Thanks, mikemuses. You have my sympathy. Fundraising sounds like a very hard job - I certainly couldn't do it! I had a job calling (not even cold calling) alumni for donations when I was at university and it's an experience I wouldn't want to repeat. It's a difficult job and a worthy one, and for that you really do have my repect.

I suppose what really irritates me about some of the comments below (and on the blog in general) is the aggressive tone some of the messages take towards IG staff. I don't see why being anonymous on the internet makes people become so rude to one another. At the end of the day, aren't your goals the same - to get people to give more to charity?

You ask:

'How do I get YOU, and people like you to know about the charity and decide to give to the charity, apart from by happening to stumble across you here?'

That's a really hard question, and I just don't know the answer. I did have one quick thought, which is related, albeit tenously. I recently looked into volunteering for a charity. I went onto the do-it.org website and also local volunteering websites. What I found was that a few charities had really got on board with the idea, but I couldn't help feeling that there must be many charities who are missing a great opportunity.

How is this related to your question? Well, I think I would be likely to donate to a charity whose work I have seen at first hand, and which I am involved in. It's something to do with a feeling of community, a shared struggle, a feeling of ownership in the charity's mission and its work. This may be totally inapplicable to your situation, but if I volunteered for your charity and knew what good it was doing, I think I would be much more likely to donate to it.

Agreed, meerkat.

You deserve to know where the money goes, - that's why you gave it in the first place.

Open to criticism, I'll be dazzling honest here.  Sometimes it's very hard to take any more criticism.  Just today I've been criticised for the way we've printed something, the way someone else has planned something, the way that an event I'm running is ‘wasting too much money' and the way the same event is ‘not glamorous enough to get people to go'.  At the end of the day I know the event is the best possible mix of cost efficiency and glamour that I can possibly manage.  It is absolutely impossible to please all of the people all of the time, so we work within our own strict guidelines.

Would I have said this right now if I hadn't just had someone criticising me seconds ago?  Perhaps not, often I'll do the exact thing you suggested, note the comments, consider the comments and smile saying ‘thanks for your help'.

Having said that I also have an inbox of email from companies that were involved in something saying ‘this fundraising lark is much harder than I thought', so I take heart in that.  It's easy to say ‘you're doing a rubbish job', but it's not easy to say ‘perhaps this would work better', or "I'd have preferred...'.

BUT that's what you have done.  You've given me some very clear tips on how to deal with you personally, meerkat.  Ideal.  Nothing I don't tend to do anyway, but still good to hear.  So one more question.

I work for a charity you've possibly heard of and almost certainly don't know what we do, although you might think you do.   (As I've said before, I remain anon on here, as these are my own views,).

Bearing in mind that we;

Don't use face to face fundraisers

Don't advertise on TV, radio or billboards (can't afford that)

Don't have enough supporters

Do send out cold mailings from time to time

And find that most people don't know what we do..

How do I get YOU, and people like you to know about the charity and decide to give to the charity, apart from by happening to stumble across you here?  (which if I were being paid to make spend time here would not be particularly cost effective?)

mikemuses, thanks for your response. You asked: 'How can I get the message of my charity to you in a way to inspire you to give?' Treat me with respect. I don't want to be lied to (and yes, not telling counts as lying). I don't want to be accosted in the street. I want to know that what you're proposing to do with my money will be effective in helping whoever you're trying to help. Be more open to criticism. The feeling I get so often from reading this blog is that you lot can't take negative feedback of any kind. Yes, you work in the charity sector. I'm sure you could be in a much more highly paid job, and you're doing this out of the kindness of your heart, etc etc. But that doesn't give you a moral prerogative to go about your business without criticism. If you want my money, then you should be held to account.

It's a completely screwed up world we live in where the only way people will give money to charities is by somebody else doing something pointless. I agree also that it's a strange world where some of the money you might give pays for that other person's holiday, or even their entry fee to run a marathon. A friend has asked me today to donate money to a prostate cancer charity her partner is supporting by.... growing a moustache. I am happy to support a prostate cancer charity. I am less happy to support proliferation of moustaches in the world. In the same way, I am not happy to pay for someone's sponsored trek, by paying for them to pollute the world by flying to Peru. That said, I gave money for Botham's trek across the Uk, and sponsored two marathon runners earlier this year... *sigh*. Truthfully, I would prefer an email from friends just saying "I'm supporting this charity - would you help?".

