Individual giving

In his blog this week Jeff Brooks talks about three self-destructive courses of action not-for-profit organisations are following in a flawed attempt to survive the current tough economic climate.  He cites three main behaviours suggested by fundraising consultant Michael Rosen:

1. Stop Asking.
2. Do Not Have a Compelling Case for Support.
3. Ignore Current Supporters.

Given our experience of the last three years, I’d add a few more linked behaviours guaranteed to make it tougher for not for profits and charities to survive an economic downturn:

This week I’ve seen several blogs and tweets from people whose thinking I respect touching on the subject of putting your audience at the centre of your actions.  Some have suggested that the audience should always be the driving force and others have posited that true innovation might not be possible if you do.

There is a Little Britain TV sketch showing the funny side of what passes as customer/supporter service in modern Britain.  Basically, it parodies the fact that many front line staff appear to have been totally disempowered when it comes to dealing with the public. 'I can't do anything as it's a system-generated decision...' is heard from call -centres all too frequently. This provokes two questions:

1. Do organisations think that supporters and customers care in any way shape or form that THEIR system is the problem?
2. Do the same organisations think customers and supporters can be placated by hearing that it's the computer's fault?!?

Watching the international match between South Africa's Springboks and the New Zealand All Blacks this week, it struck me just how many similarities there are between charities and rugby teams. I'll avoid the obvious comparison between boisterous team meetings and a scrum but here are a few observations that I think we could learn from.  What do you think? I'm stating the completely obvious but neither rugby nor being an effective charity is an individual sport.  The best single player is wasted if their team mates aren't getting the ball to them.  The effectiveness of an award-wining fundraising director can easily be hampered by demotivated staff who don't deliver to their potential.

In our office there is much ongoing discussion about digital and associated fundraising activities.

You know the scene. A slightly upmarket café. Metropolitan types sip pricey coffee while in earnest discussion over their laptops. One of them was me, when along came the interruption.

I love the coverage generated by Ken Burnett's comments at the Institute of Fundraising Conference about how we should be generating more complaints!

The point is not, of course, to generate complaints for the sake of it. The point is that our marketing, campaigning and fundraising messages need to be sufficiently challenging, compelling and, when appropriate, hard-hitting to attract the attention of the people they're aimed at! And more often than not they aren't. Check out a few of the masterclasses on the SOFII website and you'll see that the seminal campaigns did not usually mince their words.

The recent comments by Mark Astarita, Chair of the IoF, about payroll giving may have embarrassed the Institute, but of course he is only saying what most of us have known for years.

Just recently we received our renewal mailing for our RSPB membership.

I wanted to mention it because it was one of the best letters I have read for a long time.

A few weeks ago, the Pennies Foundation published some market research that showed that the public “increasingly like giving methods that don’t require long term commitment”. According to Pennies Foundation – which, though I am sure it is of no relevance, makes and markets a giving method that doesn’t require long term commitment – the public had “resoundingly confirmed” that “not having to commit to regular donations, the ability to give small sums at the time of their choosing and to make a spontaneous decision” were are key factors that encourage them to donate to charity.

And this was trumpeted as if it were a Good Thing. This is, in fact, a Very Bad Thing.