Send me your nominations for the Museum of Philanthropy

Have you noticed the increasing trend to reject philanthropic deeds that are now seen as politically incorrect?

The statue of Cecil Rhodes (at Oriel College Oxford) is to stay put but only just. The college began a consultation last month and said the "overwhelming" response was that Rhodes should stay." The college said the statue was a reminder of the complexity of history and of the legacies of colonialism. However, in a statement, the campaign group Rhodes Must Fall said: "This recent move is outrageous, dishonest, and cynical. This is not over." In a similar vein, the university of Cape Town is fighting to keep their bronze of Rhodes against a determined student campaign.

Meanwhile Age UK are fighting to hang on to their deal with Eon. They currently say, "Age UK and EON have decided to temporarily suspend offering the Age UK Fixed 2 year EON energy tariff to new and renewing customers." The sponsorship deal made a lot of money for the charity but has come in for much criticism as not being the best deal for customers. The Sun in particular claimed, that Eon has been paying £6 million a year to the charity and getting promotion for higher rate tariffs in return. It claimed further that the tariff recommended by the charity, on average, costs pensioners £245 more than they would pay on Eon’s cheapest deal.

Perhaps, (rather like the Radio 4 virtual "Museum of Curiosity" or even the real one called the Viktor Wynd Museum of Curiosities in Mare Street, Hackney!) we need a museum that can accept unwanted Philanthropic Gifts? It could proudly display all the vainglorious attempts at immortality as well as the fundraising techniques that have rather lost their glamour or worse!

I'm giving a keynote fundraising speech at the Museum of London next week and thought I might launch the idea there. So please send me, your nominations, for what might go on show. A bottle of champagne for the best one.

How will the Fundraising Preference Service Work?

I was at the IoF/Small Charities Coalition meeting yesterday to hear Stephen Dunmore and George Kidd talk about The Etherington review, the new fundraising regulator and the FPS. Whilst I think that they will try to operate pragmatically and reasonably I continue to worry that the devil will be in the detail.

Bernard Jenkin MP would probably say we asked for it and now we're getting it. However as I reminded everyone. The MPS and the TPS are all about avoiding unsolicited marketing approaches. Individuals can ask any charity they give to, to stop sending appeals (and for goodness sake what sensible fundraiser would ignore a direct request?) so why oh why do we need to go further? The real danger I fear is that, in an effort to "keep in simple" (Kidd) we will require all existing givers to any charity to opt back into receiving communications. And that is a very slippery path. As Adrian Sergeant asks,why should we single out charities when financial services go unnoticed?

I doubt it will affect small charities with limited direct marketing programmes but a blanket approach could be the "thermo-nuclear device" that some commentators and fundraisers fear.

However, like Baldrick, I have a plan! I hope, a cunning plan.

I'm talking to fundraisers at the Museum of London Enterprise and Philanthropy conference on 2nd March so come along and see what you think of my idea.

Meanwhile are you worried?

More New Year Fundraising Resolutions?

My son announced that he's giving up booze for the month. A laudable effort something I've done in the past (both with success and failure) and it's true most of us consider giving something up at this time of year. However how about resolving to do something really positive rather than negative?

We've all been somewhat shocked and taken aback by the fundraising debacle which hit the press in the summer with the Olive Cooke affair, got worse with the Daily Mail revelations of sharp practice and probably reached a nadir with the Commons enquiry, the Stuart Etherington report and the Institute's own entrail gazing exercises (in which I participated hoping we'd do more good than harm). So we've got a new regime(?) wrists have been slapped, some agencies have gone bust and some charities are predicting dire consequences. Is it all OK now? Safe to go back into the acquisition water? To shall we say, "carry on fundraising"?

Somehow I don't think so. We need, I believe, a new mindset. Or perhaps a development of what Ken Burnett, George Smith and Stephen Pidgeon have been wittering on about for years.Not to mention the academics like Adrian Sergeant and myself. Dan Palotta has it right too. If you haven't heard his rant, do so right now.

Fundraising, simply, has to be about investment. Fundraisers have to develop relationships - and that doesn't mean converting one off givers to a direct debit. Chief Executives and Trustees are to blame for the short sighted, transactional fundraising that has taken over from all the supporter development programmes.

I've just witnessed the true story of a new fundraising appointee, employed for the first time as a Community Fundraiser (in a charity that has never done community fund-raising before) with the absurd target of £120,000 in his first year. The Chief Executive set the target, with trustee support. Probably felt it was a win-win, whereas in fact of course it is a lose-lose. Even if he gets lucky and finds some amazing, friends, volunteers and groups to help him raise that money it will be completely unsustainable. And if he fails, everyone will say, "I told you so".

How do we get the message over to senior managers, who should know better, and trustees who need to learn to know better? The message that effective, sustainable fundraising takes time, money, effort and bags of support from the whole organisation. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up to fail again and again.

I'm doing a session at the DSC on Monday 25th January, so come along and hear more and if you disagree tell me why!

So Fundraisers oppose the Fundraising Preference Service? There's a surprise!

Adrian Sergeant and Ian MacQuillin have published an interesting report which is around the replies of more than 500 fundraisers to the their questions about the acceptability of a new regulator and the proposed FPS.

However whilst fundraisers are split on the acceptability of a new regulator to replace the FRSB it is claimed that 75% are opposed to the introduction of the proposed FPS. However if you look at the detail only 46% actively oppose it and 35% say we should accept it! (whilst trying to influence it). I'm not convinced that makes 75% actively opposed. Au contraire a lot of us answered that we have just got to get used to it as it is going to happen. So is that really opposing it? I suppose intellectually I feel it is unnecessary but I think that is reading too much into the answers, don't you?

In reality, of course, most fundraisers probably do feel that it is going to be an unnecessary burden but that we'll have to learn to live with it and make the most of a bad job because, we (and the Daily Mail) have brought this upon ourselves.

I'm doing a session at the DSC Fundraising Fair this week about the 10 most common errors that fundraisers make and what to do to avoid them. What shall I say about regulation I wonder? Do come along and see.

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!

£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.

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.