Adam said: We've abandoned that idea now, because we couldn't raise sufficient funds to get it off the ground.

Behind this short phrase lies the root of much of the conflict that appears so often on this blog. Double Your Donation was a scheme that IG was hoping to set up that would have apparently raised some millions of pounds for charities, as well as financing much of the work of IG itself (I'm sure Adam will correct me if I'm wrong).

Let's assume (charitably) that the fundraising didn't work because of the methods and approach used, rather than a flaw in the scheme itself. This means that the IG team have taken the decision that it is better to abandon the scheme (and its potential beneficiaries) rather than use other fundraising methods that they consider unethical, but which might have been more productive. Now that's a valid opinion, but it is no more than that.

It is the equally valid, but opposed, opinion that many of us here hold; that the more that can be raised for our beneficiaries, by whatever legal means necessary, the better, as their needs are paramount.

[The argument is like the opposing views on corporate social responsibility; is the company's purpose to maximise its return to shareholders, or to shape society]

So how can these views be reconciled: perhaps by demonstrating that in the long term, the use of some fundraising techniques will diminish the total amount to be raised for all charities. Does evidence to show this exist? Or perhaps a mainstream charity will make a virtue of not using those methods IG dislikes and find a rapturous response from a grateful public.

My view, for what it's worth: people are diverse and respond to different stimuli. IG's rationalist approach will appeal to some, emotive TV ads to others, X-Factor singles/dinner dances/galas to yet more. People will eventually tire of direct mail/f2f/you name it, and as the returns diminish these will be replaced by as yet unthought of methods.

But until there is evidence that certain techniques do more harm than good (and IG has said it can't afford to fund that research), this debate will rage pointlessly on here; sound and fury that will get us nowhere and intimidate passers-by.

So I'm off. Play nicely now...

Part of the reason fundraisers come across as defensive is that they are so often put in the position of having to defend themselves.

Few fundraisers are worried about constructive criticism (about, as Meerkat says, how to 'do your job a bit better'. But more often than not, especially through the media, what they get is just uniformed attack and vitriol (not about doing your job better, but forcing you to justifying why you are doing it in the first place).

It's difficult not to appear as if you are making a case of special pleading in those circumstances and what has tended to happen in the recent past is that, rather than comment and risk further public criticism, fundraisers have said nothing at all - the ImpACT Coalition was born because no fundraisers were prepared to publicly defend their use of face-to-face on a BBC radio programme.

I was a journalist in the fundraising sector for five years so I know how hard it can be to get fundraisers to talk publicly - and openly - about their jobs (I wish I had a tenner for each time a fundraiser told me about some challenging or innovative piece of fundraising they were doing and concluded by saying: "Er, but I wouldn't want to talk about that publicly").

But through the efforts of the ImpACT Coalition and others, they are now more prepared to speak publicly, which I think is substantial progress, even if they can appear defensive (which I think is a symptom of their frustration at having to explain the same things over and over again to the same people).

Most fundraisers I know would love the chance to engage with the public and, yes, journalists about how fundraising works. But unfortunately for them, neither the media nor the general public really gives two hoots about fundraising or the issues that underly fundraising until it fails them, or is perceived to have failed them.

So Meerkat, if you really want to constructively engage with fundraisers about how they could do their jobs a bit (or a lot) better, they WILL listen to you. I am not sure though that this is the best forum in which to do that.

If I were you, I'd ask Mikemuses to buy me lunch.

 We can be prone to defensiveness, and no-one is right all the time.  (perhaps we feel we're being criticised when trying to do our best for something worthwhile we're passionate about).  I personally try very hard to communicate with our donors and potential donors. It's not always easy though.  I can explain why we use the fundraising techniques we use, and I can explain why we don't use some others, and why we hope to use others in the future.

The difficulty I have, and I think that all fundraisers face, is those conversations that go in circles.  People who tell me they dislike fundraising costs, and dislike being asked for a donation, but then say "why don't you do a dinner dance?"  It's disheartening  after then explaining the costs of a dinner dance, and explaining why a smaller donation without the event would be worth more, and help more, to be told, "yes, I see, and it's important to keep costs down...  I'd attend a dinner dance"

Communication needs to be two way, and all too often we don't get that.  So to ensure I'm listening too - what would work for you, as a potential donor?  What can I do to get you, Meerkat to make a donation to my charity?

