Subject: Fundraising: giving rather than taking?

A strong focus on ROI, targeting and profiling is a good thing! Charities should use best business practice to ensure that the funds donors entrust them with are used as efficiently and effectively as possible.

It's not surprising that this focus is more evident in larger charities. Not only do they have larger budgets to invest in more advanced forms of fundraising, they are more likely to attract staff with commercial experience of these methods and tools. You could even argue that the larger a charity gets, with the more beneficiaries it helps, the greater the need for more business-like practices. Not that I'm advocating an amateur approach in smaller charities...

Of course, if fundraising in charities focuses exclusively on the techniques and the bottom line then it will probably harm the charity in anything but the short term. Donors know when they are being treated as a number and they can easily switch their support to a different charity if they wish.

Many fundraisers are well aware of these issues, and you'll see them debated and discussed at various public conferences and seminars and privately within charities. Ken Burnett's 'Relationship Fundraising' book was, after all, published back in 1992. Can some charities do better? Of course. Are all large charities ignoring their donors? No, of course not. Have all fundraisers cracked how to be more efficient whilst retaining a personal, donor-focused touch? No.

The picture, given the scale and diversity of the charity sector, is very mixed.

The Giving Machine's study and comments are useful in another way. No matter how effective or how good fundraisers think they might be in their work, public perception, whether well-informed or not, does matter. If donors perceive fundraisers to be too business-like, then that will affect their level of support and therefore the extent of the impact that the charity can achieve.

What's the answer? Cut back on efficiency a bit to demonstrate that it is a charity, not a for-profit business? No, that's not reasonable. The best approach is to try to share with the donors why a charity fundraises in a certain way and to invite discussion/debate and to act on it. That's far easier said than done of course, but in the days of social media (Facebook, Twitter etc) such dialogue becomes a little easier (not forgetting those donors who don't use the Internet of course).

Howard,

You make great points and we certainly agree with running an effective organisation.  The way this is achieved will differ based on th size of an organisation as well as the size of the audience you interact with.  In our article above, we have tried to interpret what we have seen based on observed Giver and beneficiary behaviour and feedback.  The theme that we have seen is that Givers like to quantify what they have given and feel part of a relationship.  This helps ensure that there is a longer and more fulfilling giving relationship for both the Giver and the beneficiary.

For another example, we sometimes get asked whether we can create a link so that a Giver does not have the choice of beneficiary but that it is hard wired to theirs and Givers don't have to register - they just become anonymous.  This makes it quicker the first time you use TheGivingMachine and you only support one beneficiary this way.  This request only comes from charities.  We explain that we enable every Giver to be unique and therefore be able to choose their beneficiaries and track what they have given to whom and have the opportunity to be thanked for that.  Even with this explanation, there are some who really are still just interested in the taking side of the equation, not the giving side. Admittedly, we have not had huge number of these requests but they are all charities and this is possibly the same audience that is feeling the pinch with lower donations these days.

I believe that the answer is to understand that there is a relationship between Givers/donors and Beneficiaries.  Delivering what both sides ideally want from this relationship will make it better for everyone.  RoI analysis is an essential technique but it is important to understand that there is more than one party looking for a  "return".  That's where RoI analysis could let a charity down.

As a donor I expect to be communicated with. When donating online I want at least a thank you email. Just going to the automatic 'your donation has been processed' page is not good enough.

Often, I don't think fundraisers think hard enough about this process. They don't take advantage of the opportunity windows - one-off donors may welcome the opportunity for other ways of supporting the organisation. Tell them how to do more - how to volunteer, get the regular newsletter, set up a direct debit, support a campaign etc. Giving isn't just about money afterall. And donors are people who want to be thanked for their effort and shown that the money they have given will make a difference.