queer ideas

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.

Why do donors stop giving?

Back in 2009, Bluefrog undertook a huge qualitative research exercise to identify and highlight the reasons why donors stop giving to charities.

The paper we published at the time is as relevant today as it was then. So I thought it might be useful if we made it publicly available again.

It's called The Fundraiser's Guide to Lapsers and you can download a copy by clicking here (no sign up or email registration required).

It's broken down into three sections.

1. Why we did it and our methodology.

2. How the disengagement process works. That's if there was any sort of relationship in the first place (which is a massive part of the problem, particularly with the use of prospecting and interruption recruitment techniques such face to face and mobile).

3. Ideas of how you can stem attrition (which actually do work).

Hopefully, you'll find it interesting and useful. Happy for people to share, but we do ask that you credit Bluefrog wherever and whenever it is used (not just the name of the researchers).

The secret life of a donor – video evidence

I recently had the fantastic opportunity of appearing on stage in front of an audience of over 900 fundraisers as part of Tony Elischer's amazing experiment – Theatre of Fundraising - at AFP Congress in Toronto.

One of the areas that Tony asked me to look at was fatigue.

This was a theatre, so it had to be entertaining. With the help of Raindown (who are an excellent production company that I highly recommend) we put together a short video where we attempt to demonstrate what it's like to be on the sharp end of so many fundraisers' efforts.

I don't believe compassion fatigue actually exists. If anything, I think people today are kinder and more compassionate than ever before.

The problem is that they are worn out by the approach of charities that think fundraising is just about asking more often in more intrusive ways.

Great fundraising is not just about demonstrating organisational need. It's about answering the needs of our donors.

It's about engaging and empowering them. It's about inspiring them with creative ideas that emotionally connect them to the causes that we raise funds for (you can read Aline's post on how we did this for UCL by clicking here).

It's the easiest thing in the world to just ask people for money.

What takes time and effort is the creation of the feelings of joy that every donor should receive when they see the impact of their giving.

That what we should be concentrating on. We are fundraisers. That's our job.

Should you wish to use the video or share it, feel free. All we ask is that you let people know that it was produced by Bluefrog.

Another way to measure supporter loyalty

I can't think of many charities that wouldn't want more loyalty from their donors. But as we all know, people can be very, very fickle.

Just because someone has set up a small regular gift or responded to an appeal, it doesn't mean that they are a supporter that you can depend upon.

You have to do something very special to build that sort of relationship.

That's why I was amazed to receive this photograph from a WSPA donor, who values their relationship with the charity so much that they have made it permanent with a tattoo of the Animal Protector logo!
It's probably one of the most memorable examples I've seen of what a donor focused loyalty campaign can achieve. And though WSPA are unlikely to get many more photographs like this, their new Animal Protector product has had a remarkable impact on all KPIs.

As a result, the Institute of Fundraising awarded it the Most Innovative Fundraising Campaign at this year's IOF national convention. As they said at the ceremony...

"Attrition has been halved and over 12 months the numbers of donors upgrading their monthly donation amounts has more than tripled.

This campaign was based on donor insight and WSPA built a new product around this data. They tried to change the mindset of donors to feel more engaged through a new product, and successfully increased the emotional engagement that donors feel.

The drop in attrition is excellent.

This sort of campaign could be replicated in other organisations and doesn't necessarily depend on the size or income."

I'm incredibly proud that it was Bluefrog that developed Animal Protector and that it was built on our uSpace donor feedback engine. If you'd like to know more, you can read about how it works here and here).

Why giving to charity can be like buying a Polaris submarine

My dad was a printer. When he worked night shifts on the national newspapers I always went to bed very excited. That's because I knew he'd come home with a gift for me. As soon as I woke up, I'd rush downstairs to find a toy car, a model plane or an American comic sitting on the kitchen table.

The American comics were perhaps the most exciting. Unlike British comics, they had glossy covers and featured exotic characters like Richie Rich or Casper the Friendly Ghost.

As well as the stories, they were packed full of ads that featured the most amazing products that seemed perfectly designed to separate a seven year old boy from south-east London with his hard earned pocket money.

The choice was mouth watering. Within a few pages you could find 'Real' X-Ray spex, instructions how to build a 'working' laser pistol, a 100 piece plastic soldier set with tanks, ships and planes packed in a footlocker, or the ultimate toy - a Polaris nuclear sub - that at over 7 feet long was "big enough for 2 kids".

