What a shamble

Has anyone seen Matthew Little's article in Third Sector on research? He's done a good job at unravelling it, but the whole thing is tortuous in the extreme.

If the Office of the Third Sector had set out to design an inpenitrable process to obfuscate potential areas of really interesting research they couldn't have come close.

Is it really too much to expect that a clear research brief be prepared, with regard to NEEDS and then placed with a single provide to maximise the impact and cost effectiveness? Sadly it seems so.

Shock Horror - fundraising let down.

Oh mia culpa. I prepared two rants and, thought that I'd uploaded them over Easter but neither appeared. Firstly about arrogance and secondly about incompetance - quite appropriate really!

Lindsay Boswell is asking for responses to the Institute's consultation paper on payment by commission and/or results. Come on. Does nobody remember Hertzberg. Money is not, and never was a motivator. Lack of it is one hell of a demotivator and so peer pressure kicks in and if one person gets a bonus everyone wants one. The private sector are just relearning this painful lesson. Please, everyone lets bombard the institute with an unequivolcal no to commission linked pay.

More about Prophets and Gurus

Still smarting about the rejection notices but I'll console myself with the fact that most successful authors suffer these things at the hands of those who don't or can't understand the gold dust that they are rejecting.

Talking with a major gift fundraiser about the recession and have to agree that when your portfolio has gone from £100m to £60m you feel (relatively) poor. All the indications are that supporters are continuing to give at previous levels but it's very hard and takes much longer to get prospects to the point of solicitation. Where charities can defer asks, they probably should as asking too soon invariably results in a much smaller gift. That was, I recall exactly the probably we had back in 1992 with a large capital campaign and pressure to get the cash in.

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Perhaps being well informed just makes you grumpy. What do you think???

A prophet in his own land

Was talking with Richard Gutch, formerly head of Futurebuilders when we found ourselves having a GOM moment. I was bemoaning the fact that a paper, featuring brand new research about donor motivations to be published this summer, has been turned down by both the Institute of Fundraising and the International Fundraising Congress. Is it that I need to change my deoderant I asked Richard? Sniffing cautiously he demurred and agreed that it's all too easy to get overlooked by the bright and shiny new stuff (aka New Kids on the block). Yes I admit it there's 61 years on the clock - including successfully surviving at least three other recessions. Sometimes its hard being the proverbial prophet. Especially when you know you're right!

Never cold call again

It's always interesting to see what people in other businesses are doing and what we might learn from them.

I came across this supposedly freebe online whilst searching, of all things for street and house to house canvassing agencies, which incidentally didn't appear very prominently.

http://www.nevercoldcall.com/ Is a very American site from a sales guru with live video multimedia doing a high powered pitch for his book "Never cold call again" He goes on to suggest that he'll send you the first 10 chapters free of charge if you fill in your email address. However once you've done that you are "forced" into also providing other email addresses to receive a - wait for it - cold email advertising the book. Of course that email is hidden behind a testimonial from you to your friends saying what a great read it is!

Appart from this being a blatent cold sell there are some rather interesting ideas within those first 10 chapters (you can bypass the testimonial pages by typing ...thanks2 into the page ......thanks1). This is around work rates and that most people make a buying decision after one or two visits/conversation. So, he advises cut out the endless follow-up calls and get on with the job of selling. I think there's something interesting there for fundraisers.

These days we spend a lot of time cultivating prospects. Perhaps if they don't "buy" the case for support after two or three conversations we should move on?

Elisher does it again!

Whilst Tony often goes off on such a tangent that you think, "what class A substance is he on?" This time I think the old boy's got it rather nicely.

Think Consulting and the Institute have launched, what I think, is a rather helpful "Fundraisng Health Check Tool" at:
http://www.fundraisinghealthcheck.org/

It is of course very simple but, the very act of simplifying your own numbers down, focuses the mind wonderfully. I've tried it for a charity I work with. The comments then generated are thoughtful and thought provoking. Anyone struggling with their net income figures and/or their trustees wanting cuts in investment need to give themselves a health check.

Thumbs up to Tony and no grumps today (well not yet anyway). DO check it out, whether your income is £100K or £10M your mix and returns are worth looking at in a fresh light.

Payment by commission

Great. The Institute of Fundraising is coming out with a new code on remuneration, including the old chestnut about payment by commission. Third Sector has tried to get a debate going by finding someone to speak for commission - though the argument is about payment by results which really isn't the same thing at all.

I'm all for clarifying the total inappropriate nature of commission based fundraising - in my book there are no grounds ever for a commission based pay structure. Not because it's unethical or may lead to problems (which it will), but principally because it won't work.

Anyone who has read Hertzberg understands that money is not a motivator! Lack of it can be a hell of a demotivator but it's just a hygene factor. Perhaps the bankers will realise this truth sometime soon.