Which way do you like to give to charity, and how can I get the message of my charity to you in a way to inspire you to give?

Hey thanks for all the responses.

And thanks mike for finding that information - that really does look like an amazing trip. I would definitely have to go with the self funding option though - Otherwise I would constantly have at the back of mind that I was using donations people have made to a charity to pay for my holiday.

I can see why people would object to half the money going to the trip and half going to the charity. If someone asked me to sponsor them the first thing I would think is why not do something in the UK and drastically reduce your admin cost and hence raise more for the cause? Or even don't do the trip at all and give all the money to charity? But I guess people need an incentive to give..

Adam - has intelligent giving ever thought about using facebook or survery websites to find out the public's views on these issues?

Beyond the opinion laden Observer article with a few negative anecdotes thrown in, I'd like to ask once again whether there's any proper, objective evidence for your assertion that charity events damage public confidence in charities Adam? There is, by contrast, plenty of evidence to show that they raise funds for charities and engage new supporters.  

What I can't understand is why IG's wasting it's limited resources on regurgitating stuff that's already being covered by the mainstream media and is based on opinon rather than any intelligent analysis of fact. Isn't that supposed to be what you're all about? 

Don't shoot the messenger

We've abandoned that idea now, because we couldn't raise sufficient funds to get it off the ground.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Or . . . the other option could be that charity fundraisers become less defensive about the way they operate and instead try to become a bit better at communicating with potential donors.

Honestly, the way you come across to a humble outsider is that you're really, really scared of criticism. Surely you can't be right about everything *all* the time? I'm passionate about my profession, but I'm quite prepared to admit that I could do my job a bit better sometimes.

The costs of the minimum sponsorship then are not too far off percentage wise of a dinner fundraising event.
About half of which can go on the food/venue, from my previous experience, of the money expected to be raised.

I have to wonder though - surely getting a few hundred people to sponsor you to do an event spreads the charity name to those few hundred people, some of whom may want to know more perhaps?
And yes, not everyone asked will sponsor people.

There are many ways to raise money. A charity with good planning will try and have multiple income streams.
Some people get offended simply from being asked for money.
From what I recall, the largest number of complaints the FSB were aware of were for telephone fundraising, direct mail and face to face.
All of which are well established forms of fundraising, used for years, that bring in income.
Challenge events are relatively new. Just the sponsored activities we did as kids made large. :)

Charities have to manage public perception of their name. But temper that with the fact they have no chance of pleasing everyone no matter what they do or don't do. In the meantime they do need funds.

Looking at it now, I'd happily spend £1950 to send the wife to Peru. For the experience, the chance to see different environment and animals. And she could get plenty of sponsorship from her Uni and workplaces. Plus her could take pictures for me to look at. :)

Thanks for giving me the link.

Martin

Hi Rich

 Now I didn't find quite what you'er looking for, but let's go for ActionChallenge's Peru trek*? 

*other companies are available

 http://www.actionchallenge.com/participant_searchresult.php?id=131

Their site says:

COST OF CHALLENGE - includes flights, hotels, camping, meals, experienced guide & local support team

Deposit (payable to Action Challenge):  £375
Total event cost (inc.deposit):  £1950
Min. sponsorship option (inc.deposit):  £3800 

FUNDRAISING OPTIONS

Self-funding:
With the self-funding option, participants cover the total event cost themselves and in addition to this raise as much sponsorship as possible for the charity of their choice.... The event cost consists of the deposit, which is required on signing up to secure your place on the challenge and the final balance, which is due ten weeks prior to departure. All monies are payable to Action Challenge.

Minimum sponsorship:
With the minimum sponsorship option, participants pay the event deposit to Action Challenge and then pledge to raise the minimum sponsorship target for the charity of their choice. All fundraising is sent directly to the charity as and when it is received. At least 80% of the minimum sponsorship is required by the charity 10 weeks prior to departure with the remaining 20% being sent to the charity within 4 weeks of completing the challenge. If you have raised the required sponsorship, the charity will pay for the remaining balance of your place on the challenge and then benefit from all the sponsorship raised above and beyond the event.

