queer ideas

Five things I learned from the Ask Direct Summer School

Last week I had the privilege of being part of one of the most exciting fundraising conferences I’ve ever attended – The Ask Direct Fundraising Summer School.

A group of highly talented people shared, inspired and challenged us to do better. Not just as fundraisers but as people too.

I took a huge amount away from the experience, but wanted to share five key points that I felt were particularly important and needed to be circulated amongst a wider audience.

1. A little arrogance is not necessarily a bad thing

This was the message from Beate Sorum of fundraising consultancy, b.bold.

Very often in fundraising, in order to please internal audiences, we remove much of the joy from giving. Beate reminded us that when we remove the love, we weaken our appeals and hurt the cause we are supposed to be championing.

So if you are good at fundraising, you should be prepared to say no to stupid requests that add nothing to the donor experience. We need to be less accommodating to those who want us to water down our message or send donors inappropriate information and requests. These actions serve no purpose other than to please a handful of people rather than those that matter - beneficiaries and donors.

2. Large organisations can learn from smaller ones.

Caoileanne Appleby (of Bluefrog and ASN) and Simon Scriver (of changefundraising.com and One in Four) made me feel a little stupid by reminding me that the things that matter most to donors don't depend on big budgets and lots of staff. Perhaps the most important part of their presentation was showing the impact of thanking promptly and properly. 

When you don't have many donors, you make sure that they know they are needed! The before and after photographs of Simon's thank you letters helps demonstrate just what can be achieved with a little thought - at no cost.

What was equally impressive, was the impact of their programmes. Both reported rapidly increasing income. They shared simple ideas that anyone can use and demonstrated that there is really no excuse for poor thanking.

3. Asking does not operate in isolation

Tom Ahern reminded us that asking is part of a system that brings in donors and then tries to cling to them. That system has three key components...

You ask

You thank

You report

And at each stage, you need to flatter. Fundraising isn't just about showing how money has been used. It's far more important to show the donor just how important they are in tackling the issues that we face. 

4. We don't treat people equally

Unusually for a fundraising conference (but it should be an essential) we took some time to look at inequality in the workplace.

That's our workplace.

That's the charities we work for.

Simone Joyaux, Jen Love (of Agents of Good), Rory Green (of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver but also known as Fundraiser Grrl) and Niamh Ferris (of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland) pointed out a few unsettling facts. For example, even though most fundraisers are women, just 32% (in the UK) are directors or heads of fundraising. Disturbingly, the pay imbalance can be as high as 21%.

In discussions after the event, it was suggested that one reason for the imbalance was because women are less likely to ask for pay rises. I undertook a little research when I got back to work and found this study that demonstrates that the real reason is women are far more likely to be refused a pay rise.

We were asked to think about what we could do to turn this situation around. A good first step is sharing their message. 

5. We have met the enemy and he is us

Ken Burnett closed the conference with a remarkable session calling for a revolution in fundraising. He suggested that we stop blaming others – like the press or politicians – for our lack of oversight. One of the areas he focused on was the fall in trust people have in charities. He shared some research undertaken by the Commission on the Donor Experience that found trust would increase by two-thirds if charities were transparent and gave control over how personal data was held and shared.

He also spoke about the enemies that prevent us from successfully implementing a donor-based approach to fundraising. The list was pretty long...

• Short-termism
• Target-led mentality
• Increasing expectations
• Under-investment
• Risk aversion
• Precedent
• Laziness
• Decline in testing and innovation
• Copycat culture
• Silos
• Wrong people
• Wrong kind of training
• Poor leadership
• Lack of concern for non-responders
• Taking the donor for granted
• Simply too much stuff

Ken also shared one of my illustrations that I haven't published on this blog before. It is based on a 1970 environmental cartoon by Walt Kelly that was originally created for Earth Day, though Kelly's use of the line goes back to 1953.

I had it recreated to highlight the fact that one of the reasons we got into the mess we are in is that we spent too much time looking at our own specific charity situation and, as a result, completely lost touch with how single actions, multiplied many times had a negative impact on those we depend on. 

There were many other great speakers (too many to mention in this post). So, if Damian O'Broin (the founder and director of Ask Direct) is up for organising another event in 2017 (and I really hope he is) shift your training budget so you can attend. In my humble opinion, there is no better way of improving your fundraising.

Update: Here's a very worthwhile read from the Agents of Good with their take on the event. You should also read this great piece from Tom Ahern.

What can we learn from Lord Grade?

