Fundraising sector divided over campaign strategy 5

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 21 Jul 2010

A meeting of fundraising sector representatives earlier this month that aimed to make progress on the shape of a sector-wide public-facing campaign to boost giving, ended without any clear conclusion after differences about the strategic direction could not be resolved.

Those attending the meeting included Institute of Fundraising chief executive Lindsay Boswell; consultants Alan Clayton and Joe Saxton; fundraisers Mark Astarita, Judy Beard and Imogen Ward; PFRA chief executive Mick Aldridge; Fundraising Standards Board chief executive Alistair McLean and NCVO head of policy Ann Blackmore.

The ImpACT Coalition was not represented.

The meeting was organised by the Institute but facilitated by Kate Lee, former director of strategy at the British Red Cross.

According to sources, the group fell into two camps – those that wanted to launch an immediate major ‘giving campaign’ to encourage the public to give more to charity, and those that supported a longer process that would aim to reduce regulation around fundraising, boost sector morale, and only then deploy a campaign to boost philanthropy.

The meeting was expected to discuss whether the umbrella brand for the campaign should be ‘Right to Ask’, as originally proposed by the Institute or ‘Right to Give’ as some of its stakeholders preferred - but the debate did not get as far as this.

Judy Beard described it as an “exploratory meeting” to examine which direction to go in, but she conceded that “the idea is not really cooked yet, there needs to be more work done”.

PFRA chief executive Mick Aldridge said those that supported the staged process did not think an immediate new giving campaign would be as effective on its own as it might be with the preparatory work done beforehand.

The Institute declined to comment on what happened at the meeting but told Civil Society that another meeting would be held next week to try to progress things.

Directory: Fundraising Standards Board | Institute of Fundraising | National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) | The Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA)

Place a comment

Carl Allen
none
none
27 Jul 2010

To these fundraising sector representatives:

Take the trouble to ensure that fundraisers understand that most basic of principles "No means No".

There is no problem with asking but ... "No means No" and at 8 pm, being cold called by a reputable charity with whom I have never had contact and the fundraiser persisting with decreasing levels of proposed contributing is harassment.

Persistent asking is not a right but harassment drawing a complaint to the relevant civil authority.

[Reply]

Richard Molineux
consultant
molineux fundraising
22 Jul 2010

"Giving" is too abstract. People give to specific causes/projects of interest to them. Homeless, Cats, homeless cats etc. Urging people to give more in a completely untargeted way, especially when they have less to give, is flakey stuff.

London's Evening Standard is running a £1m campaign for the "dispossessed" (i.e. poor) in London, which is going well. Perhaps the aim should be to encourage more such initiatives that have a recognisable target to take place. These need not be driven by local media , but that would be a useful place to start, as the argument that such initiatives might boost circulation could be used...

"Give more" on its own seems a curiously vague exhortation.

[Reply]

David Burrows
21 Jul 2010

It sounds like a fascinating debate. Please could someone tell us the objectives, the target audiences, the budget and the timescales before we all start taking sides about what the solution should look like? If we seriously want to change public attitudes isn't this likely to take years?

Is 'over regulation' really hindering fundraising? If so, wouldn't dealing with this be a very different thing from a generic public facing campaign to boost giving? If we want to remove red tape wouldn't that be done through quiet, private lobbying of government?

Is 'low morale' within the sector really holding back fundraising performance? If so, is a public campaign really the answer? (If morale is linked to fundraising performance I recommend public praise and a pay rise for every fundraiser!)

By 'public campaign' are we talking about spending £1m+ on advertising? If charities are going to be asked to fund the campaign how do we get every charity to cough up their fair share? This has been a point of contention for the Remember a Charity campaign so I imagine similar issues with this.

[Reply]

Richard Morris
Managing Director
TheGivingMachine
21 Jul 2010

Encouraging more giving is a great cause - it can be more rwarding for all. However, in this summary, I don't understand what's in it for the potential donors / supporters. This is the key to unlocking more giving activity - how can it be "rewarded" in way that donors/givers want?

Understanding what would encourage givers to give more and more people to "enjoy" the rewards of giving, in our experience, helps grow giving behaviour, goodwill and results in more donations.

I wish the team all the best in this very important area.

Regards

Richard
Managing Director, TheGivingMachine
Trustee & vice chair East Herts YMCA

[Reply]

Steve Morton
Secretary of the Trust
Gloucestershire Arthritis Trust
21 Jul 2010

The strategic direction isn't the problem - it's the people themselves bringing their own 'baggage' to the meeting.
Personally, I would involve an award winning ad agency such as TBWA who specialise in 'Binge Thinking' and the 'Disruption' approach.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.