Face to face bashing is not unique to Australia

Karen Ward who works for the New Zealand PFRA (which tries to make sure face to face in NZ is coordinated and has code of conduct etc) sent through some anti-F2F media following up on the Australian POYSN story (as per my last blog).

My mate in Ireland also wrote up about how an ill informed senator and some media muppet are having a go over there.
http://conorbyrne.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/chugger-debate

Dan Pallotta, US fundraiser and author is speaking first thing at the FIA (Australian fundraising) conference tomorrow and he will probably show his 'I am overhead' campaign from the US taking the issue of costs to the public.

Should we(and the Irish, British and Kiwis) take on the issue in the media? Or are we better off sticking with a pseudo Von Bismark approach - 'The people need sausages, laws and charities but they really don't need to see how they are made'?

Cost of fundraising is the wrong measure

Several people at the AFP conference talked to me about how cost of fundraising (or required return on investment - ROI) was a challenging obstacle for their fundraising efforts. Especially if they were a small organisation or had a challenging 'type' of cause.  For example, it is easier to raise money for breast cancer than cystic fibrosis.

The state of Oregon in the USA is the latest place to totally misunderstand this concept.

Dan Pallotta tells you more here.  He also puts out a useful argument to present to your board about why it is the wrong measure.

Sean

Cost effectiveness could be the end of your charity

Before we start, I want you to work with me here.

On a piece of paper, or open up your word-processor or notes program write down:

1. Your favourite charity - not the one you work for
2. How you support the charity (eg monthly gift, volunteer, occasional donation)
3. Why you support them

Here is an example:

1. My favourite Charity: The Sumba Foundation
2. How you support: Regular gift from credit card & occasional donation
3. Why?
   I went to see them at Christmas last year and met loads of the kids. Before the Sumba Foundation started its work, the infant mortality was about half the kids. ie half of them would die before they get to adulthood, mostly from malaria. It is easily prevented - nets and education, and I was really motivated.

Please take the time to do that, it will be worth it.

Now, back to the blog...

It’s a curious thing, but most charities, much of the media and an annoying number of public servants appear to think that the percentage of money raised by charities and spent on actual charitable work is the most important measure of worth available.

So much so, that for some states and nations return on investment (ROI) is one of the key measures that charities need to report on.

But our obsession with ROI damages our ability to make the world a better place, and I have the data to prove it.

When I meet with charity staff and boards, ROI is always an important consideration.

Fundraisers are given a brief that they must grow income by X without the annual cost of fundraising (COF – an inversion of ROI) increasing by more than Y.

ROI can be a useful measure – for example, when a fundraiser is considering tactic A vs tactic B to acquire new donors and there is a limited budget. Provided ROI is considered over several years, measured holistically (ie to include additional gifts, upgrades and bequests), and the rollout/repeat potential is considered, then it can be the best measure.

So why does it make me so angry? Principally, because obsession with ROI above all else harms growth. Too many charities choose the path of slow growth – or even reject otherwise successful strategies – because of their fear of a low ROI.

For example, charity A raises $40,000 from its Christmas appeal to warm donors, at a cost of $10,000 - an ROI of 4. It knows that by increasing the amount of time spent on the DM pack, sending out more information and writing longer, more professional copy (in other words, by spending more money) it could probably increase the donation income to $100,000. But the pack would then cost about $50,000, giving an ROI of just 2.

So the boss says no, and the charity continues the old way, maybe improving income a bit by writing longer copy. Net income, however, is still only about $30K, whereas the more expensive method would have netted $50K. Apart from the fact that the charity has $20k less to spend on services (or fundraising growth) in the immediate term, the decision is greatly flawed in the long term.

Meanwhile, Charity B, which decides to go the more expensive route, is set to benefit from a) higher net income, and b) many more donors. This is not just some hypothetical example. The chart below depicts a real life Australian case study. This charity decided to look at the long-term picture, and not worry about ROI.

The consequence for this charity of the shift in mindset was enormous. You can see that after a number of years, ROI is creeping back up again, but more importantly, the overall amount available for services (ie net income) from Tax 04 to Xmas 07 was $2.08 million. (Charities in Australia usually have two peak times for mailing – Christmas and “tax” – which is mailed around April/May). If they had kept to the old strategy, and experienced a bit of growth, they could have expected to net about $600K.

I repeat: the organization could have raised NET $600K, at an average ROI of 7 or NET of $2.08 million at an average ROI of 2.8. Come on, which result is going to help its beneficiaries more?

So how come so many intelligent people are led astray by ROI? The answer is simple – they are frequently told that this is what is important to donors.

The conspiracy theorist could argue that actually perpetuating the myth does help some charities – but only the really big ones. A shift in strategy for a small charity striving for growth is likely to reduce its ROI, but exactly the same strategy change for a larger one could actually improve its ROI. That’s just a mathematical fact.

This means that if the big charities were to be protective of their turf, banging on about ROI is a good way of preventing smaller organizations from being able to compete.

In the above example, a charity raising $500,000 per appeal who followed the same change in strategy would have seen hardly any change in ROI.