So if you do the minimum sponsorship one, you have to raise the £3800 (at least), and £1950 goes to the company, £1850 to the charity (plus Gift Aid, depending on how you raise it)

Or you could do the other option where you pay for the £1950 yourself and raise as much as you can for the charity. (I'd recommend setting a target at least about the same, personally)

Rich, be careful of taking Adams advice, he has a habit of confuing his ar*e with his elbow.

If a charity asks you to raise £3000 to go on a trip, it will cost them in the region of £1,800 - £2,000 to send you on that trip. Thus, if you raise the minimum £3,000 then about a grand will go to the cause. If you raise more then great, that will all go to the cause.

Adam, you have this perception that charities don't think about the risk their fundraising has to the wider sector.

I personally think that your often badly researched blogs, filled with half truths are potentially damaging to the sector. Please could you tell me how IG has considered the damage you may be causing to the sector and the steps you have taken to lessen this risk.

Meerkat, apologies if you feel I have been arrogant and offensive. It is actually passion for our profession. A profession that is often put down by people who have little or no experience or knowledge about the practicalities of planning and executing successful fundraising.

The reality is that challenge events raise money, enthuse and educate people about causes and give a personal sense of achievement to those that participate. If you don't like that then please choose to support a charity of your choice in a way that you see fit. Has the article made you stop supporting all charities in every possible way?

catman

Adam said: We intend to fundraise as we always have done - by explaining our work to donors, and trying to persuade them to give to us.

What about the commercial investment you are seeking towards Double Your Donation?

Rich: Depending on which charity you chose, the answer may well by Yes.

In other words, if you quite fancy a free holiday, this is a good way of getting one. However, any charity running this scheme would also require a minimum donation before you could go on the trip.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

I was just hoping that someone more experienced than me in fundraising could confirm that I have this right.

I've always wanted to go trekking through the Amazon rainforest. Lets for the sake of argument say it costs around £3000 to do this. Am I right in thinking that if I choose a charity (lets say a cancer research charity) and say that I am doing it to raise money for them, and go round asking for sponsorship from all my friends and family, then the first £3000 that I raise would pay for my trip and anything extra on top of that would go to cancer research?

Sorry if this is a really obvious question. I just need confirmation..

I've read the posts, Meerkat, and most seem to me to be objecting specifically to the Royals' trip, rather than this form of fundraising.

The key, I suppose is that donors should know where the funds are going.

I do encounter people regularly who are against this form of fundraising, but many are also against many other forms of fundraising, and I have to wonder if they truly believe that charities could do their work on only what people choose to give them without ever being asked, or getting something in return.

Are the vocal protesters a good cross section or are they the noisy few (and compare with fundraisers on this site).

If I told you that a £25 charity dinner dance ticket probably returned less than £10 per ticket to the charity after costs, would you attend?  Would you want them stopped? What if I told you that it works because the people going will find other ways to donate on the night (raffles / auctions / whatever), so that the charity's income per person came out nearer £100?  Or should we just run the raffle / auction / whatever?  If so, where do we find the audience for it?

My own belief is that as long as you know in advance, where the funds are going, it's fine. - You can choose then and there, it's discovering AFTER that causes problems.  If I thought that all my sponsorship of your challenge went to the charity, but I later found that it was only half, I'd likely be annoyed, but if I knew in advance, I'd likely be fine.  IS this the real issue??

Adam, so the charities paying to enter the London marathon (and associated costs) have managed their risks well, but those going to the next stage of challenges have not?  If Catherine Bennett decides to run a similar article saying that she's unhappy so much of the money she sponsored her friend to run the marathon went to cover the costs, would the charities involved suddenly have been managing risks badly?

Your point "My argument is that it's up to charities to consider the risks when they undertake controversial fundraising campaigns. They should design their campaigns to minimize these risks"

What makes a fundraising campaign controversial?  http://www.charityfacts.org/fundraising/fundraising_case_studies/mailings_1.html

Or this one? http://www.enable.org.uk/news.php?sid=65&ssid=0&id=52

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ouch/2007/01/an_ad_campaign_too_far.html

Or this one?   http://archive.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/2001/07/30/56793.html

Are challenges controversial only because they haven't been around as long as dinner dances?  Are these charities really behaving controversially, or is it only because someone has decided to write about this part that it's controversial.  After all, anything can be scandalised.