Last week, I shared a few thoughts in Third Sector, about Lord Grade's views on fundraising. You probably read about his interview in The Sunday Times and may well have heard his speech at the IoF gala dinner.

What follows is a slightly more detailed piece on my take on his point of view and what we can learn from it. I've decided to share it here, because I received some very strong confidential emails thanking me for saying what I did - but no public comments.  I'm getting the impression that many people actually feel worried about speaking out against the current consensus, so I've added a vote at the end. If you'd like to share your view – completely anonymously – please take a few seconds to let me know what you think.

Because if you listened to the response around the IoF convention and on Twitter, you'll know that it reflected a less than positive take on his comments. "Unhelpful", "patronising" and "condescending" were some of the more diplomatic adjectives on offer.

But could there be something positive in what Lord Grade had to say?

Perhaps.

At university, I attended a few lectures given by Professor Sir Roland Smith, then chairman of British Aerospace. I took away a very important point that he made about communications: it’s not necessarily what people say that matters; it’s what they actually mean that counts.

The fundraising crisis that burst across our front pages last year was not a complete surprise. It was heralded by an increasing amount of negative feedback from donors that was eventually reflected in the media.

These weren’t complaints about grassroots work. Instead we saw a stream of dispiriting remarks, comments and articles about how charities were run.  About large salaries, high administration costs and aggressive fundraising techniques.

We took those donors at their word and responded by justifying those activities. Explanations were given about the need for competitive pay and how effective fundraising actually is. The "one bad apple" defence was employed (perhaps too often). And it was also suggested that all anyone had to do if they didn’t want to give, was to say "no thanks" or drop that appeal letter in the bin.

These responses failed to change anything, because they did not address the fundamental concerns of donors – that they are unhappy about how fundraisers treat them and make them feel.

It’s interesting that when Lord Grade highlighted this point by reminding us that donors were also consumers, his analogy was a Scrabble app that disturbed his enjoyment of the game by regularly flashing up ads. Of course, he could have paid for a version that was ad free, but perhaps he didn’t know one existed? Instead, he became irritated about the fact that the game developers used ads to try to earn a living from their work.

Could it be that fundraisers are facing a very similar problem? I think I’m safe in saying that we all want improved medical treatments, organisations to protect everything we hold dear and an end to poverty. But perhaps, as with Scrabble apps, people now expect these services for next to nothing?

But why has this happened?

I’ve long thought that the proliferation of repeated requests for gifts of £2 or £3 has significantly underpriced our work. Such small gifts make giving easy. The sums are so small that, to many people, they hardly matter.

The fact is, giving can and should be enjoyable. And anyone who thinks that the future of fundraising can be built with techniques that simply make it easy is dangerously myopic. The commercial world has known for a long time that everyone values better treatment. Even Michael O'Leary of RyanAir eventually realised he had to stop treating his customers so badly. They may have come for low prices. But they certainly didn't stick around to 'enjoy' the customer service.

And that’s why Lord Grade might have done us a favour. He’s reminded us that as consumers, we will pay for what we need and what we value. This is particularly important when payment is voluntary – as with his Scrabble app and with anyone’s gift to charity.

Our focus has to be on building relationships that donors actually want. And to that end, we must focus on making giving emotionally rewarding. Because, at the end of the day, that’s the type of feeling that people will actually pay for. The growing interest in mid-value fundraising recognises this very fact. But our goal should be to treat all donors like our wealthier ones.

I think Fundraising Regulator board member Lucy Caldicott summed it up quite well when she suggested that we’ll know we are doing something right when Lord Grade welcomes fundraisers knocking at his door with open arms.

I think she may well be correct.

Three things you need to get right in mid-value fundraising

There has been a surge of interest in mid-value fundraising over the last year, so I thought it might be worth sharing a few thoughts about the technique.

For those who don't know, mid-value fundraising is a focused, engaging and highly personal version of direct marketing that asks wealthier (or more generous) people for gifts of between £250 and £5,000 ($500 to $10,000).

I've used this approach for appeals since way back in the early 1990s when I worked for YMCA England. We developed a cold mailing pack asking for £5,000 that generated an initial ROI of 15:1. But more importantly, the donors were exceptionally loyal (and often very generous). The highest gift that was ever given by a donor originally recruited by that first pack was £5,000,000.

So it's a powerful technique. However, you need to use it with care.