To my young mind, this submarine was fully functional. The advert described it as the "most powerful ship in the sea". You could actually release nuclear missiles and torpedoes (if you were so inclined). And encased in "200 lb test material" you'd surely be safe at the bottom of the ocean.

All this was available at $6.98. The only thing that stopped me from buying one was the fact I had no idea how to get hold of a dollar money order.

Instead I was left imagining the thousands of Polaris submarines containing children of my age that were undoubtably a hazard to shipping all along the US coastline.

It wasn't until much later (after I met real Americans) that I found out that most of these toys were little more than cheap junk. The soldiers weren't a patch on our own homegrown Airfix variety and the submarine was actually made from cardboard. A mild drizzle would see it turn into a pile of sodden pulp. The fact that the missiles were fired by a rubber band would also mean that the world's population could sleep soundly knowing that a rapidly emptied money box wasn't going to bring about a nuclear winter.

If I had managed to get hold of $6.98 (plus 75c to help cover shipping charges) I'd have spent the weeks waiting for delivery in breathless anticipation only to be left with a huge sense of disappointment once the "best toy you ever had" arrived ready for assembly but not for a quick trip over to France from Hastings beach.

Such was the seductive power of the ad, even the fact I could get my money back wouldn't have erased the pain of the unfulfilled dream of sinking slowly below the browny-green waves of the English Channel in search of pirate treasure.

I'm a little older now, but I still have dreams. And, like many other people, I try and make those dreams come true by supporting charities. A cure for cancer, the end of poverty and prevention of animal cruelty are all on my list, but just like buying a submarine, the result of giving often leaves me feeling a little flat.

Instead of being invited to be part of something life changing, I get a polite and formal letter that informs me that my money has gone in to a big pot and will do something good, somewhere at some point in the future.

I'd like a little more than that. And when we see just how few people give a second gift in response to cash appeals, it looks like I'm not alone.

Fundraising isn't just about asking. If it was that simple, charities would be awash with money. It's about giving something to your donors that they need and value.

That doesn't mean simply telling donors what your charity does (yet again) in a welcome pack.

It's about grabbing the one chance when you are virtually guaranteed that a donor will open your communication and read it. You can then give them just what they want...

• Recognition for what they've done.
• The opportunity to demonstrate that fact to others.
• Authentic, personal treatment.
• A reason to smile (or cry).

If we do that, we'll find people will actually want to open our appeals. And though they might not get as excited as I did about the thought of my own personal submarine, it will go a long way to encourage a one-off donor to become a long-term supporter.

If you'd like to dig a little deeper into the world of comic book ads, this is a good place to start.

Donors don't like giving when it doesn't feel good

Face to face donor recruitment is back in the spotlight following the publication of a survey that reported 44% of respondents thought chugging was the most aggressive form of fundraising.

The PFRA was quick to respond, questioning the validity of the sample, the questions and the results.

I have some sympathy with their point of view.

As we've seen from the recent FRSB annual report, it takes thousands of face to face solicitations to generate an actual complaint. So it's worth taking a minute or two to ask what this research actually tells us?

Unfortunately, I don't have a full set of tables, but the details provided by Third Sector and Fundraising magazine show:

• When asked which technique was the most aggressive form of fundraising...

– 54% chose doorstep campaigners

– 44% chose high street chuggers

– 43% chose telephone calls to the home

• 39.7% said that they had stopped supporting a charity because of the way it tried to raise funds.
• 60% said 'chuggers' had put them off supporting the charity they were representing.

I agree with the PFRA that this isn't a representative sample – but that doesn't mean the respondents aren't donors. Far from it. The survey was featured on easyfundraising.org.uk (a shopping site that ensures that a donation is made to a charity every time you buy something via one of their links).

It appears most users are recruited via charity partners, social networks and old-fashioned PR. As such, I'd think that the self-selecting respondents (70% of whom are women) are more likely to be active donors than we'd find amongst a sample that was representative of the UK population. On that basis, I wouldn't be surprised if the age-profile was significantly older than average.

Even so, I was surprised so many of the respondents described face to face recruitment as aggressive. 

Adrian Sargeant, back in 2003, actually found that most people who signed up to a charity through a face to face interaction reported a high level of satisfaction with the process of recruitment.

And the donors (and non-donors) we've spoken to about face to face recruitment in the last few years have never shown any concern about aggression. People have described recruiters as annoying, irritating or even as 'creepy', but none said they were aggressive.