In which case, should all charities employ external PR companies for damage limitation/ risk management?

Ginsters: This isn't about my personal prejudices. It's about charities being condemned in a high-circulation newspaper because of their own misjudged actions. In that sense, whether I approve or not of challenge events is beside the point. Rather, the point is that these charities have damaged themselves by running these events - apparently without any regard for the risks.

Mikemuses: Again, I'd make a similar point, and say that your questions are of tenuous relevance to this debate (although many of the points you make are, I think, extremely interesting). My argument is that it's up to charities to consider the risks when they undertake controversial fundraising campaigns. They should design their campaigns to minimize these risks - such as that which is posed by being bad-mouthed in the Observer. Clearly, Scope and the Donkey Sanctuary did not manage their risks well. So my problem is not really with these events - even though I do happen to think that they're potentially unethical in themselves. In this blog post, what I wanted to do was show that charities at least should consider the implications of behaving so controversially. Which they haven't done - or at least, which they haven't done particularly well.

Martin: We intend to fundraise as we always have done - by explaining our work to donors, and trying to persuade them to give to us. However, if anyone wanted to do the Inca Trail and raise sponsorship for so doing, we would of course be happy to accept their cash. So long - of course - as they paid for the holiday out of their own pockets!

Meerkat: Precisely.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Funny really, if so many people were against this form of fundraising, you'd expect them not to support the person doing the 'holiday'.
Yet experience shows that if the target is a minimum of £2,000 sponsorship to go, quite a bit more than that is raised by the person going.
I can't recall the last time I even heard of someone just raising the minimum.

Every single method of raising funds I know of can impact people's view of a charity negatively.
Including the fact they are even asking for money. I mean, why can they not provide the service for free, eh?
Yet BT, Eon, Staples etc all want their money from charities.

Come to think of it, if charities listened just to negative comments by people against a certain thing then charities wouldn't exist.
How many charities over the centuries have been dealing with what was at some time an unpopular cause? Or even still an unpopular cause now?

If people don't like charities paying for a type of event, they don't have to support it. Plenty of others will - and do.

Martin

Unlike (it seems) the rest of the people commenting on this piece, I do not work in the charity sector. I was shocked by Catherine Bennett's article, and will certainly think twice in future about donating to these kinds of fundraising events.

I was also shocked to read all the dismissive comments being posted here by fundraisers who will not countenance the idea that this way of raising money might damage donors' trust in charity. You come across as arrogant and defensive.

Look at the comments people have posted about Bennett's article on the newspaper's own website and you'll see that this kind of fundraising does have a negative impact on 'ordinary people's' trust in charities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2008/oct/26/adventure-charitablegiving

I used to love running. Took part in a few events, including raising money. Never got as far as a marathon.
Running was fun - and events for charity were little different than challenge events (did a couple in this country a couple of decades ago).

Its doing something I like, cheap or for free, including raising money for a cause I like.
No different really from doing an event - dinner, skydiving, concert or whatever where money raised goes to charity.

So come on Adam, what methods of fundraising does IG do or plan to do? And can you assure us that they will not in any way make IG look bad to anyone?
Looking pretty bad to me at the moment - the organisation that is.

Martin

But Adam, this is all about your personal dislike of a particular fundraising technique backed up by the musings of a fellow journalist. It's a theory shaped by a certain dogmatic view of how charities should behave (non-commercially). I can't prove that charity events have a positive effect on public perception of the sector any more than you can prove that they damage it; but one things for sure, a couple of quotes in an Observer article don't settle the argument one way or the other.

I understood that IG would challenge people's thinking and examine charities work from interesting new perspectives. This is the subject matter of the mainstream media and they're more than capable of covering the isn't-it-bad-that-charities-behave-like-businesses type stories. Go on, do the brave investigative stuff that isn't being dealt with by anyone else.  

Don't shoot the messenger

Adam, the first step, would be for you to contact the London marathon team find out how much it would be for you to get some places in the race next year for IG, and then work out how much you'd ask people to fundraise to run for you.

