I take both jtlross's and Martin's points - but I think the issue facing charities here is different to that which faces companies; and though tokenism is obviously a Bad Thing, I think the diversity issue still deserves serious attention.

First, I think that charities have a special duty to represent the people they're trying to help.  Businesses only care about how much money they make, which means that - on this essential level - diversity is not inherently important. However, charities claim to speak on others' behalf, and I think there's a problem when the people doing the speaking are white and male. Clearly, being black or Asian doesn't automatically mean that charities gain greater legitimacy, but it can't hurt.

Second, I again emphasize that tokenism isn't a good thing either. I don't pretend to have the 'solution' to this issue. But I do think it's worth pointing out - and discussing. It's more than a point of idle interest. 

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Is some-one who does fun-runs for charity a 'chogger'?

People regularly point out that the top executives of most FTSE 100 companies are white men.  They are right to do so, because it reminds us of the sorts of people and work that our society is good at recognising and rewarding.  They shouldn't be culled, and replaced by a set of suitably diverse drones; but we should be aware of the sorts of people who are getting ahead and noticed.  And if it turns out that those making the biggest impact aren't representative of the wider country, then we should be slightly paranoid, and ask ourselves what exactly it is that these incredible white men are doing so differently from the others in the industry.  Calling it a 'disgrace' is a bit too derogatory for the people who've worked hard for recognition, but I think Adam's right to flag it up as an issue. 

Ok, so the top 10 are white. So what?
Now if people were made into the top 10 just because of their sex or the colour of their skin, I'd be annoyed.

Making it based on votes cast by people, or a panel deciding based on known contributions or whatever - I'm fine with.

There is such a thing as being realistic rather than politically correct.
Leave it up to the politically correct crowd and we'd end up with a top 10 thats based on sex and skin colour and isn't really a top 10 at all, just a selection to match prejudice.

I'm just waiting for the day we have a multicoloured transexual whose religion is maptocostal angloholicism as prime minister. :)

Martin

Spoken like a true direct marketeer mike, my mother has probably read some of your copy!

As for the top ten most influencial, thats just the world over - white middle class men. But I have seen them presenting at conferences or smiling at receptions (not Gordon B) and while a few set of my bullsh*t detector, they are all committed to and believe in the not for profit sector (not necessarily Gordon B). I am interested in seeing what Paul Amadi (17) can bring to the IoF. I'd put a fiver on him to be in the tope ten next year.

Adam, don't sound so down hearted about your article, some bits were indeed passable. I am glad to hear that you are considering dropping the c word,

Catman

And to be fair, points one and two are important - although who could we have on our top 10 list that isn't a white man?  Any suggestions?  Sadly, while you've made it onto the list at 49 (and a picture too!), I'm not sure you have more influence on my day to day fundraising than my own mother. (strangely absent from the list) - the person much of my fundraising writing is directed at.

For the Burmese cyclone - are the causes we have here the main ones preventing donations, or is there something else?  Perhaps our new consultant poster has a view here?  Would some face to face fundraisers (no, that's a second 'c word' I won't be using on this board) bring in some much needed funds?  What if they were volunteers - would that make us happy?

Like you, mikemuses, I feel we're going round in circles here. I don't want to get hung up on charities' staff costs; and I don't begrudge fundraisers the odd celebration. I'm sure many of them deserve it, and this particular event was very enjoyable from my perspective too.

Rather than harp on about all of this, it was my intention in the original post to make some other, newer points. Clearly I failed. But I think the fact that the Top Ten Influential people are all white men is shocking. And I think the situation facing fundraisers for the Burmese cyclone is genuinely nightmarish: they want to help, but often they can't - through no fault of their own.

On a lighter note - and this is primarily to Catman - please tell your mother that I don't mean to hurt her feelings. I'll vote for her in the Most Influential poll next year, if it would make you happy. I'll have a think about using 'chugger' too. Maybe 'street fundraiser' is clearer, after all...

Adam, Intelligent Giving

I knew you'd take it back the next step, and we’re back to the same things a year later.  So let's take the first advertiser I can remember from PF. Angal, provide collection boxes etc, now are we saying that charities shouldn’t buy collection boxes at all?  Sure the advertisers expect charities to spend with them, but for many things they need to spend the money anyway ,it’s investing in the tools they need to do part of their work.  Charities tend to be very conscious of the fact they rely on the money that people give them to do their work.  Donors and charities want the charity to make the most difference possible, but where do we draw lines?It's donor money, so do we think that staff would be as dedicated or do as much (unpaid) overtime if we pay them £17k a year instead of £17.5?  It’s donor money, do we need to buy the more expensive equipment that does the job better, or the cheaper one that does the job about adequately?  It’s donor money, we won’t hire a fundraiser, we’ll rely on volunteers and ‘hope’.  Hope the money comes in.Finally, as I opened with, we’re back to the same thing as a year ago.  So, same arguments, one year on, do I feel that IG are doing well?  Am I likely to donate to them this year – have they carried out many achievements and used their funds well over the past year?  Well, I see they’ve been spending their money at flashy award ceremonies again…. ;)

Adam,

I'm so glad you had got charitable status. You had already claimed the moral high ground over the not for profit sector, but now as a charity, who knows the bounds of your power. Number 49! Congratulations, you are now officially more influencial than my mother!

