queer ideas

Why do so many fundraisers like asking for such small gifts?

When Mark Astarita recently compared some charities to pound shops, he was right on the button.

Just like the pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap stores found on our high streets, charities have jumped on the discounting bandwagon.

You'd like to inoculate a child? Yes ma'am. That'll be £3 please. Kerching!

It's never been easier - or cheaper - to change the world. See an ad, call or send a text and within seconds you're being told that you've done something amazing. All you have to do is click on a link to the YouTube video to see the proof.

Why pay more?

And that's the point. Many people won't.

According to CAF's 2012 UK Giving report, there's a large number of people who appear to be acutely price sensitive when it comes to giving to charity. Just look at the 41% of donors who give under £10 each month. Millions of people, but they account for only 5% of the sector's voluntary income.

Whether they can't afford to give more or they don't really want to, the £3 offer seems to be aimed firmly at this price sensitive segment of the market.

Ask for £4 or £5 – as a one off or a monthly gift – and you'll see response rates fall dramatically.

And that's a problem. Just like the pound shop that depends on high volume sales to make a profit, the charity that follows a discounting model needs a large number of donors to make the strategy worthwhile.

And the easiest way to achieve this is to embark on a race to the bottom, where the charity with the lowest priced offer wins – at least in the short term.

After recruitment, the donors are called and converted to regular giving or upgraded. But because it was a low value appeal that drove the first gift, a request for more money tends not to generate a particularly positive response. The result is low conversion, low upgrade values and high attrition.

Take mobile giving for example. What do many £3 donors do when we give them a chance to skip or stop their regular gift? They skip and they stop. And they are doing it in ever increasing numbers.

And just as a pound shop budgets for a high percentage of its cheap and cheerful stock to malfunction and be returned, so the charity starts to look at attrition as a number that needs to be factored into a financial model rather than an indication that something is wrong.

High attrition is nature's way of telling you that your approach to fundraising is based on recruiting a large proportion of people that don't care about your cause. And if people don't care, it's very hard to engage them. People who don't care aren't going to read the communications that you send them, either online or offline.

The result is that a significant number of the donors that stick with you are not active supporters, passionately engaged with your work. Instead many of them are simply people who can't be bothered to cancel. After all, it's only a few quid a month.

But why has discounting exploded across the sector? Why do we ask for so little?

First off it's easy. All you need do is reduce the amount you ask for. Anyone can do it. It helps if your £3 will pay for something tangible like a mosquito net, a blanket, or inoculations, but that's not always essential.

Second, it's perhaps a reflection of the economic times. If people haven't got much cash, surely it's better to reduce the amount we ask for?

Perhaps. But when we see figures from that the Equality Trust showing us that income inequality is at a level last seen at the time of the first world war, it makes you wonder why so many charities are focussed on the most price sensitive sector of donors rather than looking at what the increasingly affluent top 10% of the population can afford to give.

A review of charity fundraising advertisements from just after the first world war shows us that the typical value of a prompted gift amount then was 10 shillings (or 50 pence in today's currency). To place that into context, you could buy 20 pints of beer for 10 shillings in 1920.

With the average pint in 2014 costing the best part of £4, that would be like us asking today for £70 to £80.

That's not something you see very often is it? And I don't really understand why.

For all the talk of an economic revival, the numbers show that it's only really the richest people who are benefitting. Currently the wealthiest 1% of the population hold more wealth than the poorest 50%.

Speak to this affluent group about their attitudes to giving and you'll find their hearts aren't made of stone. They have the same desire to help others as the rest of us. But one fact comes shining through. They don't think that the vast majority of fundraising materials produced by charities today are aimed at them.

So not surprisingly they rarely read them and they rarely respond.

One of the key reasons for this is that charities simply don't ask them for enough. £3 is seen to have such a small impact that it doesn't engage wealthy people either emotionally or rationally.

The other reason is far more worrying. And is down to the fact that price sensitive donors give so little and their attrition is so high, that success often depends on reducing costs.

As a result, thank you and upgrade processes are automated and regularly contracted out. That means that much of the human element is lost. Thousands of new donors are acquired who will never receive an individual and personal communication from the organisation they support.