The real problem with such a simple approach to assessing opinion is that that no matter the reality of people's experiences of being asked for a gift, the method of asking that most intruded into a donor's personal space was always going to be ranked according to whatever negative characteristic that was on offer – in this case aggression.

Focusing on aggression seems a rather odd, arbitrary, decision. If anything, the emotions that bother people the most when being asked are to do with embarrassment, not knowing how to say no, being inconvenienced by the interruption. Nothing to do with the emotions we associate with the results of aggression - such as intimidation or hostility. They asked the wrong question. And they were always going to get those answers.

But does that mean we can dismiss this survey?

I'd actually say no. Even though there is an obvious sampling bias and poor wording, I still think it has some use. Taken as a whole, it serves to highlight one very important point – people judge charities via the interactions they have with them.

In Bluefrog's 2009 research into lapsing – which can be downloaded here – donors told us that poor quality and inappropriate communications actively pushed them away from charities.

This is because inappropriate and unwanted communications generated negative emotions that donors didn't particularly enjoy. And when giving doesn't feel good, donors don't like to give.

So what makes donors feel bad about being asked for money? Well, this is what our research sample told us...

The charity makes changes that the donor dislikes or doesn't value

A change in name, purpose or a way of operating can cause an uncomfortable feeling. We found a significant number of donors voicing concerns over charities becoming too 'political'. This could also relate to exposure to different fundraising techniques.

Taking donors for granted

This takes many forms. Not thanking appropriately, asking too often, sending inappropriate communications or not recognising what a donor has done. 

Breaking promises

A broken promise tells the donor you don't care about them. It could be ignoring a direct request or failing to meet an expectation. This was particularly important for donors who were recruited face to face. Many described an enjoyable and engaging recruitment experience which was followed by communications that left them feeling let down.

Not paying attention

This isn't just ignoring what a donor does, but also what a donor doesn't do. Donors expect charities to understand what they like and what they don't like. For example, a number of donors said that when they refused a request to set up a committed gift, they tended to mean it. If they were asked again it made them think that they weren't very important.

When the ask feels inappropriate

Donors know that charities need money. They also know that they have to ask for it. But being asked at the wrong time, or for the wrong amounts, or by methods they don't like can generate negative emotions. And no donor enjoys to feel that they're being asked too often.

By not knowing when to stop

Donors were particularly irritated by the fact that they still received appeals from charities when they had asked for them to stop, or if instead of an acknowledgement or thank you, an appeal was the first communication they'd received since cancelling a regular gift.

The key point is that communications need to be relevant and appropriate for the audience. Mass-marketing techniques are always going to present a charity with difficulties. The goal is to have a strategy in place to mitigate any problems. My top three tips would be...

• Don't be pushy
• Respond to complaints as a priority
• Keep a close eye on your data and treat your donors according to their wishes.

Protect the donor

We all know the old adage, look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves, but it should probably be extended to supporters too. Because if we take care of our donors, we won't need to worry about income targets.

That might sound brave or foolish (or both), but following the launch of Animal Protector for WSPA, it should ring true.

Animal Protector has been built using Bluefrog's uSpace donor loyalty engine. If you'd like to know how uSpace works, I featured it in this previous post and others have mentioned it too.

Animal Protector was created in response to WSPA's desire to improve donor retention. It aims to build a relationship with regular givers by showing them exactly how their donations are protecting animals. Through regular updates, supporters can see projects unfold and get to know some of the animals they care so much about.

But more importantly, it gives people a chance to interact with WSPA and define themselves as supporters – in a way that works best for them.

Because if there is one thing we've learned as we've moved from the first generation of uSpace to the second, is that choice is important to donors. But not in the way that many people might think.

WSPA works with a wide range of animals in many different parts of the world, and it seems obvious that one way to enhance a donor's relationship with the charity is to allow them to choose to fund work that benefits a favourite species.

It's obvious. But it's wrong. Donors may have a preference, but that doesn't mean they want to fund work that only benefits that type of animal (if they did, there are many species-specific charities they could easily discover on Google).

By choosing one specific creature, donors have to say no to others. And that can make people feel uncomfortable, particularly when their primary aim is to stop cruelty to ALL animals.

So rather than ask people to choose just one project, we gave them the opportunity to align themsleves with their favourite animal in a different way – by customising their Animal Protector site.

