Opinion

The big boys should be supporting smaller charities

Fundraising | Michael Naidu | 1 Apr 2007

The big boys should be supporting smaller charities when it comes to securing the future of direct marketing, argues Michael Naidu.

Finally, after 20 years, most of us agree that climate change is a reality and that something needs to be done to combat the potentially disastrous impact of our actions on our planet before it’s too late. Why has it taken us so long to get to this point? Because of market forces and the capitalist principle that profit is the only factor that dictates how we should act.

But after having worked for more than five years in charity direct marketing, I’m getting a feeling that, just like our short-sightedness over climate change, the way fundraisers are acting isn’t sustainable in the long-term and we may be sacrificing direct marketing for short-term gain.

It’s not hard to see that response rates from direct mail are in decline. There is also definite uncertainty about the level of face-to-face capacity over the next 18 to 24 months, payroll giving is struggling to break out of its infrastructural stagnation and internet fundraising has yet to prove to me its profitability.

Of course, there are benefits of investing in direct marketing. Awareness is raised externally and internally, and understanding the need for unrestricted income can help frontline staff, HR, finance teams and trustees see the bigger picture of how and why the organisation exists.

But who is on hand to provide charities with details of these benefits, or of any changes in the market place, such as the current switch from direct mail to door drops, or from street to doorstep fundraising? It is all very well if a charity has the budget to pay for an expensive agency to advise it, but who is there to help those that don’t? Why would the board of trustees of a small organisation decide to invest in building a direct marketing programme? Why indeed when they could invest in a team of grants and trusts fundraisers who can generate a return on investment that any direct marketing fundraiser would give their right arm for.

Direct marketing is highly visible and influences how the public view charities and fundraising in general. If it is so important, why aren’t we sharing our knowledge and trying to enhance the potential income that can be raised now and in the future? If large and small charities are seen to be working collaboratively and openly, it could benefit the whole sector.

In the private sector, companies happily grab advantage and push competitors out of the marketplace. But should we be acting in this way? If we apply the same market principles that are used in the commercial world, does that make us any better than the profit driven system that has prevented us from taking desperately needed action against climate change?

So if we need a brave new world, what could it look like? Well, with the support of a larger charity and its face-to-face agency, a small local hospice, for example, could be provided with the advice and resources needed to book a fundraising site near the hospice and to train a nurse to make the ask.

And what about helping smaller organisations with the collection of Direct Debit payments? Maybe those charities that are currently saving costs by merging database and supporter service functions could manage smaller charities’ databases for a minimal cost or even better, pro bono.

Many charities exist to provide services the state chooses not to or that the private sector sees as unprofitable. When we communicate with a donor, we expect them to receive nothing in return bar a prompt thank-you. We expect them to act inspirationally and selflessly. I think we should expect the same from ourselves and believe that its time for the fundraising community to sit down and discuss the future of our world before we pass our own ‘tipping point.

Michael Naidu is head of donor marketing at Mencap

Tweet

Directory: Mencap