Tribunal upholds Commission's merger decision but orders changes
24 May 2012
The Charity Tribunal has upheld the Charity Commission’s decision to allow two independent schools in...
Charities should be wary of regaling donors with too many facts and figures about the impact of their work because giving is often irrational and ruled by emotion, a leading economist has warned.
Sir Howard Davies, former director of the London School of Economics, told an audience of economists and charities last night that too much emphasis on explaining a charity can put people into a deliberative state in which they are less likely to be generous.
Sir Howard was delivering the playfully-titled talk ‘Why do people give their money away and how can we stop them acting so irrationally?’ at the Pro Bono Economics 2012 lecture, held at PricewaterhouseCooper’s London Bridge offices.
With an increasing emphasis on impact measuring in the voluntary sector – Pro Bono Economics itself is a charity that matches volunteer economists with charities looking to address questions of measurement, results and impact – Sir Howard’s views presented an intriguing conundrum: how best to measure solid objective outcomes within a sector that by its nature deals with the subjective and emotional?
During the course of his lecture, the once-chairman of the Financial Services Authority examined both the economic and personal reasons driving charitable donations, which include the ‘warm glow’ hypothesis, wealth signalling and generosity signalling – all factors motivated by feelings, rather than cognitive analysis.
The timing of the ask is also important, Sir Howard said. A comment from the floor agreed, the delegate stating that donors give more to a charity that supports troubled youths if they are asked when the subjects are soon to successfully graduate, rather than at the start of the project when there is still far to go.
Noting the poor performance of British donors compared with American philanthropists - Brits give less than half as much of their income to charity, but are more generous than mainland Europeans - Sir Howard pointed to analysis from Charities Aid Foundation which suggests that donations as a proportion of GDP are lower in countries with higher personal tax levels.
He also said that, typically, Americans have a low view of the state’s capacity to act, are optimistic about the ability of individuals to solve social problems, and are less inclined to bequeath their entire estates to their families.
The full transcript of his lecture is available on the Pro Bono Economics website.
Rarry Revan
Ranter
Rantingrules
8 Feb 2012
I wouldn't get too worried. I think this is what passes as humour amongst economist. As stated in the title of the speech, your classic market economist presume that everyone acts with only their self interest at heart. Charitable giving makes their whole concept of economics and indiidivual decision making invalid.
Rarry
Alistair Heron
8 Feb 2012
Horses for courses surely? As someone with a track record across discplines as diverse as trusts and statutory, direct marketing and major donor fundraising, I know that it's a matter of tailoring your message to your audience.
If we're talking about broad based public appeals, I'd agree completely with Peter Maple that 'nearly always it's a mixture of both' (cold logic and emotion). If you're a skilled copywriter you should stand a decent chance of treading that fine line!
Ed Tait
Head of IG
Crisis
8 Feb 2012
I agree with Adrian and Peter that both heart and head are involved, but I at least found it refreshing that someone senior outside of fundraising has acknowledged (admitted?) that their charitable giving is emotional, and not (as most people pretend to themselves) purely rationale.
Adrian Beney
Partner
More Partnership
8 Feb 2012
I think things are more subtle than this. The decision to make big gifts probably does come at least as much from the heart as the head. But the decisions about how to structure them and how to fund them are usually made with as much analysis as the donor has used in acquiring the money they can now afford to give away.
Peter Maple
Course Director MSc Management in Civil Society (Marketing and Fundraising)
LSBU
8 Feb 2012
Sadly this just shows how little some academics understand about the giving process. As someone who has both been asking successfully for 20 years and researching the nature of philanthropy I know that you have to use whatever the giver themselves needs to make a decision. Sometimes it's emotive, sometimes it's cold logic but nearly always it's a mixture of both.
Pity he didn't do a little more research first!
24 May 2012
The Charity Tribunal has upheld the Charity Commission’s decision to allow two independent schools in...
24 May 2012
The Department for Education has issued an invitation to tender for delivery of the National Citizen Service...
24 May 2012
The Charity Law Association has recommended trustees are given the legal freedom to invest on a total...
24 May 2012
The Charity Tribunal has upheld the Charity Commission’s decision to allow two independent schools in...
24 May 2012
A consultation launched by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been criticised for...
24 May 2012
Missing People is hoping to track down missing children using Twitter.
24 May 2012
Charities are being urged to abandon balloon releases in a Twitter a campaign.
24 May 2012
Missing People is hoping to track down missing children using Twitter.
21 May 2012
Marie Curie Cancer Care has officially opened its new national support centre in Pontypool, Wales, creating...
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
19 Nov 2012
Carl Allen
8 Feb 2012
For the individual donor, I would have thought the decision to give is emotive mainly and the subsequent act of giving an amount to whatever cause was rationally made.
For the organisational donor, the decision to give is expected benefit to the organisation and the subsequent act of giving an amount amenable to finding the emotional hot spot of the decision maker.
And as mentioned by others there is the mix at the border of both.
[Reply]