Opinion

Fundraisers must apply the theories they talk about

Fundraising | Peter Maple | 9 Nov 2009

Peter Maple says we should ditch the word donor and start practising what we preach on major donor asks.

Are you, like most fundraisers, keen to understand and predict donor behaviour to help increase donations?

For support you’ve got a range of academic and practical models that describe the motivations and/or behaviour of people who give to charity. However, from Carlson’s Why people give to Prince and File’s Seven faces of Philanthropy, authors characterise charitable behaviour as rather fixed. So whilst individuals learn certain altruistic behaviour (from parents or society) their subsequent giving tends to mirror a general response to give in particular ways. This can, I think, lead to some over-simplified conclusions.

For some time I’ve been arguing that we’re actually far more “situational” than any of the current models suggest, ie, we move along a “spectrum of philanthropy” from the most unselfish altruistic actions right along to an area of “enlightened self-interest”. There is, of course, behaviour that is purely self-seeking, under the apparent guise of philanthropy but that is, I feel, beyond this visible spectrum of philanthropy. At LSBU in July I presented the results of some new research which endeavours to understand donors better. This first phase maps what a number of charities actually do to find and cultivate major donors.

I’m highly critical of the current models they use. However, I have no doubt that the use of a structured framework to help understand your supporters, has to be better than simply going on intuition.

Interestingly, only one of the charities interviewed is currently using a framework to help it understand supporters’ motivations. Everyone else adopts a pragmatic approach.

The good news is that all bar two charities have clear processes for identification and development. They generally use an informal four-step cycle of research, introduction/ cultivation, solicitation and stewardship.  There’s also a good understanding of demographic features and I observed that all bar two have a clear understanding of actual donor behavior. But, as I say, only one makes use of a conceptual model.

Furthermore, while we all pay lip service to the idea of “volunteer leadership” and “peer to peer” solicitations, when it comes down to the everyday grind of reaching annual targets, in all but two of the charities the fundraisers or senior managers make the ask. Part of the problem may be the relatively low level at which major gifts are determined. All except two regard £1,000 as the start point.

This lack of volunteer leadership surely needs challenging? Everyone agrees that the best person to make an ask is a donor who’s already given. So why on earth don’t we practice what we preach?

And, whilst I’m doing my grumpy old fundraiser bit, why do we persist in calling people donors? To my mind donors give blood or body parts! Titmuss in his seminal work The gift relationship describes the whole process beautifully in a win/win for donors and blood service alike. I’ve also yet to meet a “major donor” who is comfortable with the term.

Volunteers, of course, give their time and usually resent being asked for money. Members certainly pay but expect something tangible for their subscriptions. Lots of us refer to charity supporters, but I can’t help feeling that football teams have supporters. Benefactors, patrons and friends work for a few but have overtones.

The Remember a Charity campaign talks about a “gift in your will” rather than a bequest. Perhaps we could start talking about a gift to change the world and then treat our givers as the most important people in fundraising.

The next phase of my research will examine individuals’ motivations in each of the participating charities to refine and test the “spectrum of philanthropy” model and assist fundraisers to develop more effective strategies for the cultivation plans for their ‘givers’.

Tweet

Who's Who: Peter Maple