This leaves the charity without any real idea of the full potential of the donors they are recruiting. But what's much worse is these donors have an experience of giving that is likely to leave them thinking that they aren't really valued – or needed. It's a vicious circle. Donors don't give enough to warrant special treatment, but without special treatment, the donors who can afford to give more, simply won't.

So rather than looking at how we recruit the largest number of donors as quickly and cheaply as possible, we should look at balancing our portfolio of supporters by focusing on what the donors who can give the most, actually want. Particularly when you remember that it's just 6% of donors who give 40% of all voluntary income to charity.

This will be a problem for many charities because it is expensive. It will require them to provide detailed information on the nature of their work, it means they will need to be able justify asking for a large sum and, above all, it will mean changing the way they treat donors. The general thank you letter, email or text with a link to a YouTube video isn't enough. Instead charities must re-learn how to communicate like human beings and show the donors that they are actually valued.

Just as there's no skill required to open up a pound shop, there's no skill required in asking people for very small gifts. Anyone can do it because it's doesn't take a great deal of imagination.

What's harder is creating an offer that supporters will pay a premium for. It might not bring in as many donors as discounting, but the long-term value and loyalty of the donors it does attract will far outweigh the quick wins of being just another charity that drops the donor focus in order to join the £3 a month club.

This is a slightly adapted version of an article I wrote for the September 2014 edition of Third Sector magazine.

£1 Shop photograph adapted from an original by Emily Webber from London Shop Fronts.

How to work with an agency

Very, very few charities train their fundraising staff in how to work with an agency.

One that does is Barnardo's. And I count myself very lucky to have them as a client.

Gill McLellan, who put the training sessions together, has experience working both sides of the fence. Its given her a great perspective on how to get the best from an agency. And I'm pleased to see that she's decided to share her advice with a wider audience on her new blog, best-laid plans.

She's going to be covering eight key areas and kicks off with knowing what you want.

If you work with, or for an agency, I'd strongly suggest that you follow each post.

An eight point plan for when good intentions go wrong

Some interesting data regarding the impact of Action for Children's recent TV campaign has recently been published.

It shows the campaign did very well, gaining 9% awareness along with a 20% increase in people saying they would be likely to consider donating to the charity. 

It's useful to look at these alongside the results of the Barnardo's TV campaign (I posted on this a few weeks ago) in light of the very different approach that the Action for Children campaign has taken.

As baby creative, the agency who developed the campaign, explain on their website... 

"Shot in a distinctive animation style that helped sidestep the issue of protecting children’s identities, the campaign ads balanced the drama of the young people’s pasts with the positive futures that Action for Children was helping them to achieve. By being forward-facing, and addressing what the charity actually did rather than the abuse suffered by the children, the adverts were able to engage the audience rather than shock them." 

It's great to see that the voice overs weren't done by actors, but were actually from interviews with children (Just like the approach taken by Leonard Cheshire in their Creature Discomforts campaign).

The only trouble is, one of the ads – Dan's story – upset a large number of people through its depiction of a child with autism. Following it's broadcast, a debate started on YouTube, Action for Children's blog and even on Facebook.

It's an important piece of learning. Though many viewers may feel uncomfortable about the TV campaigns run by organisations such as Barnardo's and The NSPCC, they are often supported by people who have suffered abuse. 

In this instance, it seems support from people living with autism wasn't forthcoming. 

I know Action for Children well. I've been lucky enough to visit a number of their projects. They are a fantastic organisation that does amazing work. I imagine the last thing they wanted to do was cause upset and I don't think we will see that particular advertisement again. 

The reason why I mention it, is that it acts as a lesson to us all. Things can go wrong – no matter how well intentioned we are. And we are more often judged by how we respond rather than by how we might have caused the original upset or offense in the first place. 

I know because it happened to me!

When I worked at the YMCA, I received a call out of the blue from a national radio station to discuss a mailing pack we'd produced that had caused upset recipients to call their phone-in show to complain. 