When people sign up, they are presented with different menus, one of which allows them to choose their masthead...

 

 

I've chosen a cow, but if people prefer a bear or a dog, they can choose that header instead. All the time knowing that they are helping all animals...

 

As you'll see, the logo also changes to match donor choice. It's based on a human thumbprint, but developed to represent each animal through the use of the relevant paw or footprint. Donors can use this as their default avatar, but many are uploading pictures of their own pets or animals they have seen in the wild. We've examples of everything from dogs to bears, to ducks to tortoises. And, shock horror, some donors are even uploading photographs of themselves. It's going to be very interesting to look at how the type of avatar relates to giving behaviour.

But choice doesn't stop there. Supporters can also choose a travel wallet or keyring that publicly demonstrates their commitment.

And those people who don't think that donors are interested in these devices, might be interested to hear that over 90% of donors who are signing up are actively requesting them.

And of course, donors can share their opinions too. Each post is accompanied by a growing list of comments. This is perhaps the most exciting (and rewarding) part of the project as donors are showing just how much they value being an Animal Protector and the the insight that goes with it.

A comment from one particular supporter, that summed up the sentiment behind many of the thoughts being shared, simply said...

"Thankyou to those in the midst of this wonderful rescue work for their dedication to animals that come in to their care. The animals can't say "thank you" themselves so I will say it for them. They send you lots of love."

However, I've left the best to last. The site has only been live for a week or two, and has already attracted thousands of supporters. But one of the most interesting side-effects of offering this combination of self-definition and in-depth feedback has been the number of people who have upgraded.

When we launched the site, we simply wanted to get as many people as possible to join. But donors have been so happy to know their money is making such a big difference that almost 8% of current regular givers who signed-up have chosen to upgrade their gift without even being asked.

See what I mean about income targets looking after themselves?

If you'd like to know more, why don't you sign up for yourself and see just how rewarding being an Animal Protector can be? Just click here to find out more.

The tragedy of the commons

I studied development studies at university (at UEA) where as fresh young undergraduates we were introduced to Garret Hardin's concept of The Tragedy of the Commons (first published in Science magazine in 1968).

Hardin described a situation where a group of livestock owners share a pasture which can only support a finite number of cattle. But in order to maximise their personal benefit from the land, each owner increases their herd size whenever possible, worrying that if they don't take advantage of the land they might 'lose out'.

The result is that the number of cattle gradually increases to the point that the animals actually get thinner and start to die as there isn't enough food to go around. Eventually the land becomes so degraded that the topsoil is blown or washed away and the once lush grass turns to scrub.

I was reminded about this a week or so ago when the Fundraising Detective featured a letter from a donor that pointed out that he, together with his wife, had received 491 mailing packs from 115 charities in the previous twelve months. That's pretty much ten packs a week landing on their door mat!

Craig summed up the impact of this approach...

"when you look at the whole (and I'd guess there are thousands of other donors receiving similar volumes of mail) it is simply unjustifiable and unsustainable in the long term.  By continuing to act in this way, good causes risk driving donors to extinction by completely turning them off donating and alienating the very people who are happy to give."

But it isn't just mail. There are also the telephone calls, the knocks on the door, the face to face fundraisers in the street and the text messages on our mobile phones. Then there are the ads on the television, in the newspapers, on the radio, at the cinema, online and on billboards.

If our pasture is the population of donors, it would appear that fundraisers are some of the worst kinds of industrial farmers who are only managing to keep the grass growing by using ever more fantastic technology to eek out the last remnants of generosity from those upon whom we depend.

Even with the the massive potential of the web, with all the opportunities it offers us to engage and inspire, most innovation is nothing more than another variant of the donation form.

So what should we – as fundraisers – do?

We can't just stop mailing. And if we change our approach, we don't have to. But I agree with Craig that we can't continue like this. We need to stop the more egregious examples of bad practice that turn donors off.

And in their place, we should perhaps adopt some of the techniques used by the more sensible herders who decide to effectively manage a dwindling resource.

Cull the unproductive members of the herd

That might sound a little over top, but I simply mean that we must stop repeatedly mailing donors who are never going to give.

This can be achieved by using our data intelligently. 'Knowing the donor' is central to any good fundraising operation. And when you have too many donors to get to know individually, it's important that you use data so you can identify your best and worst prospects.