Not realistic, as I'd expect that 1. you won't get a place, 2. if you could, you'd have to pay for a ‘package' and 3. it's probably not the best way for IG to fundraise.  But for purely research reasons, do find out and let us know, so that we can all objectively compare.  Then consider all the other costs and time for the charity involved. 

Do the same for the New York marathon while you're there.  You might be surprised.  Then again, *I* might be surprised. 

"It just looks bad when they're paying for people to go off on a jolly holiday".  Well, if I'm a runner, then a marathon is going to be a good time.  If I'm a cycling fanatic, then a two day sponsored cycle will be a jolly holiday, whether it's here or abroad.  And some of the challenges are, well, CHALLENGING.  Perhaps it's up to the charities and the participants to do a better job of stressing the effort/endurance/challenge/hard bloody work involved.  Where does it cross the line from acceptably hard work, to ‘jolly holiday'?

Waaay back when, at school two people asked me to sponsor them for a sponsored silence. Now one got a lot more from me than the other - why?  You guessed it, I doubted they could shut up for more than ten minutes, and it was a tribulation for them, the other didn't say much anyway - easy.  For me to get to Everest base camp - big challenge, complete a marathon, meh, I'd make it by the time they'd re-opened the roads.

The simple thing, really, is for people to ask the question.  Perhaps it's because of my background that it's always seemed obvious to me.  Perhaps it's because many people I know will pay for the trip themselves (are these ethically sound for IG?), or perhaps it's just my natural questioning nature that means I have always known this.  Is it only the people posting here who know how it works??  You say "it's a safe bet that most ordinary people will be shocked to hear that this is how ‘challenge' events work."  Is it?  Shall we put a donation to each other's favourite charities on it - but how will we find enough ‘ordinary people'?

Finally, to the last point.  I was taking catman's point to the next stage.  At various times even the best fundraisers will offend people, upset people and annoy people.  Hell, I (we) did it yesterday.  Something that we are running across the country has riled one individual 200 miles away from me.  The problem is that if charities only worry about what might upset /offend/ irritate or peeve anyone anywhere then they won't be able to do anything. 

Yesterday's riled individual is today's contented supporter, that's my job, but there will always be people who dislike things that charities do.  Ethically, as long as the long term income will be better from doing something than from not (and let's be honest, if something upsets a huge amount of people then we're looking at a long term reduction in income), then ethically, we MUST do it.

Part of the art of fundraising comes in working out on which side of the line things stand.  (it's not a science)

You say that "Many charities raise funds in an entirely un-objectionable way."  Define un-objectionable.  You raise income through ads on your site, google ads that often promote the very things that you criticise, I could object to that as being ethically wrong.

I've been criticised for mentioning my work in a social setting - the implied objection being that I was ‘fishing' for donations, in fact I was merely answering the question ‘what do you do?'  Some people will object to the unobjectionable - do we expect charities to pre-empt this by simply sitting out of the way and hoping people stumble across the work they're doing and decide to give some money?  If not, where does the acceptable level of cost and objection lie?

Ginsters: I know, this hasn't got terribly much to do with transparency. But it has got a lot to do with public trust and confidence in charities - which is something we try to encourage, where it's due. And my point is that this sort of challenge event undermines that trust. Just go look at the comments on Bennett's original article if you want an illustration of this.

Catman: I take your point. Fundraising is hard. Charities can't please everyone, all of the time. And I know the Commission's wording of the "dubious fundraising" question is itself perhaps dubious. But this doesn't affect my main point - namely, that charities should at least show an awareness that running these events can be damaging, and take steps to prevent such damage being done. And at present that doesn't happen nearly as much as it should.

Mikemuses: OK, you've got a point. Marathon places do cost money. But - and I admit I'm not an expert here - I'd guess that those places cost considerably less than (for example) a trip to Peru to hike the Inca trail. Also, charities should bear in mind that it just looks bad when they're paying for people to go off on a jolly holiday, whereas running a marathon is less obviously about having a nice time.

Finally, Mikemuses, I'd say this: It's bogus to claim that there's a toss-up between dubious fundraising techniques and a charity's survival. Many charities raise funds in an entirely un-objectionable way. Some, for instance, refuse to ask for "£2 a month", because they think it's unethical. So why don't others follow this lead? 