Luckily I had visited the project, met the people concerned and knew everything about the targeting of the appeal to answer their questions from a position of quite detailed knowledge. Even so, I also apologised for the upset we'd caused. That seemed to solve the problem and we later adapted our pack to take into account the issues that had been raised.

I hate to think what could have happened if that pack had gone out today. There are so many information streams where people can voice their feelings that We would have needed a response for probably half a dozen different types of media.

That's why I'd always recommend taking some time to develop a contingency plan for when communications generate a different response to the one that you had hoped for. There is no magic answer to handling a crisis, but there are a few things that you can do to make sure you act in the best possible way to resolve the situation quickly and effectively.

1. Your plan should focus on what your charity should do when things go wrong, who should be involved and when. Detail information flows. Show who will respond and how.

2. Don't presume those people criticising you are your enemy. They may have got the wrong end of a stick or be genuinely upset. Either way, it is their perception of you that counts. That is what you must work to change. Above all, show compassion.

3. Hold up an objective mirror to your organisation. Have you done something wrong? Are the complaints valid? Should you apologise?

4. Whatever your answer, always acknowledge someone's concern, even if you honestly believe it is misplaced.

5. Concentrate on actions rather than words. People judge you on what you do rather than what you say.

6. Your first response is your most important communication. Don't be rushed into responding too quickly. I always recommend people sleep on it before responding to an angry email (and guess what? Those draft emails always change). 

7. Take external advice. Sometimes you are too close to the issues. Trusted colleagues at other charities can offer an impartial view. Sometimes your agency may have experience of helping to resolve similar issues. 

8. Learn from what happens and incorporate this into your everyday working practices.

Finally, i've spent a fair few hours looking into and learning about autism as a result of this post and I think the following film made by the mother of a little boy with autism might be worth sharing.

Results of Barnardo's TV campaign

Following on from my piece on Barnardo's creative work in the 1930's, I'd thought it might be interesting to get a little more contemporary.

I've blogged before about Barnardo's recent TV ad (produced by BBH). I think it's a great piece of work and if you'd like to know why, you can see my reasons here.

Even though I like it, it doesn't mean everyone else does (that's the wonderful thing about advertising - it needs to be targeted to work well).  The ASA has announced that it generated 840 complaints. That made it the most complained about ad in 2008, which was the ASA's busiest year since it was set up in 1962.  I'm glad they were not upheld.

I'm not much of a fan of the charity brand advertising that has been seen on our TV screens over the last few years. I think many of the campaigns are ill-conceived and have probably ended up confusing or even damaging the brands they are designed to build. This one is different.

Barnardos have recently published some figures showing the impact of the campaign. 

The ad has increased awareness of what Barnardo's actually does by 33% and, more importantly, 46% of people who have seen it say they are now more likely to support the charity.

That's a pretty dramatic uplift. I've seen TV campaigns struggle to shift figures by more than a few percentage points. 

Even so, the ad has has been criticised for failing to demonstrate what Barnardo's is actually doing. That's certainly agreed with by one or two of the people who were interviewed on a voxpop about their thoughts on the campaign.

But I think people can fill that gap themselves. To me, it simply requires a stronger call to action; a means to empower the donor to make a difference to the girl's life. 

Couple that with a good welcome and engagement programme and you have a very strong recruitment vehicle.

It may even have had an impact on some of the appeals that Bluefrog has produced for Barnardo's. I'd like to think that the results we have achieved for recent recruitment and warm appeals are down to our great strategy and creative work, but perhaps we've had a little help from an unexpected source!

In case you haven't seen it...

Another lesson from history

I've just come across another ad that shows us how to do it.

Produced by Dr. Barnardo's Homes (or simply Barnardo's as they are now) in 1931, it has a huge amount that today's fundraisers could learn from.

It shows a single child who was "once destitute". 

The picture of a healthy looking boy is great. It might be better if there was more direct eye contact, but it – along with the claim that "Barnardo's are making a man of him!" – powerfully demonstrates success. The emotion in the face overcomes the need to show graphic poverty.

The image is supported by three simple statistics:

108,500 children admitted – showing experience and expertise.

