More on giving motivations or "why I hate chuggers"

I spend some time on TV and radio defending street canvassing, because if done properly and sensitively it is another very appropriate fundraising practice that helps charities reach younger potential supporters. Many people however talk about how guilty they feel saying no. When Ian MacQuillan sent me this article, by Julian Baggini I knew I had to comment on his verbalisation of what I think a lot of people will recognise when they encounter a canvasser. The full article is in a magazine called Heaver and whilst I don't agree with everything he says I think the sentiment is spot on. That's why I'm electing Julian an honorary member of the association!

Julian writes that, "bitter experience having taught you to be alert to their presence, you spot one in your path as you approach. What to do? Pretend you haven't seen anything? Keep your gaze fixed ahead and avoid any distraction? Try to appease the monster? Whatever you choose, you know the one thing you must not do under any circumstances is stop. Once they've demobilised you, there is no way out that isn't ugly."

He's talking, of course, about what many call chuggers and he reckons they are somewhat dishonest in that for examply, "they have numerous plays designed to make you stop, from complementing you on your scarf to asking whether you've ever met a Nobel prize winner." He elaborates further and goes on to say that secondly he finds that,

"their euphoric, joyful enthusiasm isn't natural. Or at least, it certainly isn't British. Spending a whole day in the often rain outdoors being dodged by people is not fun. So these people are either massive fakers, on heavy medication, insane, or some combination of the above". And he doesn't stop there going on to add that he resents being made to feel guilty! He adds, "I resent being made to feel bad when I'm sure I'm more conscientious about my charitable giving than most of the saps who stop. It should be more virtuous to give under no pressure from the privacy of your own home. But it is those who stop who look kind and those who walk by who look mean. It feels as though we are being judged by how we respond to chuggers when that is no the benchmark of philanthropy at all."

However the punchline is, rightly saved until the end where delivering his "coup de grace" he says, movingly,

"But the truth is, I should feel bad, and that's why I hate them. I hate them for reminding me that, even if I do already give money to charity, it is not enough. There are numerous good causes, all of which deserve my cash or time and while I can't give to all of them, I can and should give more to more of them. I hate them for interrupting my healthy, lovely day with thoughts about disease, death and suffering. I hate them because they remind me that relying on the milk of human kindness is not enough. Chuggers exist because they work, and that means they are plenty of people who just would not give as much as they do if it weren't for chirpy youths accosting them on the street. And I hate them for reminding me that I'm a miserable misanthropic sod who can so easily hate people who are only trying to earn a living in some kind of meaningful purposeful way. In short, I hate them for reminding me of all that is bad in the world when reminding is just what we all need in order to make it better."

Thank you Julian I couldn't have put it better myself! Do you agree or think we're both barking?

Giving Motivations

As I blogged last week, it is extraordinary that 80,000 have given more than £1.1m (including gift aid) to Samaritans (no indefinite article I'm told). The article in the Guardian comments on the importance of who makes the ask as opposed to the case for support, the cause or other such factors. There will be a strong "giving in memoriam" element as a trigger. In my experience giving, in memory of a loved one, parent, partner or child, is one of the most powerful triggers for a gift. It is why some people start charities and why tribute giving is such an important area that, if charities realised it, could be harnessed to much greater effect. Currently charities tend to wait until after someone has died and then, in response to "in memoriam" or "gifts in lieu of flowers" suggest tentitatively that perhaps the givers and the family would like the charity to set up a fund in memory of the loved. Of course, handled sensitively, with an appropriate involvement device it works really, really well. So why stop there? Just as some people buy a little bit of immortality with pledges and legacies why could we not actively suggest, to those most likely to like the idea (research, research, research)the concept of gifts beyond the final legacy? Perhaps it's a step too far. However remember that talking about a "gift in your will" was thought to be insensitive and now is a routine part of legacy development. So, those minded to involve the family in the decision process (and many do) might be persuaded to continue the fundraising beyond the original giver's death. Just a thought?

Claire Squires - what an extraordinary effect

In the wake of Claire Squires' sad and untimely death on Sunday is is extraordinary that 65,000 people have given £3/4 million to the Samaritans in memory of someone who the vast majority had never heard of before the marathon. It's not unusual for the public to respond generously to a tragedy (witness the tsunami response) or when someone in the public eye dies (witness the Princess Dianna effect) but for a young women, doing the marathon for a great, but not huge charity (£10m turnover last year) is, in my view, extraordinary. So what is going on? In my view the Spectrum of Philanthropy applies rather well here. It's not the cause, great though the Samaritans are, it is the the person doing the ask - albeit in this case a very powerful implied ask. But what do you think? Were you minded to give and why? More of this, I hope, if I can persuade the Guardian to commission a thought piece from me. In the meantime however do please respond and let me know your feelings, emotions or cold logic about this phenomena. Well it's in the Guardian at: What motivates people to give to charity? Please post a comment there or here whether you agree or think it's something completely different!

