I attended
the Institute of Fundraising’s ‘Maximising Fundraising Potential for Long Term Results’ and 'Strategies for Supporter Retention’ half day conferences on Friday
25th September.
I’ve put
together some notes and comments on my three favourite sessions and I’ll post
them all in the next few days.
First up, Elizabeth
Loudon from Prospero Partners presented some interesting research on major
donors talking about fundraisers and what fundraisers don’t do. The list is a bit of an embarrassment.
According to her research, in major
donor’s opinion fundraisers don’t:
- Listen
- Report back
- Say thank you
- Take care of resources
- Stop asking for money
She also
reminded us that fundraisers need to build relationships and not friendships
with donors, as at some point you are going to have to ask for money and it can
be hard to ask friends for money.
Elizabeth
also provided a (basic) but useful framework for trying to classify major
donors. The framework helps understand their motivations and can help formulate strategies you can employ for
engaging them.
Her four
categories were:
- Joiners: very
sociable and affiliate themselves with a large number of organisations and
don’t develop deep connections.
- Saviours:
give to try and save the world. Respond
well to emergencies.
- Investors: people who want to see a social return on their gift. Good reporting back to these donors is vital.
- Dealers: people who might have non-philanthropic reasons for giving and look what is in it for them. Not necessarily bad as can open a lot of doors and have great contacts.
A good session and you find some more useful downloads here.
Should we name and shame millionaires who don't give?
UK Fundraising have a great summary of the 2011 Coutts million pound donor report (you can download the full report here) and it shows that the number of million pound gifts in the UK fell from 201 to 174 last year.
At the same time, one of the Freakonomics podcasts reports on Australian Dick Smith who has publicly vowed to name and shame rich people who don't give.
Would such an approach work in the UK and has Dick's direct approach had an effect?
Sadly, I think the answer is no to both questions.
While I admire Dick's enthusiasm and directness, I think issuing threats and trying to embarrass people to give is not a viable long term solution to get people to give more.
In Australia his approach has attracted critics and he has been accused of being a bully.
If I was advising Dick, then I'd tell him that he might have more success by trying to show people the benefits of donating and the satisfaction that philanthropy can bring.
I'd get him to encourage people to go on shows like Secret Millionaire and for him to offer a matching challenge to millionaires who've never given before.
Finally, a public pledge (like the one from Warren Buffet and Bill Gates) that he will give most of his wealth away, might inspire others to join him.
In the UK I'd like to see more people celebrating their giving and publicising their philanthropy, but sadly our natural reserve means that even great initiatives like the Beacon Fellowship don't seem to attract the publicity and attention they deserve.
Rather than endless white papers and talks of tweaking the tax system to incentivise giving, I would rather see people celebrate the emotional joy of giving and encouraging others to join them.
Posted at 12:02 PM in Fundraising Comment, Major Gifts | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog (0) | | Digg This | Save to del.icio.us | |
|