Fundraising Detective

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.

Categorising Major Donors and What Annoys Them About Fundraisers

I attended the Institute of Fundraising’s ‘Maximising Fundraising Potential for Long Term Results’ and 'Strategies for Supporter Retention’ half day conferences on Friday 25^th 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

 However, despite this they still tend to like us!

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.

Shhhh! Don't tell anyone - the rise in anonymous giving

The Chronicle of Philanthropy has in-depth report on major giving in the current climate and highlights a noticeable increase in the number of anonymous large gifts.

A great article for all major donor fundraisers as it gives some good examples of why people give major gifts, their underlying motivations and how they can change over time.

Take this quote for example:

 "He (Robert Sharpe Jnr, Fundraising Consultant) says he is aware of a woman who pledged $1-million in exchange for an arts center naming part of its facility in her honor. The woman recently called to reassure the group that the cash was still on the way, but she asked that her name be removed and that the gift be considered anonymous. Slapping her name on something by making a large gift would be “unseemly and gauche,” she explained, at a time when many people are suffering."

The increase in anonymous gifts is also put down to a desire to avoid further requests for support from other non-profits.

Should millionaires be pressured to give?

An interesting interview in the Sunday Times with Dame Stephanie Shirley. Dame Stephanie has recently been appointed by Gordon Brown to be a 'philanthropy ambassador' (no I hadn't heard either...) It's an interesting article, with some good insight into one of Britain's biggest donors.

The part that made me think was this quote: "Shirley, 75, who made a fortune in information technology, criticised those among Britain's wealthiest who refused to give anything at all to charity. "We have to take the concept of philanthropy far, far wider," said Shirley, who plans to target everyone from the super-rich to schoolchildren. "My principle is that philanthropy is pleasure and it should be part of everybody's life." Shirley said she was already approaching financial advisers to apply pressure to those rich people who give "trivial amounts" or "a lot of high net worth people who don't give at all".

Should the wealthy be pressurised into giving or would it actually do more harm than good? I think if I was a multi-millionaire i'd feel slightly patronised and annoyed by someone telling me I should give more. Surely a far better way is to use your influence to demonstrate to other wealthy individuals the joy of giving and the benefits it brings to society .

You could make better use of psychological 'nudges' to persuade millionaires that they too should 'give something back'. Only when all these options fail should guilt, pressure and other tactics be employed.

Agree or disagree?

Should millionaires be compelled to give a certain percentage of their income away to charity every year?