queer ideas

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

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

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

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

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

Why pay more?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five things we learned at the IFC

Following a very enjoyable few days at the International Fundraising Congress in Amsterdam, I've put together my key take aways from the event.

1. There's loads more to data than just numbers.

Chuck Longfield, Blackbaud's chief scientist, has a job where he can crunch millions of numbers from a huge range of charities. If a question pops into his head, it doesn't take him long to find the answer.

In his session, Chuck shared some of his findings which included the following juicy nuggets…

• If someone calls you to change their address they are TEN times more likely to leave you a legacy (or upgrade, or set up a regular gift or anything else you might ask them to do).
• Donors who tend to give uncommon amounts (e.g. £32) are much easier to upgrade than those who give common amounts (e.g. £25).
• Donors get hooked on giving amounts. After 4 years they are 80% more likely to stick to their preferred amount rather than increase their gift (rising to 90% after 5 years).
• Calling a donor to thank them (whether you speak to them or just leave a message on the answer phone) can increase their next year's gift value by up to 40%.
• Misspelling someone's last name can decrease gift size by up to 12%.

2. Old school communications are the best for building deep engagement

AJ Leon is Chief Maker of Trouble (that's a real job title) at Misfit Inc. in New York. AJ told a story of how he helped raise $72,000 for a total cost of $250. He included a few key insights too...

• Stories have to have conflict. If Frodo had just skipped into Mordor and tossed the ring into the volcano, no one would have cared.
• The tools of fundraising are changing, but the principles of engagement are the same.
• People don't automatically trust big brands any longer - including charity brands.
• Never let your organisation get in the way of a good story.
• When launching a campaign always ask which bloggers you can link up with.
• Social media has made donating even more annoying.
• Management boards kill great ideas.
• Things are moving so fast that spending time writing a ten year strategy is worthless.

You can see AJ's presentation here. And you might like to read Paul de Gregorio's thoughts on it here.

3. The recession is here to stay

Tony Elischer (amongst others) pointed out that the recession is going to be sticking around for a long-time yet but that was no reason to accept poor results. He highlighted the fact that over 60% of donors only give once, describing it, quite rightly, as shameful...

"That's not the fault of people who are giving. That's our fault. We're still not getting that second gift."

He showed how organisations like Christian Aid have bucked the trend by fundamentally changing their fundraising offer, recruiting donors by focusing on work that donors want to support and allowing them to give in the way that works for them.

4. Rubbish in = rubbish out

Direct Mail is working. Digital is working. Mobile is working. The trouble is they don't work if the underlying idea, content and offer is rubbish.

5. Everything on the internet is just speeded up direct marketing

Beate Sorum of the Norwegian Cancer Society put together a great presentation that tackled one of the ongoing myths of the fundraising world – that digital fundraising is magic. It isn't.

What was particularly interesting about Beate's presentation was the distinction she made between communicating online and through a press ad or DM pack. The difference is one of size. And that's the problem...

"On the internet we can put up any crap...so we forget to prioritise, we forget to ask and we forget to rigidly monitor and analyse".

Her advice was that we should re-learn our direct marketing and remember to test what we ask for, how often we ask and who we ask.

Or in other words, we need to give donors an opportunity to do something they want about something they care about.

You can see Beate's presentation here.

The anatomy of a failed campaign

A few weeks ago, I questioned the decision of the D&AD to award a coveted Yellow Pencil to a student team for an idea that they developed for Oxfam.

The D&AD asked me to write a follow up piece that you can read here. Or for those who are a little short on time, you might prefer the Reader's Digest version...

The creative process that ignores the needs of donors is a waste of time and money.

It's why I always find the news that yet another charity has appointed yet another above the line agency to develop a mould breaking campaign so depressing.

The fact is, good fundraising isn't actually broken. Even in these tough economic times it still works very well. So rather than rejecting it for the best guesses of people who have never raised money in their lives, I'd suggest that any charity concerned about income should embrace traditional fundraising techniques tighter than ever.

