 |
| Street fundraising has become increasingly unpopular but is not the only method complained about. Photograph: Andy Hall |
Attitudes to fundraising frequently divide both the charitable sector and the public. If it's not the admin costs, it's the fact that fundraisers are paid for the volume of appeals. And nothing quite raises the heckles like face-to-face fundraising (F2F).
The Directory of Social Change's recent poll on F2F is a case in point, with 70% of the 293 respondents believing it to be "appalling and damaging". Of the survey's 96 written comments, much of the ill-feeling focused on "paid canvassers", many of whom are "young with no knowledge of the cause", who "browbeat" the public and give charities "a bad name".
Objections to F2F also make regular appearances in newspaper op-eds, blogs and on Twitter, with people grumbling about "aggressive behaviour" and how they can't walk down a street without being asked 20 times. Criticism of direct mail is less vocal, but no less important. Indeed, DM receives the most official complaints of all the fundraising techniques used, generating 14,903 in 2011, according to the Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB). These complaints tend to focus on the frequency of appeals and poor use of data.
Many people believe charities should stop using these techniques before they irreversibly blacken the name of the sector. But is the use of controversial techniques worth the reputational risk? And what, if anything, can be done to improve perceptions?
First, it's important to put criticism of F2F and DM into context. DM may have received almost 15,000 complaints in 2011, but with more than 172m mailings sent these equate to just 0.009% of the volume. The same applies to F2F. Doorstep fundraising received 2,877 complaints(0.145% of volume) while street fundraising received 1,098 complaints (0.003% of volume). Indeed, while the profile of "chugging" may give the perception that it's the most complained-about mechanism, it actually features among eight means of raising cash, including beloved raffles.
Equally, when compared to corporates charities perform well, says Mike Lordan, operations chief at the Direct Marketing Association. "We run theMailing Preference Service. There are very few charity complaints. I don't see this as a crisis."
Not only that but these tools raise many millions of pounds each year, argues Mark Astarita, director of fundraising at the British Red Cross and chair of the Institute of Fundraising. To stop using them would have a catastrophic effect. "The sector would lose billions and millions of people would not get help as a result. Society has a choice. To stop us from asking nicely means ignoring the plight of many," he says.
A fair and important point. But how do the experiences of those people who don't like these techniques impact on giving levels? DM may raise millions of pounds from the 1.5% who respond to cold appeals, but what about the other 98.5%? F2F may raise millions from the people who sign up. But what about those who were asked and said no? Could it be that more money could be raised if only people were asked in a more appropriate way?
We know from research by CAF that the proportion of people donating to charitable causes in a typical month has decreased over the last year, from 58% to 55%. In addition, the estimated total donated in 2011/12 was £9.3bn, a decrease of £2.3bn in real terms. How much of this is down to the economy and how much is the result of poor fundraising? There is little research readily available to help answer this question. In 2012,Adrian Sargeant published a paper on Donor Complaints about Fundraising but this looked more at the incidence of complaints rather than the impact of dissatisfaction on attitudes to charity. Instead, the study turned to levels of public trust for clues. But even this was unclear.
A recent Ipsos MORI report showed confidence remains high. However, the same survey also found fundraising becoming increasingly unpopular, with 67% of people saying some methods, such as street and telephone, "make them feel uncomfortable", an increase from 60% in 2010. With the exception of a line that said "a negative experience can make someone less willing to donate to that charity", no further insight into what impact this had on giving levels was offered.
"Research into attitudes and irritations would be helpful," agrees Alistair McLean, chief executive of the FRSB. "What one person thinks is aggressive another will think is ok. To cross-reference this with age could help charities get the balance right when they are making approaches."
In his view, however, this is not about stopping using particular tools, but about education, starting within charities themselves: "There would be great merit in those people who sit outside the fundraising community understanding more about how all fundraising works," he says.
This opinion is reiterated by others, including Martin Jervis, chief executive of Fundraising Initiatives, a F2F agency. "This is fundamentally a leadership issue. Fundraisers need to educate their executive teams. There needs to be more on fundraising at trustee conferences. There are not enough conversations between fundraisers and trustees. This would help convince people that these types of fundraising are well managed."
The PFRA provides an example of how leadership can have a positive impact. It has recruited some of its member charities to advocate for F2F with the press. "We've persuaded charities to come and be confident on the fundraising they do. It has helped change attitudes," says its head of communications, Ian McQuillan.
More advocacy combined with research into how experiences of fundraising impacts on propensity to give could go a long way towards both satisfying the critics and strengthening confidence across the board. As the FRSB's McClean says: "The public's high level of trust is a privilege not a right. Charities need to work hard on all fronts to protect the reputation they enjoy."
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment