Thursday, November 7, 2013

My IoF N.I. 2013 Seminar: Telephone Fundraising

Here are the slides from my Telephone Fundraising seminar at the Institute of Fundraising Northern Ireland conference, as well as what I think are the key points below:


Mystery Shop Your Own Organisation
I phoned two large Northern Irish charities to make a credit card donation and both failed to take my money. Try ringing your own reception (or get someone to do it for you...me please!) and see if they know how to handle a donation, know how to say thank you and know what to ask you.

Have An Inbound Cheat Sheet
Write up a one-pager for anyone who may receive these donation calls so they know what to do.

CEOs and Boards Fear Telephone Unnecessarily
Everyone says they hate receiving calls from charities asking for money (including me) but that's simply not true. People are warm, friendly and open. Cancellations are rare. Complaints are even rarer. Pick up the phone and talk to your donors. They will appreciate it.

Phone Calls With No Ask Are Still Fundraising
Thank you calls, care calls, surveys, etc. are still fundraising calls because they increase the chances that the person will go on to donate to you. There is monetary valuable in them.

A 'No' On The Phone Has Value
The great thing about the phone is that even people saying 'No' allows you to get feedback.

Integrable Is A Word. Integratable Is Not.
Telephone can and should integrate with everything...you should phone your mail recipients, phone your lapsed donors, phone your fundraisers. Phone everybody.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

An Undue Fear Of SEPA

A few people have flagged this with me: under the SEPA scheme there will be new rules concerning direct debits, where it will now be very easy for a donor to request a refund.

Donors will now have 8 weeks to request, no questions asked, that 'Authorised' payments are refunded.

Where the charity can't prove that the donation was authorised the donor will have up to 13 months to request refunds.

A few charities have said they're worried about this: that a monthly donor could in theory come back and demand 13 months worth of donations to be refunded. And on the surface it seems like a scary prospect.

But the truth is it won't make a difference...

The reality is, if a donor contacted you today under the old scheme and requested 13 months worth of refunds, well, you'd have to do it. You wouldn't have to do it, but you'd have to do it...you know?

No charity is going to get in to a dispute with a donor about who owns the money. You're not Sky TV. You're not Zurich. You're a nice charity that relies on the kindness of donors and if they want their money back you're going to have to give it to them.

The new rules are good. They instill confidence and, in reality, don't change how you would handle the situation.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Tax Relief On 'Fundraised' Income

I did a guest blog post for Fundraising Ireland: "Can a charity claim tax relief on 'fundraised' income?" e.g. from marathon runners, trekkers, head shavers, etc.

You can read the full thing here:
http://goo.gl/4qgXm3

Any more questions on charitable tax relief in Ireland then please feel free to ask!

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

This Will Kill Charity Pie Charts

At the Fundraising Ireland conference this year I suggested we kill pie charts (10% admin, 90% cause) because they're oversimplified and don't encourage donors to ask more questions (eg. Is my donation actually achieving anything).

I suggested we could get really clever and uber-transparent instead by telling the donor everything their donation is being spent on, right down to "1 cent of your donation will be spent on office toilet paper...2 cent of your donation will be spent on light so we can see what we're doing."

Well, someone has done it...but it wasn't for a charity...

PublicPolicy.ie (funded by Atlantic Philanthropies) have created the briliiant 'Where Does Your Tax Go'. You enter your income and it gives an assumed figure for how much our Government spends on Admin, Education, Foreign Affairs and more. Click on one of these and you get more detail: Someone earning €20k will see €79.50 of their money spent on 'Children'.


I love it. It instils confidence, makes steps towards showing output, and makes each cost seem somehow smaller.

Now imagine it for a charity, with more detail.