And to help illustrate what might happen if you decide to do otherwise, I'd like to point you in the direction of a rather remarkable but cautionary tale on SOFII.

It's written by Lucy Gower and features an account of ActionAid's failed 'What a Feeling' campaign given by their ex director of fundraising, Richard Turner.

It's remarkable because for the first time (that I'm aware of), somebody has been brave enough to give an honest account of what can actually happen when a revolutionary new fundraising strategy is implemented.

Lucy explains...

"The idea came from meeting supporters. The team deliberately got a diverse group together to hear them talk about ActionAid. What stood out was the way they spoke about what they gained. This tallied with the anecdotal comments from supporters when meeting fundraisers; as a result of donating, fundraising, or campaigning for ActionAid, supporters would frequently describe their feelings. Therefore it was decided that this would be the basis of the campaign - real supporters sharing their real feelings to encourage other people like them to sign up to help ActionAid..."

It was a complex strategy that used a wide range of traditional and new media. This video helps give a flavour of the approach and the thinking behind it.

And the results?

..."Despite the conviction of Richard and the fundraising team that they were onto something great, the campaign failed. ActionAid didn’t reach the targets for sign ups to new direct debits. They missed them by a mile."

You should read the whole article as Richard has obviously thought long and hard about the reasons for the failure, but I'd particularly like to highlight three key points that we should all remember...

1. Spend your time understanding the problems you actually need to tackle (such as high attrition or poor recruitment) before embarking on broad engagement / awareness campaigns.
2. Don't lose focus on the work that donors want to fund.
3. Test your ideas and only roll out once they have been proven to work.

As Lucy points out, ActionAid were actually on to something with 'What a Feeling'. I strongly believe that the emotional rewards we receive in return for helping others is our sector's 'product'.

But my sneaking suspicion is that donors don't really want to think they are giving for 'selfish' reasons. To my mind, this very thought is likely to reduce the power of the feelings that, as fundraisers, we are trying to generate in the first place.

I also think it is worth including the short-lived TV ad produced by OgilvyOne London that followed the campaign's launch. You can find out what happened after this was run here.

A massive, massive thanks to Richard for being so open about the campaign. As Lucy says...

"I hope that sharing his experience will help us all learn, as well as encourage us to be more open about failure in order that we can ultimately all fundraise more effectively for the causes that we are passionate about."

Update: Richard has posted more thoughts on this campaign on his blog. You can read them here.

If you think stewarding donors is expensive, try ignoring their needs instead

Rapidata has released their August direct debit cancelation figures and they don't look particularly good.

At 4.58% they are the highest seen for August since the monitoring of regular giving trends started back in 2003.

In a worrying commentary, Rapidata's Managing Director, Scott Gray, says he expects to see cancellations exceed 5% in September. But he also offers some sensible advice on how to tackle this rather frightening downturn...

"If you are stalling a stewardship programme or have communications, appeals or campaigns on hold, it's time to act."

I have to agree. When we look at this data alongside appeal results, we see that the recession which the individual giving sector has avoided for so long seems to have finally arrived.

Throwing up our hands in horror is obviously an option, but I'd suggest that there are better ways to tackle the effects of the economic slide. Here are three ideas that have worked for me:

1. Drop your 'luxury' communications. By that I mean those communications which might please charity staff, but do nothing for donors. Self-congratulatory, navel-gazing newsletters that focus on policy issues and getting over the 'brand' message would be first on my list.

Instead, use your newsletters to show donors what you have done with their money and reinforce the reasons why you continue to need their support. At the very minimum re-think your headlines. Try and turn each into a mini-appeal. You can read more about this approach here.

2. Re-double your efforts to find great stories. There is only so much that even the greatest writer can do with a few paragraphs describing the broad nature of a programme supported with two or three weak quotes. Instead invite your creative partners to visit your programmes and meet beneficiaries.

When I visit projects, I always try to find time to ask the staff I meet three questions. The answers have delivered a number of fantastic fundraising packs.