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Much though I hate the use of jargon, I couldn't really resist using that particular hateful phrase as a subject header because it seems to sum up the content of recent IG postings.

What has any of this got to do with transparency? As far as I'm aware charities are completely up front about how they raise their money via challenge events. If you don't like it then don't take part or donate, it really is that simple. You may think that a fundraising model which gives an event participant 'something for nothing' erodes public trust and confidence in the long term. But where's the evidence?

'Charity bosses' (usually Fundraising Directors) are charged with making decisions about how to generate the income required to safeguard the organisation's future. If they mess up then hold them accountable, but why on earth question their judgement based on personal preferences or prejudices.  

Don't shoot the messenger

Adam,

Your arguments seem to unravel as you type. Why is running a marathon (often abroad...you know...where people go on h o l i d a y) any different from cycling to Paris or treking across Peru? Who made you the arbiter of challenges?

Back to your point. Sometimes charities do things that may damage their brand and in turn the brand of all charities in the eyes of public. Well, thats called life. I often do things that may damage me, like crossing the road or drinking beer.

But the difficulty lies in the fact that charities need to fundraise. Without fundraising the public would lose a whole heap of services that they aren't willing to pay extra taxes for. So charities need to fundraise.

If a charity is fit in its purpose as agreed by our old friends at the commission then they shouldn't be ashamed to fundraise, it is a fact of their existence. Where do you draw the line of "acceptable" fundraising? Go to the Institute of Fundraising's site and look at the their codes of practise.

But this doesn't get round the fact that 450,000 Observer readers may have read that article. From an observers (not the paper) view point I think that many of those readers will know friends or family who have been on a charity challenge, raised loads of money, had an amazing, challenging time and speak highly of the charity. I know who I would listen to.

And finally, you know as well as I do (as we were both there) that at the Charity Commission conference (that I got you an invite to), the commission, the panelist and the attendee agreed that the "dubious fundraising" question was written in a way that prompted the response that you hold as a concern and result answer was given no weight. But you deign to tell the IG audience that fact cos it doesn't back up your argument.

Are you fit for purpose Adam?

catman

Marathon runners?

Are you trying to tell me that EVERY marathon runner pays for their place in the race?  Or does a proportion of the money they raised go to pay for it?  Do the charities offer a free place in exchange for the money the runner will raise - and if so (I'll let you decide) - how is it any different?  The charities usually pay dearly for the place, and, much like a challenge event cost, cover it by taking it from the sponsorship.  In effect, the runners cream off a hefty portion of the sponsorship and spend it on giving themselves an experience they otherwise wouldn't get.

Finally, I'll add to catman's quote, by moving it to the next logical step;  "Well done Mr Fundraiser, you've raised bugger all money but we haven't had any complaints and the public still trust us!  Shame we have to shut down, really."

Oh Catman, how you misunderstand me! Bennett indeed does not mention brand-damage in her article. But I think it's a safe bet to say these charities' brands will be damaged by the coverage she gave to them.

More importantly, however, I take your point that very little research has been done into how fundraisers' approaches affect trust. The reason for that, though is simple: almost nobody is willing to fund it. Certainly, we can't afford it.

That's a big shame. However, when the Charity Commission recently surveyed public attitudes towards charities, it found that the majority of people believed that charities were using "more dubious" fundraising methods over the past few years. And that's an interesting - though I admit inconclusive - finding.

Ultimately, though, all I'd like to see is for charities to at least realize that these reputational risks exist and can be extremely damaging if they're not managed appropriately. Because at the moment,  charities show little awareness that challenge events (for example) could harm their brands. And that's a governance issue more than anything else.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Anon: I'm afraid you've missed my point. I don't deny that challenge events raise lots of cash for charities, and I even agree that lots of them make a lot of people very happy. But there's a real threat that this good work can be undone by charities' self-destructive behaviour. If all charities do is focus on the good side of challenge events, then they become blind to the fact that using donations to pay for activity holidays is not going to go down well with a lot of people. That's where the real damage lies.

Finally, you ask whether I know many people who raise £4.5k a year in their spare time. Well, yes I do. They're called marathon runners. Except marathon-runners don't cream off a hefty portion of that sponsorship and spend it on giving themselves a nice holiday. 

Adam, Intelligent Giving