As well as seeing plenty of successes, there have also been a few failures. And if you are thinking of testing whether it is right for you, you'll need to know that it's important that you get your approach right. To help, I thought I'd share the Bluefrog mid-value triangle that focuses on the three key elements we've found to be a major driver of success.

Audience

Who are you writing to? Get this wrong and you could be facing a disaster.

You can obviously source prospects from third-party list brokers, but they need to be squeaky clean in terms of accuracy. In the good old days you could get names from registers of share-holders and you were pretty certain just how wealthy they were. This is no longer the case. Nowadays, most lists of 'wealthy' individuals are compiled from a range of sources and sometimes those lists are not quite as good as you need them to be. At Bluefrog we aren't currently engaged in any cold direct mail aimed at mid-value donors because of this risk.

This leaves you with your current supporter file. This is a great place to start but please remember, just because someone has given you a large gift once, it does not mean they will – or can – again. We've had to develop some very sophisticated propensity models to identify those donors who can afford to give more and actually want to.

So, be very careful who you ask. Many large gifts from individuals could well be the result of in-memoriam collections or community fundraising activities. So look out for unusual amounts in your data. Anything like £870, £2,145 or even £2,783.48 should raise alarm bells – particularly if you've never asked for gifts of that specific size before. If in doubt, call the donor up and ask why they gave before you mail them again. It can save a great deal of upset.

And, on the other side of the coin, if someone gave a large gift once and they were dropped into your standard mailing programme or passed to the high value team where they were lost because they hadn't given quite enough, they may not have a very high opinion of your charity. The sudden appearance of appropriate asks – even in a very good mailing pack – may not actually be noticed or welcomed. All is not necessarily lost, but you may have to kick-start the relationship again before making a request for a significant sum as the donor may well feel unappreciated or unrecognised.

Further to this point, a regular mistake that people make is to mail this pack solely to high value donors that the major donor team has been unable to motivate to give. Don't! You need engaged donors for this to work well. If you aren't willing to focus on your best donors, don't even test it.

Signatory

Who asks matters. I've seen a change in signatory to an appeal dramatically improve and dramatically reduce income on more than one occasion. Your CEO is not always the best person to sign your letter. Wealthier people are much more likely to give if someone they know – or know of – asks for their help. This is particularly true if that person moves in the same social circles as the potential donor or works in the same industry.

And remember, you don't always need to restrict yourself to one signatory. A mid-value mailing can include more than one letter or even have multiple signatories.

Offer

Why you need the money is very important. A general appeal for unrestricted funds is highly unlikely to work. You have to feature projects that a donor will be interested in and be inspired by. I've seen mid-value appeals fail because an initial project that sounded exciting was watered down to the point that it failed to convince a donor that their money would do anything useful at all.

Even if you are focusing on a real project, choose it with care. Not all projects are equally valuable to a donor. Try to focus on work that you know they will want to fund. You need something that will excite and engage. For example, funding the training and equipping of a rural health worker is highly likely to generate a much better response than training an urban social worker in rights' provision.

Once a mid-value donor is engaged they may well give you unrestricted funds, but, it is highly unlikely this will happen with the first mid-value gift. So focus on the donor's specific needs first. And remember, with appropriate treatment, they may even move to regular giving, but only after a relationship exists.

Is it for you?

If you still think the mid-value approach is right for you and your charity, please test first. A mid-value focus can dramatically change the relationship your donors have with you. And once it works, you can even use your appeals for donors who have given smaller gifts as well. It also helps to have a custom landing page as increasing numbers of mid-value donors may well be prompted to give by a mailing, but the process of giving is often undertaken online.

My final advice is to move forward carefully, particularly if you can't meet every requirement in the triangle. Asking for a large gift will make you stand out from the crowd. Just make sure it is in a good way.

Thoughts on the roots of the fundraising crisis and what might happen next

For all the headlines, news reports and criticism of fundraising over the last year, the point that seems to have escaped attention is just how we found ourselves in so much trouble.

It's all too easy to blame elements of the media for whipping up a storm that didn’t exist or pass the buck to "irresponsible" agencies. But that simply deflects us from examining the real causes of a problem that remains ongoing.

And when I say ongoing, I don't mean we are going to see another bruising set of reports from the media (which we may). I'm concerned about the fact that however you look at individual fundraising, over the last few years there has been very little growth. Indicator after indicator shows that fundraising is in the doldrums. And we are likely to be stuck here for a fair number of years to come.

