I am here for the 'International South Asian Fundraising Workshop', where two colleagues and I are doing a few sessions training fundraisers from the region.
Yesterday at 0545 I went along with my Pareto Fundraising colleagues to visit 'the Taj' - one of the seven wonders of the world. And it is pretty amazing.
A great break, then back for breakfast and last minute work on our presentations.
After the visit, I presented a pre-conference workshop. The workshop was all about using data to inform strategy, and not to be reliant upon tradition to dictate your fundraising strategy.
My audience of about 35 people were predominantly Indian, with a few from Pakistan and at least one from Nepal. The session was similar to one presented several times in Australia, Canada, Chile, Thailand, Brasil, Argentina and UK - and not surprisingly the same issues came up again.
Although the session is about using data, and using evidence I always give examples to illustrate how anecdote and gut instinct can be so wrong, and I also have a pop at focus groups (in a constructive manner of course!)
The two examples that always get the best reaction are:
One: I get four people to come to the front and hold up the elements of a direct mail appeal - the pack is huge, with about 13 different elements - 4pp letter, seperate response coupon, diary from the field, a photograph, another mini-letter and of course outer and return envelopes. All eight hands are needed to hold up all the bits.
I then ask for feedback; the audience always say they wouldn't donate. They give lots of reasons - too long, not enough time, too expensive, wouldn't read it.
I then show them results - and they are astonished that, in head to head tests, making a big pack does not put people off. In fact, a recent test resulted in a huge pack beat a 'normal pack' (one page letter with tear-off coupon, outer and return envelopes) by over 4.5 times. Grumblings still abound - despite the evidence I know that people in the audience are never going to test such an approach.
(By the way - I should add that making an appeal big is not going to make it work. A rubbish big appeal is still rubbish. Producing a good appeal rather than a rubbish one needs an understanding of what needs to go into a letter to make someone respond, no matter how long.)
Strike one: Indian audience no different from anywhere else I have presented this.
Two: The next example is where I explain that corporate fundraising is crap and a waste of time for most charities, most of the time - despite the fact that some great charities like WWF and Habitat for Humanity do really well from corporates. There is disbelief and lots of "Ah, but it is different in India". (Reminded me of "Ah, but it is different in Hong Kong/New Zealand/Philippines etc).
I didn't have the data to prove this in India, and was asking the audience what they knew when just at the right moment a guy called Anup Tiwari from UNICEF India pipes up "Look at the biggest Indian charities - you will see that they get 85% of their money from individuals - only 5% at most comes from corporates."
Phew. But still more grumbles and arms folded from people, despite the evidence. Why is it that despite logic, reason, evidence and data our prejudices and assumptions take so much knocking down?
Strike Two: India no different from anywhere else - corporate fundraising enjoys a disproportionate standing in the fundraising mix.
Of course, my point in the session was don't take my word for it. Apply your logic and reason, and most importantly - test it. Find out for yourselves.