8,000 children being supported – showing need.

5 come in daily – If the preceding numbers could induce feelings of helplessness, this helps overcome them by presenting a number of children that can be comprehended and helped.

Finally, a great call to action:

10/- will feed one child for ten days.

I'd have used a coupon, but in 1931 those donations probably arrived accompanied by a carefully written letter with contact details included.

Even the instructions for the cheque lends to the power of the appeal. It needs to be written to "Dr. Barnardo's Homes Food Fund". There is the basis of a product in that name alone. I'd love to know how it was followed up. I wish some of these old fundraisers wrote their autobiographies. They would make fascinating reading.

The ad is beautifully focussed. It benefits enormously by not being cluttered with descriptions of wider work, mandatory copy statements or disclaimers. It is however powerfully branded.

If you are interested in seeing other examples of great fundraising ideas from history you could have a look here or here or, even better, take a trip to sofii.org. You'll find loads of amazing ideas. if you are a fundraiser it really is required reading. 

Note – 10/- or 50 pence was a huge amount of money in 1931 - it was the equivalent to a widow's pension or almost two days pay for an agricultural worker.

The recession is hitting home for some donors – but not all of them

Back in November, a number of the key indicators were showing that the main impact of the economic downturn would be on donor recruitment.

As a result, Bluefrog commissioned a survey that specifically asked people about their attitudes to giving to charities that they didn't currently support.

An analysis of the findings can be seen here, but in short, we discovered that 37% of donors said they were less likely to give to a new charity.

We promised that we'd repeat the survey and last week we asked almost 2,000 people about their thoughts on this aspect of their giving behaviour.

So what did we uncover?

The simple answer is that the number of donors who are less likely to give to a new charity now stands at just 31%.

That might sound like good news, but when we look at the whole sample (donors and non-donors) we find that the number of people who are not giving to charity has grown from 26% to 31%.

Doubt has been replaced by certainty in many people's minds. And the result is that the economic situation seems to be polarising attitudes to giving – though some people have decided to stop donating, there is very good growth in the number of donors reverting to their traditional giving patterns and a small, but significant number, still intend to give more.

Digging a little deeper, we can see how different age groups and social classes are responding to the downturn:

Younger people seem to be most pessimistic about their economic position

• 43% of people in the 25 - 34 age group now don't give to a charity (up from 33%). 

• 34% of people in the 25 - 34 age group will give at pre-recession levels (down from 38%).

 Older people are continuing to give

• Both the 55-64 and the 65+ groups contain just 19% of people who are not currently giving.

Women are more generous

• There was an 8% fall in the number of women less likely to give support (down to 23%).

• 7% of women are likely to give more (compared to 4% for men).

Though the number of wealthier people not giving increased by 25%, those keeping their giving constant held firm at 51%

• The number of AB's not giving to charity rose from 15% to 20%. 

But what does this mean in practice?

When I look at results for a whole range of organisations that Bluefrog is working with – from Barnardos to SPANA and from Shelter to VSO – income and response rates have been outstanding.

Recruitment has sometimes been tough, particularly that of younger donors (where increasing early attrition is a major problem), but well constructed and targeted appeals that value and engage the donor are working well.

The results of this, and a whole range of other research exercises can't be ignored. The economic impact is hitting home for some – but we must remember – it is only some. Huge nembers are still giving.

My advice, based on reviewing over six months of recession busting activity is to:

• Concentrate on being positive in appeals. People will give to good work

• Don't be frightened of mentioning the recession if it has a direct impact on your work (e.g. the impact of falling exchange rates on overseas development)

• Treat the donor as an individual. If you make them feel special, they are likely to return the favour – hand writing, stamped envelopes and real photographs will beat over-designed work

• Concentrate on what the donor can do - avoid whittering on about policy issues. These might be important to you – they aren't to most donors.

• Look at your data – regularly! If people aren't responding to your appeals, call them up and offer them a break or sign them up to a direct debit (restricted for the length of the downturn).

• Take advantage of cheap media and production and recruit new supporters. There are some fantastic bargains available. And people who give at this time are going to be very good long-term prospects.