Let’s take some recent reports. First, CAF’s UK Giving. Though some people criticise their methodology, the study has tracked attitudes to giving for a decade. That means it provides a very reliable indicator of trends. And what do we see? Flat-lining of income, donor numbers and direct debits.

Second. Last year’s review of the sector by the NCVO, A Financial Stability Review (PDF) demonstrated that charity income had decoupled from growth in the wider economy (graph here). It also highlighted that where there were gains, it was often down to fees for services rather than through increases in voluntary income.

Third. The Top 100 Fundraising Charities Spotlight published a few weeks ago shows that income has grown for the largest 100 charities over the last year (graph here). But when you dig into the annual accounts of the charities that did well, you find that success rarely comes from traditional mass fundraising. Instead, massive hikes in expenditure, large legacies, events, major gifts or one off appeals are responsible for growth.

Alongside this, we've seen a drop in trust.

So what actually happened to cause all this?

To understand, I think we need to go back the best part of twenty years, to the late 1990s when two things happened to dramatically change the fundraising landscape.

The first was the introduction of paperless Direct Debits. These fundamentally changed the role of TV advertising – allowing direct sign up to a regular gift when a donor called in. It might sound rather quaint, but before then, if a donor agreed to a Direct Debit, you had to send them a mandate to sign. And as you might expect, less engaged donors tended to forget to complete and return these pesky forms.

Second was the massive commercialisation of face-to-face fundraising. Combined, both techniques allowed charities to sign up regular givers without going through the process of engaging them first. TV didn’t really start flying as a recruitment medium until the £2 a month request was introduced. But once that was in place, the two approaches meant that pretty much anyone was a prospect. Whereas once charities wanted donors who had a connection to their cause, now that wasn't particularly important.

Some early face-to-face agencies actually advised their clients not to communicate with these new donors at all, apart from periodic calls to upgrade their gifts.

These techniques worked. There was sector-wide growth in income. Each year, thousands of new regular givers were recruited and, importantly to finance directors, costs and income were ‘guaranteed’. For many organisations, cash programmes took second place. Budgets were often shifted to RG acquisition and it became common for warm appeals to be pitched out to different creative agencies or freelance teams as and when they were needed. 

The result was that much continuity was lost. Then in the 2000s, in the drive for more donors, many charities began to adopt commercial branding practices. We saw a number of organisations develop new visual identities and introduce guidelines that dramatically changed the way they described themselves and their work. Some charities even ditched their names and evolved into new entities that were completely unknown to their supporters.

The combined result was that the relationship between charities and their supporters became ever more fragmented. But at the same time, many charities flushed with short-term fundraising success, moved forward with increasingly ambitious plans that required significant growth in giving. Individually, such ambition was fine. But when many organisations were doing the same thing, it’s understandable that without further expansion of the number of people who give, donors would come under pressure.

And that’s just what we saw happen. Charities, with a few notable exceptions, mailed the same lists, stopped the same people in the street and advertised on the same TV channels with similar offers asking donors to take out yet another low value Direct Debit. It became a little like a merry-go-round with donors switching from one charity to another.

Engagement fell and donors actively voiced their irritation. I remember back in 2009 when Bluefrog published the biggest UK study ever undertaken into why donors lapse, being shocked by the findings. Donors said they valued the work of charities. But they felt increasingly under-valued as supporters. As a result, charity communications started to become something they tolerated rather than welcomed.

Obviously, many donors continued to have favourite charities that they deeply valued. But, at the same time, they reported feeling under pressure from the wider charity sector. And our research since then shows that nothing has improved. So when the news stories broke and donors could see they were not alone, very few spoke up to defend us.

The sad fact is, when some charities started to treat donors as a commodity, people reciprocated by losing trust and patience with the fundraising practices of the sector as a whole. Lapsed files grew as complaints about 'selling names' became widespread. Continued requests for Direct Debits tired many donors out to the point that they found the solution was simply to agree and then cancel the Direct Debit shortly afterwards. Why else is attrition such a problem?

It is a strange state of affairs that I don’t think the introduction of the FPS is going to resolve. For all the complaints, many donors really do want to stay in contact with some charities and a 'reset button' is not going to be something that 'charity people' are going to happily press. However, the fact is, we need to build an understanding of which donors want to give us the odd gift and those who really value our work enough to give over the long-term.

We'll find more of the latter by focusing on the people who send in unprompted gifts (and they do exist) and actively recruiting people who have more than a passing interest in our particular organisation’s work. And that's rarely achieved by requests for micro donations or tiny Direct Debits.

