Patrick Manion
Principle Consultant
Sun King Enterprises
18 Jul 2011

Sir Nicholas- if you are approaching a company that has worldwide impact, why not ask them to "lend" you one of their employees to be on the ground to get things started. That person would have a great impact on their organization when they report back the activities. This would also be even greater PR for them and their employees.

[Reply]

Dawn Varley
Purple Vision
7 Jul 2011

I think Sir Nick is right - in short the organisation couldn't do what it does, or certainly not in the way it does it, without core costs being met. Educating donors on this, whether corporates or good old Dorothy Donor, is crucial.

We have to be honest about the costs we incur, that these are valid, and go forward on that basis. He's being quite brave to stick his neck out on the issue - there is an inherent risk in this that corporates who don't like what he says will take their money elsewhere (not funding core costs though, you understand!).

[Reply]

Michael Hodgson
Cause4Effect
5 Jul 2011

I'd argue that unrestricted funding in return for gala events is a bit different. In essence you're competing with other corporate sponsorship offers - in many ways selling a product. And that's a valuable part of any fundraising strategy.

What Sir Nicholas is complaining about is companies not understanding that funding infrastructure and 'overheads' is as valuable or more valuable than funding a specific programme.

In the case he gives, he likely doesn't have an appealing 'product' to sell alongside.

The companies will happily fund the exciting things – the aids programme, but not the infrastructure to make sure the programme works.

He’s likely got the deal almost sealed, and has been asked ‘what would £xx do’. In this kind of case, I’d agree, the infrastructure is rarely the one that companies want to fund – even if the overall outcomes might be bigger.

Hypothetically Catherine, let’s say that another person doing your job alongside you could enable your organisation to raise double the amount you raise for them. How many people would choose to fund that salary over, for example, a series of residential courses?

Potentially, I think he's missed a trick. The possibility he has is to offer certain staff the opportunity to see the difference this 'overhead' is making on the ground, and I can think of several companies that would love an extra contact in an emerging market. [The Red Cross may well have qualms about dealing with some of them, however, as is their right.]

I think that the 'hitting out' is simply a necessary aspect of illustrating the fact that the sector needs to combat the aversion to 'overhead' that exists. We all need to keep explaining that ‘overhead’ is what makes the rest of the money create any impact.

Sir Nicholas is probably also frustrated that a corporation who can see the need for their own infrastructure can't see a need for a charity to have an infrastructure. Where it might be expected that the 'man on the street' dislikes overheads, having little understanding of business or the practicalities of operating an organisation, one might expect that if anyone appreciated the need for infrastructure, it would be corporate entities.

[Reply]