• Develop engagement materials – not simple newsletters or leaflets – for recruitment aimed at younger people (e.g. face to face techniques).

I'm not sure if we will repeat this piece of research. If there is major movement in the economy we will, but the results that are most important for us to look at are those that are in response to our appeals.

The survey of 1,994 people was undertaken by Ipsos Mori. Fieldwork took place between 17 and 23 April 2009.

Results from massive research study into why donors lapse

Bluefrog's research into why donors lapse, The Fundraiser's Guide to Lapsers, is now available for download by clicking here.

As mentioned in a previous post, we were fortunate in having Professor Adrian Sargeant review our work and for very kindly writing the foreword. I'd like to offer him my grateful thanks for the significant amount of time he gave to us.

But perhaps more importantly, without the help of the eleven major British charities who gave us access to their current and lapsed donors for the study this research could not have gone ahead. The sector owes them a huge thanks to which I add my own. They are:

• ActionAid
• Barnardo's
• The British Heart Foundation
• The British Red Cross
• Care International UK
• Centrepoint
• Great Ormond Street Hospital
• Marie Curie Cancer Care
• RNIB
• Sense
• SPANA

But as you might imagine, they were not the only charities that were discussed. Their donors – both lapsed and active – had also given (or were giving) to a range of other organisations.

Over the three months of fieldwork, more than 200 people shared their views, their gripes, their experiences and their recommendations relating to over 100 different organisations.

And if there was one thing that summed up our findings, it is the message implicit in a single statement from one of our participants:

"You keep saying this thing lapsed. Lapsed from what? I never felt I was giving anything up."

The increase in cancellations amongst regular givers (Rapidata's recent analysis now shows this is running at approximately 5% each and every month) shows that the sector is not generating the loyalty that it so desperately needs. 

It is too easy and not entirely true to blame the economy for the attrition levels we see today.

Although many donors are very happy with the way that they are treated, many others feel that they lose very little when they withdraw their support. This points to the most important, yet most overlooked element of donor recruitment and development, which is that people give to charities in order to satisfy their own psychological needs – not the needs of the charity.

The answer to this is to place the focus on the donor. Our paper provides seven practical steps that any charity can implement in order to reduce its level of donor attrition and quickly increase available funds. Though much more detail is available in the actual report, the key recomendations are:

• Actively look for ways to start a relationship. Don't just drop new donors into your standard appeal cycle. Engage donors in a dialogue.
  
• Manage donors' expectations.
  
• Don't think about what you want to tell your donors, think about what they want to hear from you.
  
• Concentrate on answering your donors' needs.
  
• Allow your donors to choose how and when they want to hear from you.
  
• Know your donors - listen and remember. And show them that you remember.
  
• If they do go, part as friends. The best chance you have of reactivating donors is if their last experience of you is a positive one.

A more detailed presentation on specific answers to some of the key problems we uncovered is also available and can be arranged by emailing me at [email protected].

A truly fantastic ad

The latest Barnardo’s ad is fantastic.

That's not just in comparison with charity ads,that's in comparison with all ads.

It isn’t often that a charity advertisement is so powerful AND so well positioned for those it sets out to help.

I say this because I had the chance to speak to a young person who’d got into trouble (in their even younger days) about their thoughts when they first saw it.

“ I was tidying up when it came on and I just sat down and watched it. They (Barnardo’s) know what it’s like. They know that you know you are screwing up every time you do something mad or stupid, but you can’t help yourself. You have to prove that you don’t care, when deep inside you do and you want someone to help you stop what’s happening to you.

“If I’d have seen that ad then (when I was in trouble), I would have called them. I think its really good. It actually made me cry. It captures just how terrible you feel inside in a minute clip. It will make people understand and want to help.”

The position Barnardo’s takes is a difficult and complex one. They are not just dealing with the immediate protection needs of very young children who have suffered from physical or sexual abuse. They are working with older children that have lost our sympathy and gained our loathing. They work with the children that many members of society feel they can describe as feral, parasitic and as vermin.

