Been at the ISRPM conference in Dublin this week presenting a paper on Social Investment and listening to a number on Social Enterprise(SE). Lots of discussion about what SE is and isn't but between a large number of academics no agreed definition save you know one when you see it.
So I'm offering a bottle of champagne to the best definition in 30 words or less!
We generally agreed that SE is somewhere on the spectrum between a purely "altruistic" charity and a "red in tooth and claw" commercial company but where and what does that mean?
Come on have a go, but be warned I'm hard to please and four professors have failed so far to satisfy me. Incidentally Stephen Barber, also at LSBU, gave a very whitty run down on the "Big Society" and likened it as liable to be ditched by Cameron if things get too hairy in the same way as Blair ditched the Stakeholder Society when it started biting him. I still reckon that if we mention BS at all it needs to be as the Bigger Society, since we've had a very successful Big Society, in the guise of the work of charities and community organisations for more than 100 years.
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Marketing Strategy for Effective Fundraising
Well well, well, you lucky people you! DSC have finally decided to do a second edition of the definitive book on using marketing effectively to enhance your fundraising. Trouble is I put the proposal in last September and in the meantime they've sold out. Fortunately, I've a few author's copies that might last until the reprint.
Very interesting to look afresh at the copy and how in the five years since publication my prognostications about the future of fundraising to 2020 looks horrendously out of date, shape and everything else. Note to self, any predictations (save for the Cheltenham Gold Cup - Long Run was my selection) are over 50 years not ten. 'Cause, of course, in the long run we're all dead.
Enjoy the legacy development opportunities whilst ye may.
Very interesting to look afresh at the copy and how in the five years since publication my prognostications about the future of fundraising to 2020 looks horrendously out of date, shape and everything else. Note to self, any predictations (save for the Cheltenham Gold Cup - Long Run was my selection) are over 50 years not ten. 'Cause, of course, in the long run we're all dead.
Enjoy the legacy development opportunities whilst ye may.
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Marketing or Fundraising? The Big Debate
A most interesting debate at LSBU today as to whether we must integrate fundraising into all our charity communications and fundraising or whether the skills needed for "the ask" are actually separate, complementary but different to those needed for marketing communications.
An initial vote showed 70% supporting the motion.
Patrick Boggon of Tarnside proposed that everything that fundraisers attempt in trying to change the world is driven by marketing principles. In fact unless Maple's five Ps (price, place promotion, product and positioning)are considered carefully and honestly the fundraising proposition is likely to fail.
Peter Maple countered that fundraising unlike marketing is really very, very simple. Taking into account Tony Elisher's fundraising cycle and the ubiquitous case for support all the fundraiser needs is to listen and ask appropriately. Marketing, on the other hand is full of concepts, theories, paradigms, matrices and gurus. He conceeded that one must have an understanding of effective marketing in a not for profit but asserted that it doesn't have to come from the fundraisers.
The audience were largely unmoved agreeing that there are two skill sets but that fundraising like sales )in commerical organisations), needs to be fully understood and integrated into the marketing function.
You had to be there.
An initial vote showed 70% supporting the motion.
Patrick Boggon of Tarnside proposed that everything that fundraisers attempt in trying to change the world is driven by marketing principles. In fact unless Maple's five Ps (price, place promotion, product and positioning)are considered carefully and honestly the fundraising proposition is likely to fail.
Peter Maple countered that fundraising unlike marketing is really very, very simple. Taking into account Tony Elisher's fundraising cycle and the ubiquitous case for support all the fundraiser needs is to listen and ask appropriately. Marketing, on the other hand is full of concepts, theories, paradigms, matrices and gurus. He conceeded that one must have an understanding of effective marketing in a not for profit but asserted that it doesn't have to come from the fundraisers.
The audience were largely unmoved agreeing that there are two skill sets but that fundraising like sales )in commerical organisations), needs to be fully understood and integrated into the marketing function.
You had to be there.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Paraphrasing Lady Bracknell
To misquote Lady B, "to lose one chief executive may be seen to be unfortunate, but to lose two might be seen as careless"
In most organisations people tend to copy the behaviour of the chief executive, since that person has clearly demonstrated their ability to get to the top of that particular tree so perhaps it's not surprising that we get the banksters we deserve. However in the voluntary sector where chief executives are expected to demonstrate the passion, commitment and dedication shown by the volunteers it is sad when their tenure is, to say the least brief.
What will the staff, volunteers and members make of the early departure of Amanda McLean from the Institute of Fundraising after only six months in post. Paul Amadi, then Chair of the Institute said in September: ''We believe that Amanda is the right person to provide leadership and direction to the Institute and its membership." So what changed so quickly?
With the Institute also in the middle of trying to recruit a new chair it does seem that acting chair Alan Gosschalk and interim CEO Bruce Leeke have got their hands over full.
Meanwhile, consultations for the Giving Green Paper have only just finished and the Government has said it'll issue a white paper in weeks. The budget announcements next week may have profound implications for the future of gift aid. The central and local authority cuts are having a devestating effect on community organisations and local charities.
Forget strategy for the moment. Any suggestions for an effective tactical response and coherent campaign to keep pressure on the Government?
In most organisations people tend to copy the behaviour of the chief executive, since that person has clearly demonstrated their ability to get to the top of that particular tree so perhaps it's not surprising that we get the banksters we deserve. However in the voluntary sector where chief executives are expected to demonstrate the passion, commitment and dedication shown by the volunteers it is sad when their tenure is, to say the least brief.
