How do you envisage trustees holding fundraisers back? With all the usual caveats about my experience being of just one specific part of the charity sector I really doubt that this is true. I would have thought it was much more of a problem that fundraisers train other fundraisers and "received wisdom" may be preventing both trustees and fundraisers from doing anything different.

I think there IS a problem with some fundraising materials being too "polished" and including stuff that may make some donors feel cheated (for example quotations supposedly from people in the field, but actually written by the fundraising team). Most trustees would be hesitant about challenging that, because they know they're supposed to accept professional advice.

SimonK makes a good point, and I'm not happy with the fact that an advert for Brooke sometimes appears on this site either. But there is, unfortunately, nothing we can do about it. Our ads are, as Simon guesses, cooked up  by Google - and we have no input at all when it comes to deciding which ads get displayed.

Quite how Google chooses which ads to place on what pages is a mystery. And it's not just on this site where inappropriate ads can appear. For instance, have a look at this rather gruesome example from CNN. 

We can't afford to remove ads from this site. They earn us money, which we really do need. So apologies for the inappropriate content - but I hope our readers will understand that such ads don't affect our independence. 

Adam, Intelligent Giving

But another comment about your own fundraising. When I come to this site I'm often confronted by a large advert (presumably served up by Google) asking me to donate to the Brooke Hospial for Animals. There's a couple of things to say about this. Firstly, it's possibly unique in the charity world for the web site of one charity to host large banner ads asking us to donate to another, though I suppose that's what you're all about in many ways. But more importantly, I think it creates the perception (and I'm sure that's all it is) of a distinct conflict of interest. It feels all wrong - you say in your profile that they're sitting on an unexplained large pool of reserves, and then we get adverts asking us to give them more!

to predict what I would think, you keep trotting out the same old tosh week after week.

If you would like some advice about online fundraising then there are plenty of good examples out there and a seminar coming up on the 16th by another of big agency. I don't want to be seen to be promoting an agency after bitching about others so give me a shout at the awards.

Your donor communication strategy sounds a bit weak. Don't forget, the number one reason why people give is because they are asked.

I didn't go to the seminar but two of my colleagues did. They (as fundraisers) weren't inpressed by the quality of the presentations, but were amazed at the free bar and the take up by those attending. I'm surprised you haven't given us a blow by blow account of the wine list. I suppose I am not surprised that you were convinced - you aren't a fundraiser and have no practical experience to draw on.

As to the perceived insult, I suppose that many nasty things have been said about journalists before so it is time you got your own back.

catman

me to do? Agree with your drivel when I clearly don't?

It's always a pleasure to hear from you, Catman. As it happens, when writing this blog I tried to predict what your reaction would be - and, in what I modestly regard as a triumph of my psychic ability - I was spot-on.

I'll deal with your points:

1. I'm sorry you don't like our fundraising page. However, I agree that it's neither particularly inspiring nor particularly effective. We're going to re-write it within the next few days, after taking into account feedback from some of our existing donors. If you've got any advice, please let me know. After all, I'm not a professional fundraiser, and would appreciate any input you might have.
2. We do indeed have a donor-communication strategy. It involves me saying 'thank you', and encouraging all those who support us to engage in how this site works. It also encompasses our annual report, which we spend a lot of time writing.
3. I think your analysis of the Bluefrog research is rather one-dimensional. The presentation made clear that donors' stated reasons for cancelling direct-debits are not necessarily the same as their real reasons. Bluefrog investigated this through focus-groups and telephone interviews. I can't say definitively how accurate their results are, but I was convinced by their argument.
4. I understand that Bluefrog is trying to flog its (doubtless expensive) services when it makes these presentations. But I don't think that makes its conclusions invalid.
5. The 'stupid or negligent' comment wasn't meant as an insult. I am sure - just as in any other profession - that some fundraisers aren't up to the job. But I of course do not think that fundraisers are particularly bad at their jobs.

Finally, I think Marin makes another good point. Trustees were (I think) not in evidence in the presentation's audience. And I think that is a big shame.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Don't believe the hype!

It seems to be the season for agencies to be launching their "groundbreaking" research which you seem to interpret as the truth (oh Adam, your naivity would be humourous if you weren't so "influential").

I have been answering calls from supporters and their families for years who wish to cancel a direct debit or block any future mailings and it happens for a number of reasons, from the outright lies "sorry, I forgot I was moving to Australia next week" to the heartbreaking "sorry, my daughter passed away last week" but rarely do they say, "you ain't treating me right". 

Of course some donors will stop giving because they receive too many mailings or don't like the content of mailings, but that doesn't mean that "transparency" is the salve to soothe the fundraising boil Bluefrog are banging on about. No that boil can be lanced by inviting them into your charity and spending some money on their new product.

When tailoring direct marketing appeals, you have to accept that you can't give everyone exactly what they want in terms of copy or case studies as the additional cost is unlikely to justify the return. Yes Adam, us stupid fundraisers have to worry about little things like raising enough money to ensure the charity can reach its goals and to do that we have to make decisions about what is the best use of resources.

Adam, I would really really like to see some examples of fundraising you have seen or done that is transparent and successful because quite frankly, your donate page is crap. I can only donate to IG (not that I would) if I am willing to sign up to paypal, otherwise I can forget it. And your copy is so inspirational. How many gifts do you get per months? What is the average donation size? Do you have a donor communication plan? (what are you going to send and when for those hung up on jargon).

"Are fundraisers stupid or negligent or both?" - "possibly neither", so you are stating that some of us are either stupid, negligent or both. Is this the best way to get the fundraising community on board to your plan to save the word?

Looking forward to seeing you at the IoF awards (I am assuming you have blagged an invite).

catman

Fundraisers can talk, shout, wave arms around and rant for ages about communication and transparency.
But they don't decide policy for a charity.

They may have input but no-one forces trustees to listen.

And if trustees get policy right, no fundraiser is going to stop the charity communicating and being transparent.

Just out of interest Adam, how many people at the presentation would be trustees rather than fundraisers?
With a title like that, and what you've described about the subject matter, I'd expect it to be mostly fundraisers who are interested.

Martin