Barnardo’s chief executive, Martin Narey, sums up their position in a recent interview on the subject of Baby P.

"It saddens me that the probability is that had Baby P survived, given his own deprivation, he might have been unruly by the time he had reached the age of 13 or 14.

At which point he'd have become feral, a parasite, a yob, helping to infest our streets. The response to his criminal behaviour would have been to lock him up – but we believe these children deserve better."

We are not seeking to justify the behaviour of rowdy and sometimes dangerous young people but by helping to explain it, we can make progress in preventing it.

Until we recognise that offending might in part be linked to levels of child poverty in the UK – levels which should shame a country of our affluence – we have to be resigned to that offending continuing."

You can read more at Barnardo's.

An old colleague of mine, Pip Wilson, who was General Secretary of Romford YMCA, takes a similar position on the Shannon Matthews case in his blog. It's not about fundraising, but I read it regularly to help keep my feet on the ground. Just like Martin, Pip has worked on the front line for years and it's thoughts like this that remind me why I do my job...

“In the UK there has been a court case regarding a child called Shannon Matthews.
Her Mother, Karen, has been found guilty of the kidnap and neglect of her own child. My mind has been lingering on this person, this case in general. Here are some scrambled thoughts out of my soul.

Outside the court the senior policeman stood and said that this woman, Karen Matthews was pure evil.

Why does this happen?

Police have worked their socks off to get the case through court and that is great. Their factual evidence helps to convict and then they stand outside court giving opinions. I don't like that. Every-time they do this. There is no need. They have no right to do it either.

I believe her behaviour was evil. I believe so much of her activities sound anti social and neglectful. She brings few skills to being a successful parent. She is not evil.

I feel she is a very sad and dysfunctional woman. And the men around her too. It has been well promoted that she has seven children by five fathers. She lives on benefits of £350 a week and tries to get £50,000 by kidnapping her own daughter. She is in a mess. She is dysfunctional. She is deprived. She is needy. I don't feel she is evil.

I work and have worked worth beautiful humans like her all my life. If you live in a tough community, have you ever lived in a tough unrelenting community where humans struggle to cope with life? Live on the edge? Scramble around for money on the edge of crime?

If not, go and hang out with some young humans who are younger versions of Karen Matthews. Go and meet their parents and you can feel the same inadequacy. I feel their pain. Ringing in my ears is a recent tearful fumbling "..... I feel so vulnerable ....." out of the lips of one on the road to Karen Matthewsness.

1 So there is the police statements outside of court. They can be stopped by policy and procedure now.
2 Then there is the demonising of inarticulate, poor, dysfunctional humans who God loves and Jesus died for. I hate it. HATE IT!

There are certain newspapers who set the standard in this. Feed the minds of 'evil' instead of 'care' (dare I mention LOVE?). Journalists who sit on their comfortable chairs in front of their nice computers. Coming from their comfortable suburbia - writing dribble about humans they know nothing about - from communities they only investigate. And minds are polluted nationwide ..........

Here is a link worth feeling sick about - HERE

I am thinking of one young mum. As hard as nails. Swearing and cursing at me, in normal conversation. I call her by name. I sit down next to her. Share a joke. Tell her she is beautiful. She smiles and swears back and smacks her child on the back of the head and curses at him.

I have feelings of love for her. She is a rough diamond. I don't know what I can do to help. But I do know that if I needed any help she would cough up a fiver without a blink of an eye. Because, behind the F'ing and blinding there is a heart of gold. Gold struggling to get out and live.
She doesn't have any of the knowledge you will have. When things go wrong in her life she doesn''t know where the handles and buttons are to press - to make things happen - to seek help.

When things go wrong for you - you will have humans who you can call on.
With money. With life skills.
Will unconditional love - I guess.
She has dysfunctional humans around her.
Like all of us - she needs love around her."

It's easy to slip into the rut of thinking that giving donors what they want, is simply presenting the most sympathetic case studies in a personal way with an ask that is 20% higher than their previous gift. it's not. It's about more than that. It's about creating ideas that show the truth and empower people to make a difference to the things that really concern them. This ad does this. This ad is brilliant.