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?

Do you sit on your heels or step on the gas?

Well which do you tend to do? I was reflecting yesterday that doing nothing, if done as a considered action is often the best management activity you can indulge in, as long as you're sure that is the right thing to do. There's often an imperative to do something and it can be a devastating course of action. Mindfulness is becoming an overused term but when applied to reflection and quiet consideration can be extraordinarily powerful.

The Quakers, or the Society of Friends, are an interesting bunch of people. They’ve been hugely influential in social change for the better and the development of charities. They do it silently - you can sit in a meeting for an hour in silence sometimes. They also have a great need to ensure that everyone is heard even if there remains disagreement after discussion has ended (or time is called). There's a great technique they use, very effectively, that I commend if you have to take the minutes or record the actions to be done.

In line with the belief that silence allows a space for reflection, the minute taker calls for silence when the discussion is over (or time is called) and then has the time and opportunity to compose something that genuinely reflects what the meeting has decided, or not, and then reads it back to those present. This allows everyone to agree the mood of the meeting. They may not agree with the decision but have to accept the view of the meeting. It makes for a very slow decision making process but it is very hard to change a course once agreed. As was commented recently on Radio 4 "Ah yes Quakers, very slow to act, but impossible to stop!"

Their attitude to will writing is very much in line with this philosophy. The act of making a will is commended strongly to all. It means you are acting responsibly and thoughtfully. There is no pressure to write your favourite causes into your will but there is a steadfast suggestion that to do so is to continue to act responsibly for the benefit of society and to make the world a better place. So many charities suggest that a legacy will help them but forget that the vision is usually about the bigger picture and a better world.

Incidentally and in my view interestingly, whilst generally seen as a Christian Society there is no creed or set of beliefs. Many Quakers regard themselves as agnostic or even atheist. They do all subscribe however to the five agreed values or testimonies of: peace, honesty, equality, simplicity and sustainability. What's not to like? They're all stem from a mindful point of view!

Carpe Diem

You might have noticed that I've been banging on about death quite a lot lately, though in relation to fundraising and giving, with very good reason.

Many charities pussy foot around the D word and even if they do get round to asking, ever so humbly, for a legacy - tend to do it in an unstructured, ad hoc, sort of way. Mind you asking, is a lot better than not asking! Look at the differences in Legacy Income for Shelter compared to Crisis. Both formed around the same time for similar issues about homelessness. Shelter have asked consistently for legacies, Crisis haven't. Result Shelter's legacy income is 10 times that of Crisis.A strategy is vital to plan the right approach.

Yet there's always a more urgent bit of work to be done isn't there? That'usually the answer I get when I ask why a charity doesn't have a coherent approach to asking for legacy gifts. Well I've got news for you. The fact is you sometimes have to JFDI (just effing do it) and the new year is a great time to "seize the day".

Start to ask some of your long standing supporters if they've made a charitable will and why the have or haven't remembered you. You'll be amazed by some of the insights you gain and which can help you refine your legacy vision. (You've got to have a vision). You're not asking for a gift, yet, but do it now because there are people dying who will never die again!

As George Smith put it, "it's the last great fundraising opportunity". Stephen Pidgeon is even writing a book, "Love your donors to death!" Next time I'll tell you about the Society of Friends, better known as the Quakers. Even though they do it silently, there is a lot we can learn from their approach to wills and will writing.

2015 and still dying to give

The New Year tends to get us reflecting on the past year, decade, century and so on. 2015 promises, I believe, some interesting anniversaries and reflections. 800 years since the Magna Carta, 70 years since the end of the second world war and 50 years since the death of Winston Churchill.

I was talking to an old friend about the death of my wife in August 2014 and she told me a sad story of a mutual friend who, in November, was taken to hospital suffering from severe chest pains. It transpired the next day after tests, that he had experienced an Angina attack. Unfortunately, during the night, his wife suffered a massive stroke - probably brought on by anxiety over his admission - and was already brain dead. It brought it home to me that you can never, ever, know what is just around the corner.

The New Year then? A time not simply for a resolution but positive action. Go and make (or update) your charitable will. We know the statistics, from Richard Radcliffe. You will live longer! On average four years more than someone who has made a will without any charitable bequests. However the biggest benefit is that you can talk knowledgeably and with authority about the process and how life affirming it is to make a will remembering your own favourite charities. Try it and see.

My wife listed four causes, all really close to her heart and I shall, in the fullness of time, experience great joy in fulfilling those bequests.