Which sums up perhaps the biggest problem the sector faces. Donors who don't want a relationship with a charity they 'support' probably won't even notice the change to a donor-centric approach. And heaven knows what will happen to that simple opt-in request when it lands on their mat, arrives in their in-box or buzzes up as an incoming text?

The fact is, over the next few years, opting-in is going to be the new proving ground for fundraisers. Getting someone to sign up to receive our communications will require a real appreciation of donor needs and great fundraising technique. What's more, we are going to have to deliver information and materials to donors that they actually value. The days of the self-congratulatory magazine or heavily branded mailing pack are numbered. And those charities that have spent millions recruiting un-engaged donors might find things rather tough.

The focus will need to switch so donors can support us in the way that actually works for them - rather than working for us. Growth in event fundraising for example, shows that successful innovation is more than just about channel choice.

The reality is that fundraising is going to change as we tackle a daunting learning curve, But, if we get it right, the rewards will become immeasurably higher. The future of fundraising is not more low-value text gifts, automated Direct Debits or premium-led, catch-all direct mail packs. Instead it will be focused on delivering a far more enjoyable experience of being a donor and that will bring people much closer to the causes we work for.

And that could be a very, very good thing not just for fundraisers but for society at large.

Time to change tactics - the view from Australia

Last year, I spoke at the Australasian Fundraising Forum in Sydney. I shared my thoughts on the fundraising crisis in the UK and how we ended up in such a mess. I also looked at what was happening in Australia and found a number of similarities to our situation in the UK. I voiced my concern that they could well be repeating our mistakes.

That's why I was interested to read an article by Lawrence Jackson in Philanthropy and Fundraising magazine, highlighting his concerns regarding Australian fundraising practice. Lawrence is not new to fundraising. He established the consultancy, Catalyst Management and has 16 years experience of running fundraising campaigns. His suggestions to avert any crisis are spot on, so I thought worth sharing to a wider audience.  Here is his article in full...

Is it Time to Change Tactics?

The late Madison Avenue advertising guru David Ogilvy once said: “The consumer isn’t a moron. She is your wife”. You could say something similar about the relationship of charities to donors… which leads me to wonder – observing current fundraising practices – if Australia’s charity sector is showing donors the respect they are due?

The cost of competition

In our drive for a share of donors’ wallets – pressured by sector competition and unpredictable financial markets – charities have been enticing donations with free gifts and trinkets, seeking ever-higher responses. We swap donors’ private data to reach those with the highest propensity to give.

Once they’re on board, we send thank-you ‘donor care’ mailings. But we can’t help including a ‘soft donation ask’, as many donors respond generously to any charity letter. Our raffle and lottery programs boast prizes from cash to electronic goods and tantalising holidays, even palatial homes, in exchange for people’s support.

However, look closely and you’ll see cracks beginning to show. Anecdotal evidence is emerging of society’s negative reactions to some of these now commonplace practices.

Some observations from my time as a fundraising consultant and practitioner include:

• High levels of return mail from direct mail appeals, sometimes up to 7-10% often sent directly back to mail houses, because volumes are too large for charities to process internally.

• Very low response rates and average gift levels for premium-based direct mail appeals, highlighted by some of the lowest second-gift rates in years.

• Declining year-on-year donor retention rates, leading to stagnant donor programs from prominent and highly trusted charity brands. 

• Irate letters and Facebook messages from donors complaining about activities they see as aggressive and wasteful.

If anyone has any doubts about whether this is a concern, you only need to look at the media storm and industry meltdown that has engulfed the UK’s charity sector – the response to the perception of unethical practices following a loyal elderly donor’s suicide, who according to The Guardian, was linked to her being on the mailing list of approximately 100 charities who in turn may have sent her almost 3,000 direct mail appeals for support in a single year. On the flipside is Canada, where the rising #donorlove movement is aiming to enhance donor retention and satisfaction. 

It is unlikely Australia will be immune to such developments. Witness Nicky Gemmel’s recent piercing column entitled “Charities and the donation industry: sailing into dangerous waters” in the Weekend Australian. This reluctantly outlines her concerns about both UK and Australian fundraising practices, her views of industry blind spots, and her fears of the storm she guesses is ahead. 

Welcome to the arms race

As a long-standing practitioner myself, I fully appreciate that donations are essential for charities to serve needy beneficiaries. And securing them is getting harder. There are around 700,000 nonprofit organisations in Australia today, including over 60,000 registered charities and approximately 25,000 Deductible Gift Recipient-endorsed organisations.

