It springs to mind the success of the X factor single 'Hero' is cheaper than £2, never mind a monthly payment.

I daresay it will bring in quite a lot of money and be a good 'brand name boost' for the two charities that will benefit.
So should they refuse the money as the less than £2 purchase price won't save the world?
Come to think of it, it will save the world.
If you were the one benefitting from the work of either of those charities, could mean the world to you.
Repeat as necessary.

Martin

Joanthan: Glad we amused you. But as I make clear on this page, our two-quid fundraising ask is based on the idea that we'd like our site visitors to pay for the service we provide: i.e., providing (hopefully) useful advice on giving. In the same way you'd pay £2 for a paper magazine, we'd like our visitors to fork out the same amount for reading us. That's payment for a service - we're not promising that £2 given to us will save the world!

Adam, Intelligent Giving

I love the fact that the latest Intelligent Giving email, 28th October 2008, leads with the headline:

Can you save the world for £2 a month?

Followed by the précis:

Basically, no. But that doesn't stop some charities from promising that you can. How can they get away with this?

Only to be followed by:

If we've helped you, please help us: give £2 to Intelligent Giving

Thanks for the chuckle IG!

Sorry, that should be Action for the Blind, obviously....

Interestingly, my wife was bemoaning exactly this occurrence this weekend. It was either Greenpeace or Amnesty, I forget, which rang her up and asked to do exactly this: switch from £2 a month to £10 or £15 a month. The way she described the conversation, it sounded like it wasn't a 'nice' conversation...the credit crunch was mentioned (on both sides), and when she said that she may look at it again in 6 months or so to see if she could afford to raise it to £5, the call centre operative said "So you're willing to raise it to £5?" and so on....

I only quote this because it was a) a big jump and b) not a slow build-up of trust and c) the wrong approach. As she said afterwards, "I would have much preferred an e-mail request which would have cost less, made me feel less pressured,and conveyed the same information." No rosy glow there, I'm afraid.

It may be obvious and commonsense, and I agree about the need to ask rather than assume, but the way you are asked has a huge impact: another call like that and I think they'll lose a supporter rather than gain an upgrade. And I had exactly the same when Action for the Blind People tried the same approach with me three times (!), by which time the cost of the calls would have far outweighed any increase I made. I cancelled, and gave to a local charity instead. 

Few charities really imply that your £2 per month will change the World. 

Most charities using this approach actually ask for £3 per month these days. Most have tried asking for more but exhaustive testing keeps bringing them back to this approach being the most cost-effective. (There are ways to effectively ask for more but it's not straightforward). 

And for those that do sloppily imply that £2 per month will change the World, it probably wont work for the reason Mike Muses points out, that most donors are too intelligent to fall for such nonsense. 

Mike is also right that most of these campaigns recruit people at more than the level the campaign asked for. They'll also solicit plenty of one-off cash donors.

In the end, many will up-grade, many will give additional cash donations and some will make enormous legacy gifts. And many will give to the charity for several years. But few charities are going to try up-grading their £2/month donors to £15/month. It's unlikely to work.

Those that chose to continue giving at just £2 per month (often for many years), will be making an enormous contribution. Their gifts, added to those that chose to contribute more, all add up to a very profitable source of income for charities.

Most individual donor programmes of this sort will be generating a return on investment of better than 3 or 4: 1. An ROI which most business people would love! And a source of income which, taken as a whole, is certainly changing the World (or the lives of many people in it).

Intelligent Giving is correct in pointing out that the £2/month approach is dependent upon a proportion of donors up-grading to drive ROIs that would be acceptable to the donating public. But the practitioners of this approach know that many respondents are happy to ultimately give at higher levels. This doesn't devalue to contribution of those that don't... and to imply that those £2/month donors only cover the media costs is manipulative and odd.

This strategy is not nasty. It's obvious, commonsense, fundraising.

Steve Andrews

Director of Charity Services

The Direct Marketing Group 

www.tdmg.co.uk

I've got no problem with them asking for £2 a month.
To start with.

Some will upgrade, some won't. Some will start higher.
I've had several charities in the last couple of years ring me about increasing my payments. One asked for an increase from £2 to £5. For those of us who said yes, its a 150% increase for the charity.
Not everyone can or will. An asthma charity recently asked my wife to increase the payment. She's a student so wasn't keen on increasing regular payments at the moment. Fair enough.

Do many charities have a massive jump in upgrades like you mention Adam?
Never seen it myself, but I only deal with a handful of charities in any one year.

Some people who sign up will perhaps never increase the payment. But hey, a few £2 a month supporters adds up and makes a difference. Some will upgrade over time.
In business I've always, always had a greater response rate from asking rather than just hoping people will buy.
Charities operate in a similar way - you ask, you don't just sit back and hope people increase payments.
Be a bit daft if the charities asked for too low a payment then never asked for an increase wouldn't it?
Even those of us on low income can see £2 a month as affordable.

Martin <>

Now it's possible that people giving £2 a month think that that really is all that it takes to save the world, but maybe they think just that it will help.  Or maybe they think that, well, if we all just gave £2 a month, that would be £120million a month, and that's going to be a bit handy to someone.  Maybe they're smarter than you give them credit for, and they know that their £2 will have costs associated with it, but by helping a charity to cover the costs of a campaign, then they'll be helping to recruit more people who may be able to give more.  Maybe the campaigns are resruiting people at more than £2 a month, because people think 'hey, if £2 does that a tenner does five times as much".  And I don't know the answer to that (we don't run £2 appeals)

I do have to ask, are there a lot of charities that are jumping straight from £2 to £15, or are they more gradually gaining the trust and support of the people that they are recruiting, slowly increasing the amounts given over time at a rate the donor likes, and getting them to support in the long term.  Are they looking at life time values, and finding that people who give a little each month, because it's all they can afford, are then going to say, you know what, I'm gonna leave a chunk of my will to these guys.

 What it really comes down to is the ask, and the follow ups.  What are the charities claiming that the £2 will do, and when and how are they asking people to increase it.  Why not share some examples of poor practive - or good practice if you find that instead.

 Finally, yes, you do also do the same thing, but do you say that £2 will only run my use for a fortnight?  Or do you say

"So please give us £2 so we can keep on with our work."

In fact, you try an even less friendly upgrade.  You don't tell me you want £2 a month, just that you want £2, and  when I click through, I get the option of making a single gift of £100, £50 £20, other.

If £2 doesn't save the world, why do you ask for it?  Is it 'because it works', or if not, then why are you wasting everyone's time and resources by doing it?

You should have a chat to Mark Astarita at the British Red Cross. He's been making exactly this point about the 'management of expectations' for some time from conference stages.

I've never been a fan of the £2 'bait and switch' routine either. But as far as upgrading being 'not very nice' is concerned, well that rather depends on the people involved in the conversation. I've been upgraded plenty of times and it always gives me a rosy glow.

Of course, I'm not a representative sample. But the simple fact is that if you don't ask you (generally) don't get. And the charities that ask me nicely on the phone (step forward Amnesty and Friends of the Earth) get more from me than others who don't.

James

James Briggs www.openfundraising.com
http://whoreallygivesatoss.blogspot.com/