Imagine going to donate €100 and seeing that €63 will be spent on the actual food to be distributed.
€3 will be spent on transporting that food (otherwise it can't get there) - on petrol and insurance and maintenance.
€4 will go to Jimmy, Louise and Debbie - they're all fully qualified, have 23 years experience between them and work a minimum 37.5 hours a week (they get 20 holiday days per year).
60 cent will go to the receptionist Doris. She has 3 kids and is a big fan of X-Factor.
50 cent of your donation will be spent on office toilet paper. For hygiene reasons.

And the CEO's pay? Well only €1 of your donation is going to go to the CEO, and that allows her to oversee everything. To ensure your donation is used to the best of our ability and that everyone is working as hard as they can. To ensure we're actually making a difference and improving people's lives.

Now...do you want to see what we're actually achieving?

Monday, October 7, 2013

Donate Directly To Those That Need It

I often hear people say they want their donation to go directly to the people that need it most - they don't want any 'wasted' on wages, overheads, etc.

Here's my artistic interpretation of money going directly to those in need:





Updated 24th March 2014:
Great to see cartoonist Richard Duszczak make the idea even prettier!




Monday, September 9, 2013

Why Do The Rich Give Less?

There's a lot of research showing that the rich donate less than the poor (as a percentage of their income). I've seen statistics say the wealthiest Americans give 1.3% of their income while the poorest give 3.2% of their income. I've seen other studies claim that once your income goes over $100k the percentage of your income that you donate dives by about 3 percentage points.

[On a side note, do you see why these percentages make the One Percent Difference campaign look so unambitious?]

There's some good articles out there exploring the reasons that wealthier people are less generous (as a percentage) but I wanted to add my own two suggestions:


1. The Happiness Derived From Giving Has A Cap
I've read a few pieces of research that show money can buy happiness - to a point. In other words, as you earn more you become happier until you reach a certain threshold. I've seen that put at various amounts around €40k-€60k per year. After that your happiness levels off and it doesn't matter how much more you earn. I can believe that.

Is there a similar pattern in giving? Do you get more and more pleasure from giving away money, but only to a certain point?

If that was the case it would explain the figures. We want to give more and more, we want to give a higher amount. But once we hit a certain level there just really is nothing more in it for us and the amounts we choose to give, with pleasure, level-off.

If this is true how can we address it? How can we make giving continue to be pleasurable ad infinitum?


2. We Live In Fear Of Losing Our Lifestyle
One of the main reasons we don't give, no matter how wealthy, is not because we can't afford it but just in case we can't afford it. You may well have €10, €100 or a €1 million sitting there - and this could make a massive impact on someone else's life - but what if things go pear-shaped in the future and you need that money?

We give such a small percentage of our income because we fear being alive for another 30 or 40 more years and, if something goes wrong, we'd have to make sacrifices.

Look at Simon Cowell. He sits on a fortune of more than £200 million and earns about £50 million a year, and last week he was in the news talking about what he'd do with his money when he dies. Who can even spend that amount each year? Now if he knew for certain he would earn £50m a year for the rest of his life he would be much more willing to give away nearly everything he has right now.

Or what if the rich knew they could get their money back if they needed it?

What if the very wealthy could give all of their current wealth to a charity and should they need it in the future they could simply take it back? Think of it as prize bonds where the prize goes to someone who actually needs it. Charities could sit on the money, invest the money, even live off the interest, until that wealthy celebrity kicks their pearly bucket.

Would the wealthy give more if they knew there was no chance they'd ever have to clean their own house again?

Monday, September 2, 2013

13 Reasons It Sucks To Be A Charity In Ireland Right Now

If you set up an organisation or group whose purpose is to make the world a better place you would generally look in to calling yourself a charity. But the benefits of having the word 'charity' associated with you are really beginning to get outweighed by the drawbacks and negativity surrounding the word. You might be better off calling yourself a 'social enterprise'.

Here are 13 reasons why it sucks to be a charity in Ireland right now:

1. Nobody Cares What You're Doing
The media, the public, everybody - we just keep asking charities about their finances and their staff salaries. Or, on a more positive note, we'll sometimes talk about fundraising events and mini-marathons and pub quizzes. But nobody is talking about what charities are actually achieving and the impact they are having. Yes, good charities are providing that information - the proof of their good work...We just don't read it, share it or care about it.

