Clarification on the TPS is no reason to let up on lobbying

17 Mar 2010 Voices

The breakthrough on guidance about charities telephoning donors is no reason for the sector to relax, says Hugh McCaw.

The breakthrough on guidance about charities calling donors is no reason for the sector to relax, says Hugh McCaw. The creeping confusion between 'donor' and 'consumer' is worrying, and there is yet hope for TPS reform.

Having initiated a white paper discussing the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) and its impact on telephone fundraising, it was good to finally see a .

At the Telephone Fundraising Symposium, brought together by the Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB), David Evans, senior data protection practice manager with the Information Commissioner's Office gave us some of the answers we’ve all been asking for about when and how we can telephone supporters. He clarified that legitimate administrative calls can be made to registrants of the TPS in order to confirm and update that person’s contact preferences and permission. This does not mean a thinly disguised marketing pitch.

We should not however see this as an end, but as establishing a platform for campaigning by charities for reform, ideally for exemption from the TPS in a similar way that market research calls are exempt.

As a founder of Children Today Charitable Trust, which purchases urgently needed equipment for children living with disabilities, I am acutely aware of how legislation can impact on revenue sources for small to medium charities in particular.

There is a danger of confusing the public over their role as a consumer, rather than as a supporter and donor. From my investigations and evidenced in the Department of Trade and Industry’s initial consultation, it is very clear that the original thinking in drafting this legislation was to categorise charities differently from commercial organisations.

The language was all about 'consumer' protection against companies selling their products. Even as late as 2003, the year the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations supported the 1991 Act, the Direct Marketing Association describes TPS as “the free-of-charge register that gives consumers the power to put an end to calls from companies calling to sell their products and services”.

So is it in any way appropriate that we use synonyms such as 'selling', 'products' and 'consumers' to describe support, good causes and donors?

If the public are being informed through legislation that charities should be treated the same as commercial, for profit, organisations, it should not surprise us if they begin to react as consumers. By definition a “consumer” consumes a commodity or service for personal use. A “donor” is giving to a charity to help a cause they have empathy with. There is little correlation between the motives behind these separate actions.

Where is the evidence that the public needs protection from being invited to do good? What is the basis for such a moral platform? What sort of society compares an invite to contribute to a piece of equipment for a disabled child or research for a cure for cancer, with selling mortgages or double glazing?

Exemptions relate to higher giving levels abroad

Societies who clearly differentiate include USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where like the UK there is a history of charitable giving. It’s inspiring to learn that in New Zealand 93 per cent of the population donate to charity and in Australia it is reported as 86 per cent. But in Britain it is only 56 per cent.

Given that 60 per cent of households are TPS registered in the UK, should we be surprised?

The 40 per cent of households who have not registered with TPS continue to be a source of support for those charities that utilise the telephone for acquisition of donors. This was confirmed by John Brady of Sense Scotland in his presentation at the symposium. Our agency alone makes over one million contacts per annum for acquisitions. There is no evidence that the people contacted have shown any concern at the method used and the lack of complaints gives credence to this.

Donating to charity should be seen as civic duty in the same way as volunteering. It should be celebrated as it contributes to doing good, making the all-important difference to beneficiaries, and changing the world for the better. And charities should be supported by processes which enable them to make contact with the public, while following the guidelines we have in place for successful self-regulation such as the principles set out in the Fundraising Promise and codes of practice issued by the Institute of Fundraising.

We need to persuade government that charities need to be treated differently, and reform of the TPS would be a start.

Hugh McCaw is CEO at online telephone fundraising ltd 

More on