The result is less unwanted mail and less pressure on the collective population of donors. Some might say it's an expensive solution to employ an agency to manage your data. But when you use data effectively you reduce your mailing (or calling) quantities and costs. You also increase your income by improving your relationship with those donors who actually will give.

You'll be abe to identify the people who are most likely to convert to a regular gift, who will respond positively to your appeals (and at what time) and who might actually be interested in leaving you a legacy. You'll also be able to identify those people who are likely to put your mailing in the rubbish and avoid upsetting them in the first place.

This is actually covered within the IOF Code of Direct Marketing Fundraising Practice, but how many complaints have been made about poor data management? Not many.

Protect and care for the calves

Younger donors who aren't direct mail responsive tend to have some of the worst experiences of giving to charity. They get signed up to a direct debit on the street and... well that's it really. Some might get a few appeals asking for more money or newsletters telling them how great the organisation is but the result is that the best part of three-quarters of these youngsters cancel their gift in the first year.

So rather than give them the treatment that works for the mature members of the herd, we should focus on showing them exactly what their gift has achieved and remind them that they are part of an important and valuble movement. We should give them the materials to demonstrate that fact to others. And don't think that leaflets explaining why you need the money are going to work. Focus instead on providing regular communications and engagement devices that enhance their self-image. 

That way, when younger donors move into the real 'giving age' they will have a far more positive impression of the whole charitible sector.

For more on why younger donors give, you should read the millenial donors report (PDF) from Johnson Grossnickle Associates and Achieve. 

Oh, your older donors would also love the same treatment. It works on them too.

Keep the land free of pollutants

In a pasture, everything from plastic bags to buttercups can hurt cattle that eat them, so we need to ensure our environment is protected from the sector's equivalent of poinsonous plants and rubbish. This is something that the IOF codes of practice don't take into account – irrelevant and self-obsessed creative. Work that fails to take into account the needs of the donor has a slow but insidious effect as it makes opening mailing packs an unpleasant experience. 

Forget about the few mailings containing umbrellas that get sent out, it's the over-designed packs full of statistics and jargon that worry me.

Provide care for the injured

If a cow is injured it will need some individual care. It's the same with donors when their feelings are hurt. And that's when you should listen to them and respond. Craig was the first charity representative to call the very generous donor who wrote to him about his experience of charity mailings (even though the charities on the list include some very illustrious names).

Listening requires a change in mentality - but it works. Why not start by asking your donors if they are happy to receive appeals from you? Those that don't want them are probably never going to give to you anyway.

Care USA send a customer care piece to new donors as part of their welcome and regular giver conversion programme. It offers donors the opportunity to choose how often they receive communications. Less than 0.1% of donors asked to opt-out completely whereas the conversion rate to monthly gifts increased by 16%.

The fact is that there aren't that many people in the UK population that sign up to direct debits or respond to mailing packs. If we want to keep their support (and add to their numbers), we need to make giving to charity more rewarding and enjoyable. And after reading Craig's post, maybe that's what the IOF should be focusing on the next time they review their codes of practice.

So what have fundraisers been doing over the last 30 years?

A rather interesting paper has just been published by CGAP and CMPO looking at three decades of charitable giving in the UK.

It's based on a detailed analysis on the main trends in giving that uses the government's Living Costs and Food Survey (which used to be called the Family Expenditure Survey – FES).

The last thirty years have been a period of massive social, technological, political and economic change. And by taking a long-term look back in time we should be better placed to make plans for the current turbulent era and those yet to come.

The full paper (all 64 pages) can be downloaded here, but for those of you too busy to read it yourself, here are a few points that I think are worth highlighting:

The Millennium marked the end of a decline in the proportion of households giving to charity

Back in 1978, the number of households that gave (during a two-week survey period) to charity stood at 32%. It had fallen to 25% by 1999. Over the first eight years of the current decade it averaged at over 28%.

To my mind, that bounce back matches the explosion in face-to-face recruitment and is representative of all those young donors finding their way on to our databases.

Donations have increased

Donors are now giving almost three times as much as they did in 1978.  But the rise in giving over the last twenty years only reflects the growth in GDP.

As a share of total spending, households give just 0.4% – the same as they did in 1988.

All the new charities that have been set up, the new fundraising techniques that have been introduced, the growth in regular giving (up from 36% in 1983 to 63% in 2008) and the impact of the web haven't had that much impact on how much people actually give.