But it seems to me that competition may have set off a fundraising arms race, blindly embraced by the whole sector without sufficient consideration, scrutiny and analysis.

“If you don’t ask, you don’t get” – right? Perhaps. But my sense is it’s time to find the balance between asking and appreciating – in a way that acknowledges people’s authentic motivation for giving and ensures Australians’ and donors’ trust in charities goes unharmed. After all, that trust is what every charity relies on to survive.

Admittedly, it’s a difficult balance to achieve. But my fear is that otherwise – through overuse and mainstreaming of techniques primarily oriented to increase donations and response – we may be sending the wrong messages to donors.

Wrong, because the act of giving in itself should be a joyful and rewarding experience. This is what truly motivates people’s generosity – and it’s the ethos behind the help charities offer beneficiaries. As such it’s the common philosophy that bonds charities and donors.

Do supporters really need to be bribed and cajoled to induce their patronage? How long before these practices can’t be sustained in their existing form?

In my view, given the signs of donor angst I’ve mentioned, the fundraising industry now requires solid resolve and courage to dispassionately assess the impact over time of some of our practices. It seems clear that a recalibration is warranted if we are to achieve and maintain more authentic levels of donor engagement. 

I suggest we attempt this as follows:

• Revert to tactics which tap into donors’ authentic motivation for giving.

• Honour the personal fulfilment donors feel in contributing to and helping others.

• Overcome the temptation and fixation for the short-term donation sugar hit – and rather focus on the far more critical long-term metrics of lifetime value. That is, net income produced from fundraising campaigns over at least a 5 to 7 year donor loyalty period.

• Develop capability to accurately measure critical loyalty milestones over the donor journey: Namely first-year attrition, year-on-year retention and annual gift increase levels.

• Factor in the full impact of techniques and tactics employed such as costly premiums, swapping of donor data and cooperative schemes, and precisely determine the long-term net outcome of these.

• Consider the impact of our activities on the current and future levels of public trust in charitable organisations. 

• Keep determining ways to proactively self-regulate, and communicate fundraising practices likely to be well-regarded by donors.

Or else, what mixed messages are we sending donors about our expectations – and what it means to give? If we aren’t mindful, could we be changing the donor ecosystem forever? I hate to imagine what David Ogilvy would think.

Lawrence can be contacted at ljackson[at}catalystmanagement.com.au

What do donors actually read when you write to them?

There aren't too many fundraisers who can be unaware of the power of using YOU in copy.

One of my favourite fundraisers, Tom Ahern, gives the word central importance in his brilliantly effective Ahern Audit, with the famous You test.

But why does such a simple word make such a huge difference?

First off it's a placeholder for the reader's name that can be repeated without sounding weird. As such, the more you use the word You, the more personal your copy becomes. When you write You, you don't just write about your cause or the organisation you work for, you write about the person who makes your work possible – the donor.

And that offers something very important to anyone reading your copy.

It empowers them.

It moves your conversation from asking them to simply give, which – in the UK at least – can end up as a debate about how little they need to hand over (I'm talking about the £3 ask that finally seems to be slipping in to decline). Instead you get to the position where you are asking them to actually do something. And that is a far more exciting prospect.

When you GIVE, you hand something over. Whereas when you DO, you tackle a problem. And the donor who really wants to make a difference, definitely wants to achieve something. Using the word You imparts the feeling of a sense of achievement before the donation form is even completed.

But that's not all.

The other great thing about You is that it acts as a tiny starburst within your copy that can attract the reader's eye and answer the question, What do you actually need me to do?

So don't push the use of You down your page. Be proud of the fact that you recognise that your donor is really going to do the heavy lifting and give them credit for it. Get it in early and use it often.

That's when you and You can really make a difference.

What is wrong with trojan horse fundraising?

There's a fundraising technique that's caught on in the last few years based on offering important information as a means to obtain someone's contact details.

You probably have seen the type of thing I'm talking about on TV or train ads. Rather than directly offer advice, the ads ask you to email or text in for an information booklet instead. Then, as part of the delivery or follow-up process, you are also asked to sign up to a regular gift.

Much of the approach is built on ideas highlighted in Robert Cialdini’s book, Influence: The Science of Persuasion.

Cialdini points out that as a general rule, people want to be consistent in their words and actions. If someone takes some form of action, it makes them feel uncomfortable if they fail to support it later on. In one study featured in the book, researchers spoke to people about road safety concerns and gave them a free postcard to display in their window that promoted safe driving. A few weeks later they went back to the same neighbourhood and asked participants to put a huge billboard up in their garden that featured the same message.

