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!
Thursday, October 31, 2013
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?
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!
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?
[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.
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.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Bad Statistics Are Dangerous For Charities
In the last week a few people on my Twitter timeline have posted (some sceptically) the results of Google's research in to how and why people donate on-line.
The conclusions from the statistics included that 75% of people start their donation research on-line, 74% of people donate because they believe in the mission, and 57% of people make a donation after watching a video.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is all complete bullshit.
Firstly, common sense - think about those numbers. Of course it's not true that more than half of people donate after watching a video. Of course it's not true that three quarters of people donate because they believe in the mission - do you even know what your favourite charity's mission is?
Secondly, let's look at the survey and trace it back.
The article I just read was this one, that exclaims that "57% of Those Who Watch Nonprofit Videos Go On to Make a Donation". Please note that the article is written by a YouTube Video Producer. I'm sure he's very good at that. But his statistic is just not true. That's not his fault...let's look where he gets it from.
He gets it from here. It's a nice article that most subsequent articles are referring to. It casually mentions that "An impressive 57% of people who watch a video for a nonprofit go on to make a donation."
But it doesn't link to the original research, which is a shame.
The original research is quite hard to find. Here it is. It is incredibly vague and unhelpful. It's also notable in the fact that the research was actually carried out by MillwardBrown Digital...in association with Google.
Look a bit further and you'll find the methodology, which is almost always overlooked when we read statistics. This particular methodology really tells us very little.
But it does tell us they surveyed 982 people. I hate surveys - they are generally used by students and people trying to sell you something. The truth is when you ask people about their donation habits it is completely unreliable.
They also 'tracked donors behaviour backwards'. It is possible that they looked at donors, worked backwards and found that 57% of people had come from videos. But that certainly isn't the same thing as 57% of people make a donation after watching a video. I would assume that more than 99% of people watch a video and then do nothing. This is either really badly worded...or they're just wrong.
And the carelessness in this analysing and presentation of statistics is dangerous. I find statistics in charitable fundraising particularly dangerous.
Small, medium and even large charities are going to read these statistics and going to read articles written by very intelligent people. They're going to assume that it's correct - 57% of people who watch a video will go on to donate. And then they're going to put their fundraising budget in to making these videos. They'll put them on-line and they will do nothing. They will not generate income. They will fail. And that money will be gone.
These statistics are dangerous because it draws charities in to the belief that this is what will work for them.
It won't.
Please don't put your fundraising budget in to YouTube videos unless it is part of a bigger and more researched fundraising mix.
The conclusions from the statistics included that 75% of people start their donation research on-line, 74% of people donate because they believe in the mission, and 57% of people make a donation after watching a video.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is all complete bullshit.
Firstly, common sense - think about those numbers. Of course it's not true that more than half of people donate after watching a video. Of course it's not true that three quarters of people donate because they believe in the mission - do you even know what your favourite charity's mission is?
Secondly, let's look at the survey and trace it back.
The article I just read was this one, that exclaims that "57% of Those Who Watch Nonprofit Videos Go On to Make a Donation". Please note that the article is written by a YouTube Video Producer. I'm sure he's very good at that. But his statistic is just not true. That's not his fault...let's look where he gets it from.
He gets it from here. It's a nice article that most subsequent articles are referring to. It casually mentions that "An impressive 57% of people who watch a video for a nonprofit go on to make a donation."
But it doesn't link to the original research, which is a shame.
The original research is quite hard to find. Here it is. It is incredibly vague and unhelpful. It's also notable in the fact that the research was actually carried out by MillwardBrown Digital...in association with Google.
Look a bit further and you'll find the methodology, which is almost always overlooked when we read statistics. This particular methodology really tells us very little.
But it does tell us they surveyed 982 people. I hate surveys - they are generally used by students and people trying to sell you something. The truth is when you ask people about their donation habits it is completely unreliable.
They also 'tracked donors behaviour backwards'. It is possible that they looked at donors, worked backwards and found that 57% of people had come from videos. But that certainly isn't the same thing as 57% of people make a donation after watching a video. I would assume that more than 99% of people watch a video and then do nothing. This is either really badly worded...or they're just wrong.