Giving is largely recession-proof

This is something that a number of us who have lived through economic downturns have been highlighting for some time. It's good to see that the statistics support our opinion. As you'll see from this chart, even during the difficult times (marked in red and green), giving has remained strong:

I've posted before that recruitment and subsequent development of new donors can get rather tough when money is tight. Some analysis that I've seen has shown that more donors are just giving a single gift to a charity and simply not responding to subsequent appeals. I'm also hearing of some frightening rates of attrition regarding street fundraising.

And when I look to the future, even with these statistics in mind, I have some real concerns about what will happen over the next twelve months. The number of people who look likely to lose their jobs (particularly older women employed in the public sector) worries me and I will be amazed if we don't see an even more pronounced effect on recruitment. I just hope, that as in the past, our loyal donors will make up the shortfall. Whether they do is probably down to the actions that we take now. But more on that later.

Older donors are becoming even more important

The over 65s now account for 35% of all donations, compared to just 25% in 1978.

One area of particular interest that the report uncovers is the giving behaviour of baby boomers (the youngest tranche of this demographic group is highlighted in grey in the table) whom we first observe when they were in their early twenties and then track right through to their forties. As you'll see, participation grows as they age. That to me is rather good news. A number of people have questioned whether baby boomers will be as generous as their parents and grandparents. The trend indicates that they are (for more on this, please take a few minutes to read the comments to this post).

Affluent donors are giving more

The richest 10% of households now account for 22% of total given (up from 16% in 1978). From 2003 to 2008, the top 50% of households (ranked by donation size) accounted for 92% of all giving. It should be noted that the largest donation observed in the 30 years of data is only £1,500 so it seems very likely that many high-value donors haven't found their way onto the survey. If they were included, the impact of the rich would be even more pronounced.

So what does this mean for those of us fundraising today?

First off, I think we can draw some comfort from the evidence that donors keep giving at times of economic hardship. Though the current recession is particularly tough, I'm confident most donors will remain true to form.

However, qualitative research undertaken by Bluefrog shows that when money becomes tight, donors are likely to focus their giving on favoured causes and organisations.

As a result, charities must concentrate on giving donors what they want – a real understanding of what their giving has achieved and a means of becoming part of the charity rather than just a a source of funds.

This is important for donors of all ages. An ongoing worry of mine is the possible impact a poor relationship might have on donors who are early in their giving lives. A large number of young people recruited on the street are currently cancelling their regular gifts shortly after sign-up. The response of many charities seems to be little more than hoping for the best and expecting the recruitment agency to replace the lost donors as part of a guarantee. Of course, this approach might be effective in the short-term, but what is the long-term impact on how that donor sees the charity when they enter the prime charitable stage of their lives?

Charities should also look at how they treat mid-value donors (those who give between £100 and £5,000). At Bluefrog we've seen that donors in this range respond best to charities who drop the mass marketing approach and concentrate on adding value through increasing relevence and personalisation. The result is a significant increase in income.

Finally, a robust win-back strategy should be developed for donors who lapse. If donors are lost, it doesn't have to be for ever. But winning back should not simply be handed over to a telephone agency. A real relationship is based on hearts and minds, not just repeatedly asking until someone says yes just so they can put down the phone.

How to reduce face to face attrition by up to half

One of the problems of using face-to-face techniques to recruit donors has been the high cancellation rates.

It's not unusual to see more than 50% of all supporters recruited in this way cancel their regular gift in the first year.

The fundraising industry has always struggled with this huge exodus of donors. Much of the blame has been placed with the face-to-face and door-to-door fundraising agencies. The implication has been that they have recruited the 'wrong type' of donor or perhaps put too much pressure on people to sign up.

The agencies responded by offering partial refunds or ever growing numbers of replacement donors.

I've always thought it a crazy situation.

The charity who appoints an agency on these terms doesn't really need to bother investing time and money in engaging donors. After all, the agency is going to cover the costs for for those who cancel.

Yep. It's crazy alright. Of course the agency doesn't pick up the bill. Their prices have to be inflated to cover the cost of offering the guarantee. The charity still pays for the donors who cancel, just as they do for those they retain. And what's more, the donors who slowly drift away after a gift or two aren't covered by any money back or replacement offer.

And this doesn't take into account the impact that a poor experience can have on the perception of a specific charity (or the sector as a whole).

So what do we do about this massive problem?

Something very simple.

We change our attitude.