2. People Want Good Governance But Nobody Is Willing To Pay For It
Everyone wants to see good governance from charities. We want to see transparency, good reporting, thorough accounting and more. But nobody wants their donation to go towards admin. CHY-22.

3. Your Staff Are Paid Less For Doing Good
If you work in the charity sector you're automatically earning 18% less than if you were doing the same job in the private sector, and that figure gets much higher in some roles. Yes, we're happy to reward you financially if you're making the world a worse place...but if you're working with the world's most vulnerable people then that should be it's own reward.
Nevertheless, the public still think charity staff are overpaid without batting an eyelid at private sector pay. Many people think charities should rely on volunteers, but people who register to volunteer on average only give about an hour a month of their time - how could any organisation run like that?

4. Changes In Tax Relief Have Cost You Money
Charitable tax relief in Ireland sucks in a lot of ways. But the latest changes to tax relief are good: charities now get the relief on donations from self-assessed individuals. However, charities won't see that relief until next year. In 2013 they just have to put up with the reduced income caused by self-assessed donors giving less (because it now costs them more).

5. City Councillors Hate You
Over 30% of Dublin City Councillors felt that no charity should financially benefit from a shop on Grafton Street. It didn't matter what you sold, what you looked like or even what consumers wanted. If a charity was going to generate income then these councillors wanted you banned.

6. You're Judged On Others' Behaviour
If a different charity has done something wrong, well you're going to be tarred with the same brush. We wouldn't dismiss 'businesses' because we had a bad experience with a business, but if a 'charity' does something rotten, well then all 'charities' are rotten.

7. The Regulator Is Going To Cost You
The Charity Regulator will finally appear next year, which is great news for everyone. Unfortunately, for the first year they're probably going to have the resources to do very little except copy and paste the list of charities registered with Revenue. Charities are going to pay an annual fee for that.

8. The Data Commissioner Is Making It Harder To Compete With Businesses
If the recent Irish Times article is to believed, the DPC has changed their interpretation of when it is and isn't acceptable for a charity to 'market' to its database, and this new interpretation does not seem to be in line with what private companies can do.

9. Charity Scratchcards Are About To Get Destroyed
When the National Lottery appeared the Government agreed to compensate charities who generated income from scratchcards. They did this because charities have an embarrassingly low limit on how much they can pay out in prize money, so can't compete. The compensation will go and these charity scratchcards will wither away and die because, frankly, why would you try to win €20k when you could win €4 million?

10. People Hate Your Most Cost-Effective Forms Of Fundraising
The most tolerated forms of fundraising (such as events, cash collections and selling stuff) are the most expensive and least efficient ways to raise money. Every form of fundraising people hate? Well, unfortunately they're much better.

11. The Most Unethical Corporate Sponsors Have The Most Money
Think of the top companies in Ireland: Alcohol, cigarettes, oil, gambling, financial investments. They're the ones with all the money. When they're not busy killing people and destroying our planet they'll sometimes donate money to charity. The really clever ones donate other people's money and take credit for it. Unfortunately, a lot of charities have to refuse this money because they have to behave ethically and, to be honest, they're trying to fix the problems these companies caused.

12. People Think There Are Too Many Charities
In fact, there are are less charities per person in Ireland than in countries like Wales, Scotland and Norway. But, assuming there were too many charities, nobody is actually able to specify which charity should or could be eliminated.

13. Large International Charities Are Pretending There Are No Admin Costs
Large well-known charities like Charity: Water have enough support from businesses and foundations to pretend that public donations will not go on 'admin'. The whole thing is meaningless and nonsense, but it gives the Irish public an unrealistic expectation that charities can operate with little or no overheads. This restricts small to medium charities and cripples their ability to grow.