I suggest catman goes to Uganda if he wants to see fatcats driving around -- perhaps not in Merecedes, but plenty of brand new Toyotas. He could also analyse how much money has gone to East Africa in various forms of aid over the past 40 years and see what good it has done, and how sustainable it is.

But the original article has a degree of resonance with me -- though I would point out that Guidestar id pretty out of date, and New Phil Cap is hardly comprehensive. IG is among the best, and getting better, but being up to date is absolutely essential in my view. More important than anything else.

Indeed.

This article does say where a donor can find information and try to reassure what we might term, for the sake of argument, an 'uniformed' donor about how to get information on charities. Certainly, stating that 'we can give with increasing confidence' is a reassurance.

And now, such an 'uninformed' donor can scroll down and read a professional fundraiser call IG 'a pathetic blog'.

Crikey

I once posted something far less venemous than that and was accused of (possibly) being a "deliberate troll" - which I have since learnt is computer geek for needlessly provocative person.... or something.

I'm also a fundraiser and wouldn't go along with everything in IG's blog article, but like it or not the views of people outside the sector (or the donating public) must inform what we do and how we do it. That's not to say that we automatically cave in to ignorance and prejudice, but we have a duty to engage in debate and inform that debate rather than simply getting stroppy!    

I have some sympathy with your views Catman, but you can't carry on as if the public are the enemy. In my view PR and fundraising go hand in hand, so let's put our best face forward :-) 

Don't shoot the messenger

Thanks for the comments, Catman. I sense some over-reaction. This piece was written in August of last year, hence the figues being out, and it was written by a donor, not a fundraiser. Regarding your points about 'chuggers' and 'fat cats', in my position as editor I constantly hear ridiculous, damaging rumours/opinions about charities from the uninformed public. Almost every time someone finds out what I do, in fact.

It is unarguable that a significant proportion of society *does* view charities in this negative light and to deny it is not helpful to anyone. One of the points of this site is to confront these stories head-on and to judge them on an individual basis, quashing them where relevant and highlighting them if true.

Regarding us being 'objective' - we are a counterbalance to the 'objectivity' of the charity sector. Both sides are in fact subjective, and this site would be a very boring, unenlightening place if that weren't the case.

Anita,

Where do I start? Shall I start with your out of date research? Should I start with your subjective comments about types of fundraising I assume you know barely little or should I start with your huge assumptions about what we think and have heard?

Lets start with your first comment "WE'VE ALL HEARD THE RUMOURS about charity fat cats driving around in Mercedes, or that for every pound you give to Oxfam only 20p reaches Africa". I did a quick straw poll of my staff, who are FUNDRAISERS and read anything and everything in the press to do with fundraising. And guess what? None of them had heard a story about charity fat cats and driving flash cars. Please can you clarify where you last heard this comment in the press and by press I do not mean your colleagues at IG!

Secondly, "for example, 'charity muggers' will be required to let people know how much of a donation goes towards the cause". So, IG give a balanced, objective view of charity fundraising? No, you don't. Why do you refer to street fundraisers as "charity muggers"? Not even chuggers, you just had to spell it out in full just to show anyone who reads your pathetic blog that you hate this form of fundraising. Well guess what? Street fundraising is an established and regulated form of fundraising that is proven to give long term income to charities who do it well, in fact many National and International charities wouldn't be doing the work they d if they hadn't invested in street fundraising. Did you know that? Do you care? I think not. Another thing you have failed to understand is that under the previous Charities Act (1916) personal solication by direct debit was outside of the law as it only covered the collection of cash. The new law now clarifies that street fundraising is a legal form of fundraising and the new rules around solicitation statements cover not only street fundraising but fundraising consultants, direct mail and events fundraising. They do not have to say how much goes to the charity, they have to give a "notifiable amount".

And finally, does ImpACT have 70 members? That's strange, because I was browsing on the IoF website as us FUNDRAISERS do and I saw this article posted on the 7th January - a couple of weeks before you wrote this drive stating that the ImpACT coalition had its 100th member!

 http://www.institute-of-fundraising.org.uk/informationaboutfundraising/forfundraisers/hottopics/impactcoalition/ImpACT100.htm

How about you do us all a fovour and give the Sun newspaper a call, send them your CV and go and work for an organisation more suited to your talents.

Catman

http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/impact.asp