about Barnardo's paying a minor celebrity Binky Felstead (sic) to back a retail campaign. So why all the fuss? Staff get paid, actors and after dinner speakers get paid - you need them under contract to ensure they turn up and do what the say they will. I have intimate knowledge (and the scars) of relying on celebs goodwill when they say they will turn up on a wet Friday night in Shepperton and then get a better offer. By having a contract everyone knows where they are. If the celebrity then choses to donate back their fee that is a win-win but if they don't?

Good practice dictates that we fundraisers ask people to do stuff for free all the time. It's called volunteering. However if that person is the right "face" or has the right skill set and is only mildly committed how much better to be safe than sorry. Or perhaps I really am getting too grumpy even for these pages. Have you ever paid a celebrity? If not why not?