What will the staff, volunteers and members make of the early departure of Amanda McLean from the Institute of Fundraising after only six months in post. Paul Amadi, then Chair of the Institute said in September: ''We believe that Amanda is the right person to provide leadership and direction to the Institute and its membership." So what changed so quickly?
With the Institute also in the middle of trying to recruit a new chair it does seem that acting chair Alan Gosschalk and interim CEO Bruce Leeke have got their hands over full.
Meanwhile, consultations for the Giving Green Paper have only just finished and the Government has said it'll issue a white paper in weeks. The budget announcements next week may have profound implications for the future of gift aid. The central and local authority cuts are having a devestating effect on community organisations and local charities.
Forget strategy for the moment. Any suggestions for an effective tactical response and coherent campaign to keep pressure on the Government?
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Incentives and the rediscovery of Herzberg
Well I've been saying it for long enough. Monetary Incentives simply don't work!
Now Nottingham University ( see http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2011/february/thetruthaboutbonuses.aspx ) reckon that a mixture of punitive fines plus incentives works better than incentives alone. Well maybe in the laboratory but in the real world comparisons are made and, most important of all, actual job content counts for far much than what Fredrick Herzberg (see http://www.trainanddevelop.co.uk/view_article.php?ArticleID=78) dubbed Hygene factors. That is the things that will demotivate us if they're not OK. That is in turn vastly different to the Motivators - relationships, job content, control and flexibility that really turn us on and get us firing on all cylinders. That's what we have to hold in mind when shaping jobs, organisations and pay/incentive packages. Pity the bangsters never understood.
Meanwhile we've a government obsessed with controlling the uncontrollable and offering incentives to companies to come and run services that, without the spurious controls and measures, could be run so much more cost effectively than they are now or will be under a for profit regime. Today we learned that 14% of the NHS budget is spent simply on the disaggregation of purchaser and provider. Put out the £80bn to GPs and this figure will rise dramatically leaving even less to spend on patients.
What's that to do with fundraising you ask? Not a lot save it will put even more pressure on charities to pick up the non standard pieces and fund them from voluntary income. Time to start taking responsibility for the whole funding mix not just fundraising. That's pure Herzberg!
Now Nottingham University ( see http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2011/february/thetruthaboutbonuses.aspx ) reckon that a mixture of punitive fines plus incentives works better than incentives alone. Well maybe in the laboratory but in the real world comparisons are made and, most important of all, actual job content counts for far much than what Fredrick Herzberg (see http://www.trainanddevelop.co.uk/view_article.php?ArticleID=78) dubbed Hygene factors. That is the things that will demotivate us if they're not OK. That is in turn vastly different to the Motivators - relationships, job content, control and flexibility that really turn us on and get us firing on all cylinders. That's what we have to hold in mind when shaping jobs, organisations and pay/incentive packages. Pity the bangsters never understood.
Meanwhile we've a government obsessed with controlling the uncontrollable and offering incentives to companies to come and run services that, without the spurious controls and measures, could be run so much more cost effectively than they are now or will be under a for profit regime. Today we learned that 14% of the NHS budget is spent simply on the disaggregation of purchaser and provider. Put out the £80bn to GPs and this figure will rise dramatically leaving even less to spend on patients.
What's that to do with fundraising you ask? Not a lot save it will put even more pressure on charities to pick up the non standard pieces and fund them from voluntary income. Time to start taking responsibility for the whole funding mix not just fundraising. That's pure Herzberg!
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Aging supporters, green papers and the banksters
Very interesting research from Cass and Southampton on the aging profile of charity supporters, which confirms what I've been banging on about. IT'S THE BOOMERS STUPID! We're a large cohort, getting older and whether we start dying in 2012 or 2016 there are much larger numbers of people with both the capacity and propensity to give to our favourite causes if asked appropriately.
The "Giving" Green Paper (get your responses in by 8th March) is very long on rhetoric about giving and very short on facts about asking. To paraphrase Gill Moody (of Craigmyle) at the Institute yesterday - fundraisers are rather like midwifes to donors. We help them achieve a transformation and if we do it right they'll carry on for life (and beyond).
Which brings us on, of course, to the Banksters who just don't get it. So much more could be done by individuals and the corporations (free banking for instance) if they could only be helped to understand the big picture.
The "Giving" Green Paper (get your responses in by 8th March) is very long on rhetoric about giving and very short on facts about asking. To paraphrase Gill Moody (of Craigmyle) at the Institute yesterday - fundraisers are rather like midwifes to donors. We help them achieve a transformation and if we do it right they'll carry on for life (and beyond).
Which brings us on, of course, to the Banksters who just don't get it. So much more could be done by individuals and the corporations (free banking for instance) if they could only be helped to understand the big picture.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
More on the Banksters
So, the banks are going to contribute £200m to the "Big Society Bank" are they? (see www.civilsociety.co.uk) Well bully for them. Considering that first estimates of dormant funds are somewhere between £500m and £1.5bn and the fact that the money isn't theirs anyway do we see this as a piece of corporate philanthropy or rather more like self-interest. As Maple's spectrum of philanthropy suggests, this isn't even enlightened self interest, it's well beyond the visible spectrum!
There's a new party being formed by Dr Richard Hill to be called something like NHS Concern. I'm thinking we need Charity Concern because the Big Society sure ain't going to do it.
There's a new party being formed by Dr Richard Hill to be called something like NHS Concern. I'm thinking we need Charity Concern because the Big Society sure ain't going to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)