And the carelessness in this analysing and presentation of statistics is dangerous. I find statistics in charitable fundraising particularly dangerous.
Small, medium and even large charities are going to read these statistics and going to read articles written by very intelligent people. They're going to assume that it's correct - 57% of people who watch a video will go on to donate. And then they're going to put their fundraising budget in to making these videos. They'll put them on-line and they will do nothing. They will not generate income. They will fail. And that money will be gone.
These statistics are dangerous because it draws charities in to the belief that this is what will work for them.
It won't.
Please don't put your fundraising budget in to YouTube videos unless it is part of a bigger and more researched fundraising mix.
Monday, August 26, 2013
I Wish I'd Thought Of That: Direct Dialogue Fundraising
This is an expanded version of what I said at Fundraising Ireland's 'I Wish I'd Thought Of That' event in August 2013.
I want to talk about my favourite form of fundraising - direct dialogue, face-to-face, door-to-door, street, 'chugging'. You’ve no doubt already made your mind up about it - you use it and love it, you think it’s a necessary evil, or you hate it and you’re never going to use it.
But, I want to talk about how it changed fundraising, how it changed my life, and why I think it’s important to you whether you use it or not.
Door-to-door sales was invented shortly after the invention of door but it was around the early 70s that a charity first made a measured effort to recruit regular givers - it was the Red Cross using an agency in Germany, made up of mainly Austrian students.
And through that the concept spread back to Austria. One of the big charities to do it in Austria was Greenpeace, and one day in the hot summer of 1995 the employees of an agency named Dialog Direct were whining that there was nobody home. So they went and stood outside a public swimming pool and started talking to strangers walking by, signing them up for DD. It worked - they did it at a second swimming pool - and then shifted almost all of their door on to street.
In ‘96 the French were well into their nuclear testing - identifying some of the most beautiful places in the world and then blowing those places up - and it was thanks to this that Greenpeace really found their groove with direct recruitment.
They recruited 55,000 new direct debit donors that year through direct dialogue in Austria (a country about double our population). Some of the fundraisers involved presented it at the IFC conference - and people didn’t believe it worked. It wouldn’t work. It’s not possible. But they were wrong.
The idea was exported to Italy. Czech republic. Anywhere that could process standing orders or direct debits. Australia started using it. A telephone agency in the UK was essentially forced by Greenpeace to move out onto the street. But they knew it would be controversial, so they got the likes of Amnesty and WWF on board to help control the public opinion.
2002 or 2003-ish was about the time that the first in-house teams started to appear and about the time it arrived in Ireland.
Which brings me to 2004 - the year I started on the street for UNHCR, MSF and Forgotten Children (an Australian charity whose celebrity patron is Toadfish from Neighbours). And that changed my life.
It changed it immediately because I met amazing people, and was given amazing things on the street, and randomers would invite me to parties. I completely fell in love with the girl who trained me in and that was a disaster for about a year, and then it was really good for about 6 hours, and then it was a disaster again.
And then long-term it changed my view on ‘charity’ and realistically how we are going to change the world (Hint: it involves money). It got me working in the charity sector which is where I’ve stayed - I currently own a fundraising agency that employs nearly 100 'dialoguers'. And in a roundabout way I met my girlfriend and had a kid through it.
But why would you care about any of that?
Well, the point is that face-to-face fundraising works. And I don’t mean using an agency. I’m not necessarily talking about these large campaigns or even the fundraisers that stand on the street all day. I’m talking about you, as a fundraiser.
I’ve worked with a lot of people who have gone on to work in other agencies and charities and I believe if you’ve ever worked in sales or street or door-to-door that you take this skill along with you to ask for money. A friend of mine who worked on door-to-door (as well as other jobs) made the transition to office-based fundraiser. He ended up working for a well known international charity, who had been in Ireland for nearly 10 years and they had 1 direct debit donor. He went in and started engaging with volunteers, supporters, at events, even staff. He started 'face-to-face fundraising' with everyone he met. Within about a year they had 50 DD donors.
I love technology and digital - twitter and e-mail and social media and text giving and all this fancy stuff - and I hate talking to people. But in terms of fundraising very often this technology is just making it easier for us to NOT really ask for money. We’re using the latest technology to access hundreds of thousands of people and make it really easy to ignore us. Genuinely, are you going to raise more money today by e-mailing 100,000 people or by talking to ten?
