That annual ego-fest known as PF’s, ahem, most influential people in fundraising poll is open for votes. Agency wallahs and consultants will be mobilising the votes of their staff and clients. Sad, but true. But this year, I have a better idea…
This year, let’s vote for the person who really matters. Let’s vote for The Donor. All you need to do to register your vote is go to www.professionalfundraising.co.uk/home/page.php?pg=15 .
May I humbly suggest that you simply insert ‘The Donor’ alongside number one and submit your vote?
We all know that the most important person in any fundraising activity is your audience, the person or people you want to inspire to support you. If you don’t understand them and how to make their heart beat faster, their brain engage, and their spirit soar, then you and your beautifully prepared excel spreadsheet are stuffed.
So please join me in celebrating and recognising the influence that The Donor has on all of our fundraising.
In true direct response style, I’m about to repeat that call to action. Please, please, pretty please go to www.professionalfundraising.co.uk/home/page.php?pg=15 to register your vote for The Donor.
I swear we will all be dead chuffed when we make this happen.
Comments
Congratulations Derek. Your suggestion worked: The Donor is now top of the PF 50 Most Influential List:
www.fundraising.co.uk/node/178484
Howard Lake @howardlake www.fundraising.co.uk
How you promote your organisation (charity or agency) or yourself can be done in many ways.
Some people write nice biogs about themselves, some choose to advertise in the sector press and some share their lives through social networking to prove they are nice, well-meaning people.
This isn't too different in my eyes from getting your name in a top 50 poll. The proof is in the pudding - your results over a set period. How you get your invited to a pitch is down to your own personal style.
As to voting for "the donor", it is fine to prove a point, but will "the donor" care? Will "the donor" give more money? Does "the donor" know about the PF top 50.
I'm with Ian on this one. Showing love to our donors is one thing, but they want us to be cost effective. Good customer service is the base of all good fundraising. Get that right and if the donor ain't happy then that is their perogative. The beneficiary (even if it is a donkey!) is the reason we are all here. Without them we wouldn't need to attract and market to donors.
Laters
catman
Agree entirely with your final two sentences.
Derek
Derek, Mark,
Thanks for the offer! I'd nominate SolarAid because I love them.... but I'd rather not go down that road. It could all get a bit nasty (it already depresses me a bit that so many blogs and web 2.0 stuff is all so angry). Which probably means I'm now going to have to stump up £100 for SolarAid myself. Cheers lads.
To be honest, it's more the nature of the PF poll that I have an issue with. We shouldn't be too surprised if people use it to further their commercial ends.
I think you've started something funny here, Derek. Will this be the first year when people nervously open PF at the IoF Convention, hoping they're not on the list?!
Best wishes to you both,
Steve
Steve Andrews
Director of Charity Services
The Direct Marketing Group
Steve Andrews
Chairman
Whitewater
Hi Steve, I know you are far too lovely to name and shame anyone. And I share your fear of web 2.0 as a personal pressure valve! Nevertheless I couldn't resist the idea of inducing a bit of anxiety into a few self-satisfied individuals.
Thanks for alerting me to solaraid.
All the best
Derek
Hi Steve,
I'll add another £50 to Derek's offer. I know its not me because I've never appeared on the list. That doesn't leave many options.
I wonder if I could guess...
Mark Phillips
MD
Bluefrog
Derek's suggestion has gone down well with others. Bluefrog manager Mark Phillips covered this blog post at
http://www.queerideas.co.uk/my_weblog/2009/04/who-to-vote-for-in-the-pro...
saying:
"As anyone who regularly reads this blog might guess, I'm following his suggestion. And I'd very humbly suggest that you might like to consider doing likewise."
He adds:
"The donor truly is the one person who matters. The person who makes the difference between success and failure. Without her (or him) we would all be out of a job and the world would be worse off as a result."
Howard Lake @howardlake www.fundraising.co.uk
Maybe we should put The Beneficiary as the most influential person alongside - or even ahead of - The Donor.
After all, the beneficiary is the reason fundraisers do what they do. I'm constantly surprised at how the importance, relevance and influence of beneficiaries to fundraising are continually overlooked.
We've had a Donors Charter (now the Fundraising Promise) for a decade or so. Where is the complementary Beneficiaries Charter setting out fundraisers' responsibilities and duties to their beneficiaries?
At PF a few years ago, we researched and wrote our own 'Beneficiaries Charter', which is the thing I'm most proud of from my time as editor. But it didn't get as much interest as we hoped.
This has a serious point. If we had, as a sector, given a bit more weighting to to our beneficiaries, we might not have got so bogged down in the consumer protection model of self-regulation we borrowed from the commercial sector.
What we should have done, but didn't, was create a bespoke model of self-regulation that weighted fundraisers' responsibilities to beneficiaries against the rights of donors-as-consumers.
To do that, we needed to be thinking about beneficiaries and how they fitted in to models of fundraising. But of course, no one was thinking about beneficiaries.
Good points Ian. And you'll recall my support for your Beneficiaries Charter. I'd still argue for the donor first in the context of the PF poll, primarily as The Beneficiary is often not a person. The Beneficiary may be The Environment, or National Heritage, or The Two-Toed Sloth, or of course The Orangutan. And while Orangutans would certainly get my support ahead of sad, vote-rigging agency chaps, I think they might not fit strcitly into the terms of the poll ; )
Hello Derek
This is a great idea. I'll be voting for the donor. But not just because it would be good for the donor to win (which it obviously would).
For several years I've tried to persuade PF magazine to dump this annual vote. Ex-staff and clients of one well known agency have told me about the MDs efforts to get staff, clients and friends voting for them each year. What a surprise... he comes close to the top of the vote each year and then uses this to sell his companies services.
It's sad and it discredits a good magazine. And if I'm honest, used to annoy me because I spent a lot of money advertising in the magazine. Voting for the donor is a great solution!
Steve Andrews
Agencies MD
The Direct Marketing Group
Steve Andrews
Chairman
Whitewater