When launching a street or door recruitment campaign, we shouldn't just cross our fingers and hope for a good crop of new supporters. We should do something positive to demonstrate to our new and usually young donors that we are a charity worthy of their support. We should show them what a rich and rewarding relationship with a charity should actually be like.

As I've pointed out on this blog many times before, one thing that unites all donors is a desire to understand what difference their specific gift has made.

The donors we are recruiting through face-to-face may well be significantly younger than the traditional direct mail donor, but they are no different from their forebears in this key respect. If we can show them what they have done and the resulting impact, there is a very good chance that we'll retain them.

And after a large amount of hard work, we've proved that this theory actually works.

We put this idea into practice last year, when working with DialogueDirect (now Real Fundraising) and Home Fundraising we recruited face-to-face and door-to-door donors for CARE International using an online donor feedback system that we've called USPACE.

We created USPACE as a modular system that any charity or non-profit can use to provide feedback to their donors without the need to go through the expense and time of creating a custom built website. The basic architecture can be re-skinned to fit any design and works with most databases. If anyone saw Matt Goody from Age UK present at the Institute of Fundraising Convention in London, they would have seen an example of how USPACE works.

But for those who couldn't make it along, let me explain. Its starts at the point of recruitment.

Donors are given materials that don't just talk about what the charity has done, but focuses on the work that the donor will be helping make happen. CARE International's new donors, for example, received three seeds - a peanut, a pumpkin seed and a grain of rice. Each signified a specific project. Accompanying the seeds was a small sheet of stickers that the donor could use to send messages to some of the children who will benefit from their support.

The donor was also pointed to USPACE in the guise of www.mycarezone.org to find out what their gift was making possible.

The site has been built to place the donor at the centre of CARE International's work. Even their name is given the same prominence as the charity logo. The language is inclusive. It talks about what the donor has done. You is heavily used instead of the ubiquitous We found on so many charity sites.

Through regular updates, the donor gets to see a project unfold, often from different points of view - a beneficiary, a project worker or even another supporter.

The site doesn't pretend to be a Facebook type social networking site. It's far from it. But what it does do is build on the decision making process described by Mark Earls author of Herd...

"The assumption is that by-and-large, individuals make decisions on their own. My Herd point-of-view is that people influence each other, often without realising it."

Donors are encouraged to share why they are supporting CARE International and what they like about the projects they read about. Each time someone visits the site they get to see that they are actually part of a community. But most importantly, they see the reason why other people are giving. These endorsements help to create a virtuous circle where donors are reinforcing each others giving.

We've also turned the concept of project information on its head. Rather than just the charity deciding what work should be shared, donors can flag up what they are interested in. And we also use information from outside the organisation. Relevant films on YouTube, articles from newspaper and magazine sites and great photographs (like these from Bangladesh) can all be used at no cost through linking and embedding. You can see another sample page by clicking here.

You'll also see from the main page that upgrading and adding extra gifts is incredibly easy. By clicking the button I've highlighted on the right, a gift is added to the next direct debit payment. Donors seem to love it.

Should a donor cancel their gift, the site can help identify the reason and offer them a chance to reduce their gift or even take a small payment holiday.

USPACE has many similar features that engage and empower donors (too many to cover in one blog post), but I imagine you are wondering about the impact?

As you'll see from the results graph, it halved attrition over the first 4 months amongst the people who signed up (those with 0 payments are people who cancelled their direct debit before their first gift).

I can't share precise figures, but compared to 2009, attrition was down even amongst new recruits who hadn't signed up to USPACE (No MCZ). What's most exciting however, is that we have seen a massive 50% fall in cancellations from those supporters who did sign up (MCZ). Our next goal is to offer USPACE to more donors and we are currently trialing initiatives to ensure more donors take advantage of the great feedback on offer. Adrian Sargeant pointed out in Building Donor Loyalty, that attrition is an expensive activity. By reducing an attrition rate from 20% to 10% an organisation can increase it's revenue by 50% over ten years.

I'll leave the last word on USPACE to CARE International's Head of Direct Marketing, Tracey Horner...

"Engagement is up and attrition is down. We are now offering USPACE to all supporters and plan to expand its use to reactivation of lapsed donors. If the effect is anywhere near that achieved for face-to-face, we are going to be as happy as our supporters appear to be with their enhanced understanding of what their gift actually achieves.

Their feedback shows they really appreciate seeing how they actually make a difference."