Compared to a control group (who were never asked to display the postcard), the people who put up the postcard were four times more likely to agree to have a billboard erected in their garden. All because they wanted to appear consistent in their commitment to promoting safe driving.

The fact that this approach of reciprocity and consistency is sometimes known as the Foot in the Door technique, should raise a few alarm bells. But that hasn't stopped it from being used by a number of high profile charities. Not least because it can generate significant numbers of prospects that can be spoken to outside the constraints of the current or upcoming fundraising legislation.

The fact that seems to be ignored is that Cialdini also highlights the point that this style of marketing often creates ill-feeling amongst those who have been exposed to it as they can feel they have been tricked (along with high attrition rates, this technique has also generated at least one complaint that has been upheld by the FRSB). He cites the fact that Hare Krishna fundraisers (who give away free books or flowers) actually stopped wearing their religious robes as they found potential donors would change paths to avoid an encounter. As he explains...

"Although the Society has tried to counter this increased vigilance by instructing members to be dressed and groomed in modern styles to avoid immediate recognition when soliciting (some actually carry flight bags or suitcases), even disguise has not worked especially well for the Krishnas. Too many individuals now know better than to accept unrequested offerings in public places like airports...It is a testament to the societal value of reciprocation that we have chosen to fight the Krishnas mostly by seeking to avoid rather than to withstand the force of their gift giving. The reciprocity rule that empowers their tactic is too strong—and socially beneficial—for us to want to violate it.

What's particularly concerning is the long-term implications of this approach. What might happen if people take the same approach to charities as they did to the Hare Krishna movement and started avoiding us? Any street fundraiser knows that many people already change their path or bury their head in their phone in an effort to avoid being asked for a gift.

But as we have seen, people tend to draw a distinction between fundraising and the core activity of a charity. If we start muddying the water to the point that people see a request for information is going to be accompanied by a telephone call asking for a direct debit, might that cause them to stop asking for information from the very charities they need help from in the first place? 

It's a very high risk strategy that could well impact on organisations that don't use the approach along with those who do. And with the current high level of media scrutiny, the implications really worry me.

Fundraising is most effective when it is built on real connection and strong relationships. And I continue to believe that is what fundraisers should focus on building. 

Just as there are good reasons why a donor chooses to give, there are other good reasons why they say no. We should overcome those barriers not through subterfuge, but by extolling the benefits of giving. I'm not convinced that ours is a profession that really needs to employ trojan horses to get our fundraising message across. But I may well be in the minority. What do you think?

How do we change the public perception of fundraising?

With the ongoing media storm, improving the public perception of fundraising is near the top of every fundraiser's list of concerns. But luckily, not only do we have the Commission on the Donor Experience working on the problem, senior staff from the UK’s top charities recently got together to look at what they can do and, of course, there is the magnificent #DonorLove movement in Canada.

You can probably guess my opinion - more power to them.

As anyone who has seen my presentations or read my blog posts will know, I’ve become increasingly concerned that much of the sector’s work over the last twenty-five years hasn’t necessarily achieved much in terms of developing the nation’s philanthropic spirit.

To help illustrate this point, can I point you in the direction of The Logic of Charity: Great Expectations in Hard Times by Beth Breeze and John Mohan. Published last month, this excellent book takes a look at the historical impact of fundraising – principally since the early 1990s. Beth and John found the following…

• The number of people giving to charity and the amount they donate has remained stubbornly stable.
• There are regular upward swings in giving (driven by international disasters) though these increases are not maintained.
• There remains a widespread belief that ‘charity begins at home’ but no sense that charities should replace the role of government as suggested by the proponents of the “Big Society” idea.
• Less than a quarter of people think it is everyone’s responsibility to support charities.
• More than half of people think we should not rely on charities and look after ourselves instead (up from just 28% in 1991).
• Almost 40% of people think charities are wasteful and over 80% think there are too many voluntary organisations.

It’s not a great picture. So what have we done wrong? Why aren’t we seeing growth in giving and why hasn't there been a positive change in public attitudes?

The answer is perhaps summed up by an anecdote featured by Beth and John. The Labour MP, Frank Field gave a speech to the Charity Commission in 2015 where he shared a story about Margaret Thatcher. The former Prime Minister was asked what was her greatest disappointment in government. She responded by saying…

“I cut taxes because I thought we would get a giving society. And we haven’t.”

