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.

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?