If a donor gave you £5, how would you use it?

If a donor gave you £500, how would you use it?

If a donor couldn't volunteer or afford a gift but wanted to do something, what would you ask them to do?

3. Ask donors for what they can afford. Look at your data and identify donors who have given you a large gift within the last three or four years. In your next appeal, remind them of just how generous they were and how important the gift was (if you can, tell them how you used it) and ask them if they can match it.

I'd also review your uplift strategy. Instead of asking donors to increase their gift by 10% or 20%, try asking those who aren't responding for 10% or 20% less.

The greatest problem we face as fundraising becomes harder is fear. Cutting back is easy, but pointless. Instead, look at every single communication you send to your donors (or potential donors) and ask how it strengthens your relationship with them. Give real consideration to removing anything that doesn't bring donors closer by answering their needs.

Not only will that ensure you optimise your fundraising efforts whilst times are tough, but it will leave you very well placed when finances start to improve.

Direct debit cancellation rates on the rise

Following my post on the general downturn in DM response rates experienced at the time of the Royal Wedding in April, we have more evidence that this might be the start of a more pronounced trend.

Rapidata has released details of direct debit cancellations for July and they show that the high cancellation rates seen in May and June are continuing to run at approximately 4%.

This might not be as high as we saw in early 2009 when the monthly cancellation rate rose to over 5.5%, but is still a real cause for concern.

It should remind us that we need to focus like a laser beam on giving donors what they need and want in our communications. Even in the toughest times, few donors will cut back their giving completely. Instead they will concentrate their support on the charities that are most relevant to their needs.

Jeff Brooks has some advice on this point that is well worth heeding...

"When you are irrelevant to donors, they seldom complain about it. They just ignore you. Which is far worse than the handful of "too much mail" complaints you're going to get no matter how much or little you mail.

Here are common ways fundraising makes itself irrelevant to donors:

• It's all about the organization -- how wonderful they are in every way. It's not about the donor and her opportunity to change the world.
• It's about things organization insiders care about, not what donors care about. You want to "build sustainable communities." Donors want to save lives. Your work accomplishes both. But the fundraising is aimed at pleasing the insiders.
• It's aimed at the wrong age group. Design, color choice and other elements are what staffers in their 20s and 30s believe they would respond to. It leaves their real donors -- who are typically 60 and up -- out in the cold.
• The segmentation is sloppy. It talks to non-donors as if they're donors -- or vice versa.
• There's no context. The organization only asks, never reports back on the impact of donors' giving."

I'd also like to point out a request for help from Becky Slack of Charity Insight who are monitoring cancellation rates in partnership with Rapidata. She has asked that any organisation who has seen a significant downturn in donations over the last few months to get in touch. Becky can be reached at [email protected].

Are you suffering from a royal wedding hangover?

Having analysed the results for a number of appeals and spoken to fundraisers from throughout the sector, it looks like we are suffering from a royal wedding DM hangover.

Fundraising campaigns that were mailed in the run up to Easter or shortly after the wedding (29th of April) seem to have generated some pretty rotten results.

Year on year comparisons of warm and cold campaigns are showing a significant downturn.

Though we can't ignore the economic situation, I think there are three environmental factors surrounding the wedding that have combined to create the problem…

1. People took the opportunity of the late Easter, May Day and wedding holiday to take ten days off work for the price of three.
2. Post was slow (postal staff take holidays too) resulting in many mailing packs being stuck in the system and not dropping until the second week in May.
3. Many charities rushed to beat the Royal Mail price rise deadline (May 7th) increasing the glut of mailing packs hitting the mat in that same week.

Tania Cohen mentioned on Twitter that she remembers poor response rates being discussed the last time Easter was close to May Day (2000). She also pointed out that it wouldn't be until 2038 that it happened again.

Face to face attrition - a few thoughts

We have another chance to quantify the effects of the recession with the publication of the PFRA Face to Face Attrition Survey.