In all Bluefrog’s private and public research there is one key sentiment that comes through. People don’t give more just because they can afford it. They give more when they feel rewarded by their philanthropy. And sadly, very few people feel rewarded by being on the sharp end of some modern fundraising techniques.

We’ve seen far too many innovations that are based purely on the way we ask people to give. Whether it’s face to face, digital, mobile or even direct mail, if all we are doing is changing the way we ask for support it’s not going to make a blind bit of difference to how much we raise - nor will it increase the number of people who give to charity. All those presentations about the future of fundraising have amounted to little more than the splutterings of a faulty hair dryer.

So what can we do?

For a start, we can recognise one simple fact. The people who we have to influence are donors.

And talk of commissioning advertising campaigns to show people what their donations achieve misses the point by a mile. Donors won't judge us by what we say. They will judge us by what we do.

And what we need to do is to ensure that we recognise and respond to their needs as donors. Of course they want to solve problems. But they also need to feel part of the solution that we offer. And they must be thanked and rewarded for what they do, in a way that actually enhances their lives.

And the reality of the situation is, this needn't cost the sector anything.

In my experience, when we treat supporters in a way that provides a more enjoyable experience of being a donor, we raise more money. Attrition is also reduced, repeat giving increases and the number of legacies are boosted.

In fact, the first piece of advice I give to anyone who asks me how they can raise more money from their appeals, is to concentrate on improving how they thank and engage their donors.

But of course there is an if – and it’s a big one. It only works if those donors actually care about your work in the first place. That remains one of my concerns with industrial scale face-to-face and mobile giving programmes. They generate a great deal of chaff that hide the few grains of wheat.

In all the fundraising programmes I’ve seen that have taken a long-term approach to donor development rather than focus on cheap recruitment and quick wins, I've also seen positive growth rates that last. And at the end of the day, that’s what matters.

When you break it down, it is all achieved through the use of a hugely technical and scientific strategy that I like to call, being nice.

And that’s how we can change the public perception of fundraising. Simply by being nice to donors.

If the public start to enjoy giving, the headlines from 2015 won’t be repeated. It might take some time, but through focusing on Feel Good Fundraising, we will create a future that both the next generation of fundraisers and donors will thank us for.

So at your next fundraising brainstorm, why not make this simple suggestion….

When people have tried everything else, they might just decide to focus on what we know actually works.

Best of luck.

What makes a Super Fundraiser?

In the face of the UK's fundraising crisis, lets not forget there are some super fundraisers out there. This is what I think makes them special.

The truth about giving compiled from 250 million lines of data

The More Partnership has just published a great (free) booklet that illustrates some important truths about giving. 

The facts you'll find inside are based on analysing the supporter files of 33 British universities. That's a load of data. In just one year, it adds up to 161,000 donors, 1.1 million gifts, 3.8 million solicitations and £68 million worth of philanthropy.

Importantly, for fundraisers who aren't in the academic sector, many of the patterns they identify directly relate to giving behaviour we see amongst donors to traditional charities - particularly with reference to acquisition and retention. 

We all know the importance of loyalty, but this publication points out what it can be worth.

Take a look at these selections and you'll see just how important higher value, long-term donors are in terms of overall income. I should point out that the term 'regular giving' has a much broader meaning in academic fundraising that covers both repeated cash gifts and direct debits.

We see these same patterns in traditional charity files. When managed well, donor generosity builds over time. The more a donor connects with a charity and the more they enjoy the relationship, the more they are likely to give – as long as they are asked for appropriate amounts.

As individuals, we all go through distinct life stages. First we acquire the material necessities of modern life – a house, furniture, a car and the general stuff that we all accumulate. Then we maintain and sustain what we own - upgrading (or downgrading) as we see necessary. Finally we reach a point, where our children are educated, mortgages are paid and we have enough for our lifestyle. It's at this point that many donors (particularly the wealthier ones) start thinking about spiritual matters such as philanthropy and how they want to be remembered. It's at this point that they first start to give significant sums to charities. 

The key problem with this pattern is that if you don't demonstrate that you value donors when they are younger and have less money, they are unlikely to give larger gifts as they age and become more affluent. 

The great thing about universities, is they have always focused on longer-term relationships which lead to large gifts. 41% of all million pound gifts given in 2014 went to universities. 

So if you want to see what can be achieved by programmes that focus on engagement, download the PDF and compare More's figures to your own.