Whatever changes in the future humans will continue to give to humans. The more you sound like a human, the more you look like a human the more you will raise. You can't fully understand any form of fundraising until you've had someone say "Yes" to your face and someone say "No" to your face.
And that's why I wish I thought of Direct Dialogue fundraising.
I want to talk about my favourite form of fundraising - direct dialogue, face-to-face, door-to-door, street, 'chugging'. You’ve no doubt already made your mind up about it - you use it and love it, you think it’s a necessary evil, or you hate it and you’re never going to use it.
But, I want to talk about how it changed fundraising, how it changed my life, and why I think it’s important to you whether you use it or not.
Door-to-door sales was invented shortly after the invention of door but it was around the early 70s that a charity first made a measured effort to recruit regular givers - it was the Red Cross using an agency in Germany, made up of mainly Austrian students.
And through that the concept spread back to Austria. One of the big charities to do it in Austria was Greenpeace, and one day in the hot summer of 1995 the employees of an agency named Dialog Direct were whining that there was nobody home. So they went and stood outside a public swimming pool and started talking to strangers walking by, signing them up for DD. It worked - they did it at a second swimming pool - and then shifted almost all of their door on to street.
In ‘96 the French were well into their nuclear testing - identifying some of the most beautiful places in the world and then blowing those places up - and it was thanks to this that Greenpeace really found their groove with direct recruitment.
They recruited 55,000 new direct debit donors that year through direct dialogue in Austria (a country about double our population). Some of the fundraisers involved presented it at the IFC conference - and people didn’t believe it worked. It wouldn’t work. It’s not possible. But they were wrong.
The idea was exported to Italy. Czech republic. Anywhere that could process standing orders or direct debits. Australia started using it. A telephone agency in the UK was essentially forced by Greenpeace to move out onto the street. But they knew it would be controversial, so they got the likes of Amnesty and WWF on board to help control the public opinion.
2002 or 2003-ish was about the time that the first in-house teams started to appear and about the time it arrived in Ireland.
Which brings me to 2004 - the year I started on the street for UNHCR, MSF and Forgotten Children (an Australian charity whose celebrity patron is Toadfish from Neighbours). And that changed my life.
It changed it immediately because I met amazing people, and was given amazing things on the street, and randomers would invite me to parties. I completely fell in love with the girl who trained me in and that was a disaster for about a year, and then it was really good for about 6 hours, and then it was a disaster again.
And then long-term it changed my view on ‘charity’ and realistically how we are going to change the world (Hint: it involves money). It got me working in the charity sector which is where I’ve stayed - I currently own a fundraising agency that employs nearly 100 'dialoguers'. And in a roundabout way I met my girlfriend and had a kid through it.
But why would you care about any of that?
Well, the point is that face-to-face fundraising works. And I don’t mean using an agency. I’m not necessarily talking about these large campaigns or even the fundraisers that stand on the street all day. I’m talking about you, as a fundraiser.
I’ve worked with a lot of people who have gone on to work in other agencies and charities and I believe if you’ve ever worked in sales or street or door-to-door that you take this skill along with you to ask for money. A friend of mine who worked on door-to-door (as well as other jobs) made the transition to office-based fundraiser. He ended up working for a well known international charity, who had been in Ireland for nearly 10 years and they had 1 direct debit donor. He went in and started engaging with volunteers, supporters, at events, even staff. He started 'face-to-face fundraising' with everyone he met. Within about a year they had 50 DD donors.
I love technology and digital - twitter and e-mail and social media and text giving and all this fancy stuff - and I hate talking to people. But in terms of fundraising very often this technology is just making it easier for us to NOT really ask for money. We’re using the latest technology to access hundreds of thousands of people and make it really easy to ignore us. Genuinely, are you going to raise more money today by e-mailing 100,000 people or by talking to ten?
Whatever changes in the future humans will continue to give to humans. The more you sound like a human, the more you look like a human the more you will raise. You can't fully understand any form of fundraising until you've had someone say "Yes" to your face and someone say "No" to your face.
And that's why I wish I thought of Direct Dialogue fundraising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)