The study shows us what happened to those donors recruited on the street and door to door during 2009.

The figures look good.

• Average 1st year attrition for street campaigns fell back to 44.2% (from 53.3% in 2008). This is the lowest level of street attrition that the PFRA has ever recorded.
• Average 1st year attrition for door to door fell back to 37.2% (from 41.8% in 2008).

But the report leaves me asking a number of questions.

2009 was the height of the recession so I have difficulty believing the reference in the PFRA press release that the reduction in attrition rates is a post-recession phenomenon.

Let's start by comparing the PFRA figures to those released by Rapidata in their 2011 Direct Debit (DD) tracking report. As you'll see, 2009 is the first year where face to face techniques return a better attrition rate than that seen for (a massive percentage) of the entire UK DD universe.

When you take into account the fact that most DDs are cancelled in the first few months, it shows the PFRA figures in a very positive light. Something good is happening. But what?

Lets take it point by point...

Where are the no pays?

It doesn't look as though no pays have been included in the calculations (a no pay is a DD that doesn't result in a single gift). No pay rates have been increasing over the years. For example, back in 2004, face to face agencies recruited an extra 14% of donors at no charge (to replace no pays).The guarantee today is significantly higher. 

The figures released by the PFRA show a first month attrition rate of about 11 or 12% - much lower than the current no pay rate. Add the two together and we may find about a third of all recruits are giving once – or not at all – before throwing in the towel.

If that's the case, the figures would still show an improving trend. They just wouldn't be so good.

It would be interesting to know what no pays actually are. Anecdotally I've heard that they are running at over 20%, but I'd like to have the actual figures to confirm.

What was the impact of the closure of Dialogue Direct?

Dialogue Direct was one of the UK's largest face to face recruitment agencies. It closed in 2009. As a result of this, the total number of people recruited via face to face techniques fell by 115,000 between 08/09 and 09/10. In one fell swoop there was much less pressure on the market and the remaining players could concentrate on recruiting at the best sites.

There would also be another positive impact on attrition. With many face to face recruiters out of work, there would be more competition for employment, with the cream of the recruiters rising to the top.

Did the 2008 jump in attrition rates frighten away the charities with less sophisticated fundraising programmes?

As the Fundraising Detective has pointed out, there is a huge disparity in attrition rates for different charities. If the charities with the worst attrition management campaigns were driven from the market, this would have a positive impact on overall cancellation rates.

Long time readers of this blog will know that I think the most important way of tackling face to face attrition is by improving stewardship programmes. I've blogged about how Buefrog tests have shown that personal treatment and a focus on impact reporting have dramatically improved face to face attrition rates.

It might be shocking but the fall in attrition could be down to the fact that we are getting better at communicating with younger donors?

Is there more focus on recruiting older donors?

On the other side of the coin, we've known for some time that the biggest infuence on attrition is age. Older donors are much more likley to keep their promises. Following the bad results in 2008 has there been more emphasis on avoiding students and the young unemployed?

Is there more focus on recruiting donors at lower gift levels?

The other major influence on attrition is gift amount. The higher the monthly gift, the more likley it is to be cancelled. If the 'ask' amount is dropped, attrition might also fall, but so does income. The result could be less attrition but also less money being raised.

Or is it down to something else?

I'm especially pleased that Adrian Sargeant is reviewing the figures. Hopefully he'll answer these questions and probably come up with a few insights that haven't occurred to the rest of us. That's one reason to look forward to the autumn when we'll see their publication.

Finally a big thanks to all those involved for taking the time and effort to share such great information. The rest of the fundraising profession could take a leaf from their book.

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.

Hopes and fears for 2011

I was asked to write a few paragraphs for The Guardian Voluntary Sector Network on my hopes and fears for 2011.

