tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-941230432085823637.post1319301590927659186..comments2023-05-14T02:02:31.138+10:00Comments on Sean Triner's blog: Please, more consultants speaking at conferences!'Sean is always learning'http://www.blogger.com/profile/09913608962533588338noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-941230432085823637.post-82609569818602062682010-08-08T06:09:42.020+10:002010-08-08T06:09:42.020+10:00In reference to John B's remarks, I recommend ...In reference to John B's remarks, I recommend my forthcoming book, "Nonprofit Consulting Essentials: What Nonprofits and Consultants Need to Know" (Jossey-Bass September 2010), in which I devote considerable attention to ethics and standards for consultants to nonprofits.Penelope Cagneyhttp://www.amazon.com/Nonprofit-Consulting-Essentials-Nonprofits-Consultants/dp/0470442409/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276884543&sr=8-1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-941230432085823637.post-17866729479127746942010-08-08T06:06:05.246+10:002010-08-08T06:06:05.246+10:00Hi Sean
I agree!
Consultants often invest a grea...Hi Sean<br /><br />I agree!<br /><br />Consultants often invest a great deal into presentations because it is the core of what they do...they are expected to provide thought leadership. Because of this, the quality of the material is often very high.<br /><br />I often involve my nonprofit clients or other leaders in my presentations to provide different perspectives and in general, make them more interesting.Penelope Cagneyhttp://www.thecagneycompany.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-941230432085823637.post-38909462528508695152010-06-29T11:19:23.943+10:002010-06-29T11:19:23.943+10:00Hi Sean
I agree completely. The argument is futil...Hi Sean<br /><br />I agree completely. The argument is futile and conferences should pack their agenda with those speakers whom deliver the most useful and insightful material t the audience. That being said, charities and consultants do have different perspectives and experiences, so a good agenda should have a good balance. <br /><br />You are right to touch on the concerns related to vested interest and I’m glad you have started the discussion. I do think, however, that we need to go a bit further. During my time, I’ve attended many a conference, read many a paper or blog and listened to many a pitch (solicited and unsolicited). As a small selection these are some of the things I’ve heard or read: <br /><br />• A senior staff member of a phone room tell an audience not to upgrade Regular Givers by mail (the same company has data that refutes this which the audience was not told)<br />• A Major Donor consultancy, who specialises in assisting charities build one on one personal relationships (nothing wrong with that) release a report claiming that major donors do not like direct mail, based on a tiny sample size. <br />• A myriad of new media/social media/web 2.0 companies claim that direct mail is dead. <br />• An Australian ABL consultancy told me they had just invented the term ‘chugger’ and that F2F was dead in the water. <br /><br />And the list goes on. In many cases we could write this off as opinion and it is my job as a fundraiser to evaluate opinion. That is true, but in also in almost all of these cases data was available to the consultancy that would clarify their claim as incorrect. Charities implementing this advice would suffer decreased income and a reduced ability to fulfil their mission. It would appear most of these claims are either a deliberate attempt to mislead in the hope of gaining work or are displaying inadequate knowledge of the product they are selling. Not quite sure which is worse. <br /><br />As long as consultancies are displaying this type of behaviour, charities (clients) will gravitate to those whom they believe they can trust. That is other charities. That is the basis of why charities prefer conferences with more charity content. There is no inherent conflict of interest in a charity presentation. That doesn’t mean the charity presenter is any good, they could be rubbish, but you do know that you aren’t having distorted information shoved down your throat<br /><br /><br />This is not universal of course and there is real currency in being a known a conference speaker from a consultancy who knows their stuff and can back it up. The joy of listening to these speakers is refreshing, the frustration in listening to a thinly veiled sales pitch that denigrates other forms of fundraising is palatable. Particularly when your charity has paid a fair quid for you to be there. <br /><br />Currently the solution for charities to this behaviour is twofold: <br /><br />• Question those claims when they are made<br />• Not engage those consultancies who engage in this type of behaviour. <br /><br />This means essentially that charities are the ones regulating the behaviour of consultancies through the marketplace. Nothing wrong with that and it should continue. Consultancies who mislead or do not know their stuff do not deserve work. <br /><br />It is, however, not enough as the practice continues. Fundraising industry associations (AFP, IoF, FIA etc) maintain codes of conduct for a variety of fundraising work. Perhaps it is time to consider a code of conduct for the manner in which consultancies engage with the fundraising community. Charities are not permitted, and rightly so, to deceive their donors through either misleading information or sheer ignorance. Perhaps it is time consultancies were held to the same standard. <br /><br />Then the debate would disappear.John Bnoreply@blogger.com