George Osborne just doesn't get it

It is extraordinary that so many people (especially George Osborne and one suspects the rest of the cabinet) don't get it! Whether a high rate taxpayer is giving £1000 or £1,000,000 they do so out of taxed income (even if they are only paying 10%). Thus the high rate relief they get back only reduces the cost of the gift by 20% or enables them to give 20% more. It's arrant nonsense to suggest that people give to charities (even the Royal Opera House) to reduce their tax bill.

That said, there may not be many who would give more than 25% of their £200,000 income but I can think of quite a few generous souls who do give a lot more than the £50,000 proposed limit would cap. Can't help feeling that Zac Goldsmith's prediction that "....this will for ever be remembered as the Government that smashed the charity sector in this country." is rather over egging the situation.

Why oh why is Sport Relief giving the Evening Standard £1m?

I don't believe it! Are they mad or am I losing it?

I applaud the fundraising efforts of the Evening Standard to raise money for London's homeless and dispossessed (now £8.3m). Equally I applaud All of Sport Relief's work in raising £52m for a huge range of good causes. However, what is the logic of one grant provider giving to another?

The Evening Standard are actively fundraising using the oxygen of free publicity via the daily paper and having those funds managed and distributed by CAN (Community Action Network). Nothing wrong in that. Similary Sport Relief fundraises using the oxygen of free publicity from the Beeb and then adds the money to that already administered by Comic Relief. OK so far? So now why is Sport Relief giving £1m to the standard to pass on to CAN to distribute?

It's a bit like Help for Heroes who fundraise (very successfully) using (amongst others) Murdock publicity and then give the money to some of the existing well established service charities. Perhaps they are more effective, not least because of all the extra publicity generated. However one can't help worrying whether much real additional cash is being raised and whether some events and activities cannibalize the efforts of those same charities that are supported by the new kids on the block?

I suppose I could be less grumpy and grateful for small mercies. At least they are giving the money to established providers who (hopefully) know what they are doing, rather than really reinventing the wheel and getting into direct service provision. Still it makes you think that there might be a better alternative.

What do you think of Fundraising Consultants?

The original Grumpy Old Fundraiser, John Sauve-Rodd sent me a very interesting survey about what clients think of their consultants and (and why not) what consultants think about their charity clients! Makes for some interesting reading, have a look at: http://www.theagitator.net/dont-miss-these-posts/clients-consultants-punch-bowl-survey-results/

Of particular interest is the observation that "we only used them to persuade our boss to do what we wanted" because in my book that is one of the three worthwhile times to invest in the fundraising consultant. When you are a prophet in your own land, you often need the external "objective" voice to help win the arguement. My old friend Redmond Mullin, who sadly died last year was a consumate professional at persuading trustee boards and senior managment teams of the need to invest in fundraising. They would listen to Redmond in a way that they, sadly, would not listen to their own director of fundraising. (Yes that is the voice of experience speaking).

The second of the usual reasons for employing consultants is simply to provide the expertise or capacity that does not exist in-house. The capital campaign feasibility study, the fundraising audit in an under performing area and so on.

The third and I think least understand, is that of the change agent. The consultants can come in on an interim or time limited project basis, help to implement and manage change and then leave with all the monkeys on their backs. Its what they're paid for and helps the new team or reorganised department function far more effectively.

Each of these areas benefit from the use of consultants, provided that the brief was clear, unambiguous, without unrealistic expectations and, most importantly, fully agreed by both parties. It goes without saying, I hope, that you've got to find the right consultant with the right skill set and approach to be able to work within the culture of your organisation.

Anyway, do let me know what you think of the survey results.

Sir Stuart Etherington and the 4th Sector!

Stuart is absolutely right (Civil Society News 15/2) to highlight the dangers of current government policy that will allow a small number of for profit companies to dominate the provision of public service which were previously the baliwick of smaller, innovative charities focussing, not on profit, but on delivering the best possible services and outcomes for beneficiaries.

What's worse is the cognative dissonance being shown by the coalition, in supposedly promoting and encouraging "the big society" whilst retreating from and slashing the funding for such services. The reality is that we have a big society which needs investment. As it is we'll finish up with a smaller society which will penalize those least able to speak up and complain.

NCVO reckon there's £2bn coming out of the sector, Cathy Pharoah says £3bn. By my sums I reckon that it'll be closer to £5bn by the time you include all the small local authority grants and funding to community organisations that is being wiped out.