I've been meaning to write something on this for the last few weeks and as I've been a little busy, I thought it worth sharing. As you'll see, I don't think charities are out of the economic woods by any means:

"Money is going to be tight in 2011. Even if people don't lose their jobs, they are likely to know someone that will. As a result, donor recruitment is going to be tough and charities that don't put real effort into engaging their supporters are likely to see attrition rates increase. We have already seen indications that there have been regional downturns in giving following the election. For example, door to door recruitment is very tough in the north-east. I've also seen some national street recruitment attrition rates that look very worrying.

Donors are most definitely concerned about the future. That means they will cut back on things that they don't value. And if they don't enjoy a rewarding relationship with a charity, they are likely to stop giving – it's that simple.

To combat this, I hope that we see less self-centred, brand led charity advertising in 2011. In its place, there should be more focus on improving the relationship with donors. Fundraising isn't a branch of advertising. Success comes from showing donors that they are appreciated and their gifts have made a difference.

That's how charities can beat the impact of the recession. And it's how they can improve their fundraising no matter what the economic environment."

There are a a number of other views that are worth reading from Steve Bridger, Rob Dyson from Whizz-Kidz, Ben Kernighan from NCVO, Peter Wanless from the Big Lottery Fund, Caron Bradshaw from the Charity Finance Director's Group, Rob Cope from Remember a Charity and others.

You can read them all by clicking here. You'll also see a growing list of people commenting and adding their own hopes and fears. Why not share yours?

And if you'd like a reminder of what happened in 2010, this review from Google might be worth a few minutes of your time.

What do high value donors actually value?

The 2010 Bank of America / Merill Lynch Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy has just been published.

Though this blog takes the UK fundraising perspective, we can learn a great deal from what's happening in other markets and this series of US studies deserves serious attention on our side of the Atlantic (and elsewhere).

So much of what they report has been remarkably close to what we've found in Bluefrog's qualitative research into higher value donors (you can download a number of our reports free of charge by clicking here or checking out the listing over on the left hand column - you'll need to scroll down the page a little for the links).

The full Bank of America / Merill Lynch report can be downloaded here. You'll also find a detailed synopsis and a twenty minute video outlining the main findings.

But if you are too busy for that, here are my highlights:

Commitment is steady (to favoured charities) but giving has declined

Donors tend to place their charities in a league table and It's important to stay near the top. This study found that just over a third of donors stopped giving to at least one organisation in 2009 (with 27% turning their back on two charities).

The overall average gift amounts fell by 35% in comparison to 2007.

Most (83%) usually give in response to disasters and for more than nine out of ten donors, this gift was in addition to their regular charitable giving.

People want value from their gifts

Knowing that their gift made a difference was top of the list of motivations (there's a clue there for getting to the top of a donor's charity league table). Feeling financially secure came a close second along with knowing that the organisation was efficient in using donations.

Giving is increasingly undertaken by families - not just individuals

I think this is going to be an issue of growing importance. Over two-thirds of those surveyed spoke of the collaborative nature of their decision making. If families give, the recognition should be for the family. Not just the individual.

Special is normal

High value donors are used to special treatment and come to see it as the norm. If you fail to match their expectations you are unlikely to build a lasting relationship. This study found that asking too often and asking for inappropriate amounts were the most likely ways to turn a donor off (59%).

It's blindingly obvious, but there's a simple way to ascertain how often donors want to give and what they see as appropriate levels of support – ask them – either face to face or on the telephone.

Donors like a guaranteed return

Wealthy people may be willing to take a risk with their financial investments, but when it came to their charitable work, just 23% reported high levels of risk tolerance, with 26% being completely risk adverse.

Though some donors may want to fund innovative, risky projects, the majority want their money to fund work with a high chance of success. How do you tell the difference? It's easy. Ask.

In conclusion

In short, these highly valuable supporters want a personal relationship where they retain a level of control over how you communicate with them and how their money is used. By responding to that need, you'll increase your chances of building a long-lasting, mutually beneficial relationship.

Or as one high value donor put it recently...

"You don't have the bargaining power in this relationship. This is a totally voluntary thing. A charitable act...any attempt to force me will get my back up."