And the word chugger is insulting. It gives the likes of David Abse the justiification for his ill-informed rant. I wonder what kind of disclosure he is making for his consultancy? Strange he didn't inform the debate then of his thoughts, but pipes up when you mention chugging. Light hearted? You need to temper your "sense of humour" with your new found influence.

I thought the evening was great, but then I would, wouldn't I?

catman

Mikemuses, I genuinely don't want to seem the perpetual killjoy; but I do think it's important that everyone who works in the sector (including me) realizes that the only reason anything happens in the fundraising world is because of the generosity of the general public.

I reiterate: PF - which I agree is often an excellent read - only survives because charities, people who work for charities, and companies which flog stuff to charities, pay for it - either through subscriptions or paying for ad space. This whole show is kept on the road only by the public's donations.

You point out that a large chunk of the running cost for these events is also contributed by private-sector sponsors. But these companies don't sponsor events out of the goodness of their hearts. They only offer sponsorship because they think that doing so will make them money in the long term. And who will they make money from? Charities. And who gives charities the money to spend? The general public.

Now, this doesn't mean that I want to ban charities from holding networking events or awards ceremonies. But I do think all fundraisers, and sector workers more generally, need to bear in mind who pays their wages - even when they're having a good time.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Thank you Becky, and well said.  PF also stay in business by selling their (generally excelent) magazine, and the advertising within - much of which comes from suppliers to the sector.  As someone who buys the magazine, and does so with my own money, I think that suggesting that PF only have money by taking it from charities is another low blow, and does little to enhance your rep guys.  Some of it may be donors money, some of it is individuals money, and some of it is companies money.

 Becky Slack, for those who don't know, is editor of PF Magazine. To Becky: hello!

I'm sorry for giving you the impression that I didn't enjoy the evening - I did!

First, I must say that I've always been clear about who hosts the PF Awards: Plaza Publishing. However, Plaza Publishing stays in business by selling products (which are, of course enormously useful) to charities. And charities pay for those products with donors' money. As a result, it's donors' money funnelled through Plaza which ultimately pays for the awards.

Second, I must apologize for criticizing the champagne. It was still very good: but last year's really was superb. Piper-H is one of my favourite marques, so I was rather pleased to see it in 2007. But Nicolas F is very good stuff too.

Third, I entirely agree with you about how the award-winners deserve to be congratulated. I take my hat off to all of them, especially Michael Naidu, Maxine Blunden, and Michael Norton. All of them achieved what are, quite frankly, astonishing results. However, I think PF does a pretty good job of promoting the awards on its website - and I wanted to make some slightly different points on this blog.

Finally, I should say that I thought it was an excellent night. Everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves, and I certainly did. Being told off by Ian MacQuillin is always something I look forward to: he does it so entertainingly.  

Adam, Intelligent Giving

In response to your comment regarding the champagne you were happily drinking last night, I'd just like to say that it was paid for by Plaza Publishing - not by charities as you suggest in your article.

The Professional Fundraising Awards are hosted by Plaza Publishing which produces Professional Fundraising magazine - not by the Institute of Fundraising as you claim. And contrary to what you suggest, the Professional Fundraising Awards are free! 

Last night we threw a party for around 200 people to celebrate the achievements of fundraisers around the sector. And it was a great night! The fundraisers and organisations we recognised have achieved really fantastic results, results that should be shared and celebrated with their peers.

Using their powers of persuasion, creative ingenuity and strategic skills, these fundraisers have achieved results that reach much further than the bottom line. The impact of their work has resulted in their brands becoming much better known and respected, it has enabled them to build stronger relationships with supporters, while at the same time get new audiences excited about what they are doing. Their work also demonstrates that creativity is still alive and kicking in a sector that is so often criticised for a lack of innovation.

Which, I would say, is rather more important than the brand of champagne of you were drinking so why aren't you writing about this instead? 

It is an insult - and so it should be. It is the most disgraceful way of collecting money that there is. I worked (for a charity) in Upper Street for seven years, and got chugged every day - by underpaid students who know nothing nor care nothing, nor care how little of the funds they are raising actually get back to the charities. Charities should stop this practice now, or perhaps local authorities should stop giving licenses out to people to harass ordinary people in the street. I am so amused by someone who calls themselves "A fundraising PR" telling you to get a proper job. "Fundraising PR"?? What sort of job is that?