Too many fundraisers are focused on refining established techniques rather than looking for new innovations, Rob Abercrombie, director of research and consulting at NPC, has warned.
Writing in the foreword of a new report by the charity think tank, Fundraising perspectives: donor segmentation and Money for Good UK, published today, Abercrombie says NPC has been told anecdotally that charities are seeing declining results from their fundraising established methods and their own analysis shows fundraising returns have been falling.
He says fundraising methods can be controversial and the public do not like many of the direct marketing techniques major charities use, which can undermine trust in charities.
Abercrombie says he recognises such techniques produce a return on investment and alternatives are “not immediately obvious”.
“In the current febrile context too many fundraisers are focusing on refining and optimising established techniques. While this is worthwhile, it should not be at the expense of seeking the breakthrough innovations the sector desperately needs,” he says.
The report includes a collection of essays by fundraising academics and charities, including Oxfam, RNIB and SolarAid, in response to NPC’s Money for Good UK research, published last year, which looked at donor motivations and behaviour.
In a blog for the Institute of Fundraising, the fundraising academic and consultant Adrian Sargeant called for the report to be withdrawn because it could be “immensely damaging” to charities.
Abercrombie says the IoF was invited to contribute to the follow-up report but was unable to. He says after encountering “defensive reactions” to the research from fundraising commentators, but not from fundraisers themselves, “we are left with the impression that the fundraising profession is more open to new approaches than those who claim to speak for it”.
Money for Good, based on a survey of 3,000 people, including 1,000 high-income donors, included a segmentation of donors into seven types who have different motivations for giving, and want to engage with charities in different ways, from the ‘ad hoc giver’ to the ‘thoughtful philanthropist’.
In his essay for the new report, Santanu Chakrabarti, head of insights at Oxfam GB, says the research should be “a great resource for the charity sector” due to its large sample size and using “outside-in segmentation” rather than “inside-out”, which is based on a charity's own current databases.
Oxfam has started an inside-out approach to segmentation, mainly based on behavioural data, which Chakrabarti says will be used to compare whether the Oxfam segments are similar or not to the Money for Good types.
“Strategically, it might well be the case that we can use aspects of the Money for Good segmentation to target donors who are very different from our current pool, even as we use our own segmentation to deepen relationships among our current group,” he says.
Richard Turner, chief fundraiser at SolarAid, also writes an essay for the report about how the climate change charity is inspiring its supporters to be advocates and launching an online platform to encourage donors to engage their networks.
“Half the donors, and 80 per cent of the high income donors interviewed, were led to give as a result of being asked or recommended by someone they know. How can you not think this will have a profound effect on your marketing strategy?” he says of the Money for Good approach.
Richard Turner features in this month’s Fundraising Magazine explaining how SolarAid doubled its income last year with the help of a BHAG.