But we keep hearing "ROI (or COF) is important to donors." But who says so? Well, the media, common sense – and even the public. The problem is that this is what people (donors and non-donors) really do think. But it’s not how they behave. The charity above clearly had no problem.

And I have lots of other examples.

The charity probably had to explain the strategy to some major donors, and even the authorities, but its economic basis was so solid that those guys were not going to have a problem with it. Normal donors still gave – and none of my examples hid their COF.

As for the public, they may say ROI (or COF) is really important, but that isn’t reflected in their giving behaviour. The reason they give is because they were asked properly and they care about the cause. People who harp on about the amount of money that goes on administration are normally non-donors; COF is just a good excuse for not giving.

I recall being told about an experiment where a group of people were given real money to donate. They were given choices based on photos, stories about beneficiaries, and pie charts of expenditure. Never were the pie charts a significant factor for choosing which charity to support.
I admit I am not as extreme as Professor Myles McGregor-Lowndes of The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Non-profit Studies at QUT. During a presentation on accounting for charities (which he managed to make interesting) he called on the Fundraising Institute of Australia to bar charities who bang on about how low their COF is.

But no fundraiser should allow his/her organization’s beneficiaries to suffer because they are bamboozled by the unsubstantiated bollocks that passes for fact when it comes to ROI. Of course, you need to be careful with your funds - I am not suggesting charities go out and take ridiculous risks - just plan strategically.

Don't believe me?

Remember the exercise right at the beginning? Did you write something like this?

1. My favourite Charity: The Sumba Foundation
2. How you support: Regular gift from credit card & occasional donation
3. Why? Their cost of fundraising is really low and I am impressed by their effective admin systems...

Of course not. And do you even know their cost of fundraising?

Donors care about what you do, the impact that you have not how you raise it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pareto Fundraising help charities in many ways, not least explaining this in more detail to boards and management. If you want us to help, please email canyouhelp@paretofundraising.com.

Canadian Fundraiser published much of this information as an article in May 2008.

Plenaries, charity budgets and Olympic Gold Medals

This morning I got up just before 5am. It is the final day of the conference in India, and I'm nervous about my closing plenary. Actually, I am more nervous about the opening plenary I am meant to be delivering a few hours later in Sydney.

Following the session today, I run the death-race otherwise known as the 'highway' from Agra to New Delhi (dodging cows, cars, bikes, people and trucks going the wrong way on the dual carriageway) and then flying off to eventually land at 06:30 in Sydney, across town to the conference and open up with my plenary at 09:30.

So, up far too early, I start blogging and thinking about the conference. I have already commented about how similar things are here - the same problems and issues, but another one came up yesterday. Charity staff come to these conferences with real needs. Usually they are desperate for funding. They want to to hear some speakers tell them how to pull a rabbit from a hat.

Nearly all of the delegates I have met have no funds, but strong needs. They often believe that of course people will donate - they are so worthy!

Of course, reality kicks in and people begin to realise there is no magic pill. But still they grasp for miracles. "...surely IBM will sponsor this?..." or "... I know someone who knows Lakshmi Mittal or Mukesh Ambani..." (two of the richest men in the world, who happen to be Indian).

But in the end, success in fundraising is like success in Olympics. The more you spend, the more you make. Australians are gutted at being lower than Britain on the official Olympic table.

My Aussie mates, especially Jonathan Grapsas, have a big gripe. 'Yeah, you won more than us - but look how much you spent!' Inferring that our recent investment in sports, paid for by the National Lottery rather than just the tax payer, is a bad thing. Well, what do you know? The more you spend, the more you win - the more athletes you attract, the better training facilities, better competition opportunities and equipment. No surprise really.

Every now and then, a nation spending little on training athletes wins some medals and does well. But if we look at consistency, and the top nations - they all spend big time.

Same with charities. Some, with reasonable budgets, still moan that they are not growing fast enough. Well, sorry guys but the secret to growth is not that secret - spend more on fundraising. No matter what size you are, make sure you put some money aside every year for fundraising purposes.

Look at the annual reports of the top ten charities (by fundraising income) and you will see they are also very high spenders. In the charity world, you don't grow without spending.

A great example is World Vision in Australia. These guys have done very, very well in growth terms. Their formula for success may include child sponsorship and regular giving but they sustain themselves through clever spending. In their most recent annual report, they show how they raised $350m. This makes them the largest charity (measured by income) in Australia.

At they same time they report that they spent nearly $28m on fundraising, and another $25m on 'administration'. According to a table compiled by Givewell*, the fifth largest charity is the National Heart Foundation, which raises just less than $50m. In other words, only four charities raise more in total than World Vision spend on fundraising and administration.

Just like the Olympics, every now and then a charity does really well for some reason without spending much. But when you look at consistent, stable, safe charities raising the most - they spend the most.

Of course, on the Olympics I was on a winner no matter who won between Australia and Britain - as a Citizen of both countries I can be pretty flexible when scrapping with belligerent Aussies...

*This link will take you to their website, but you will need to subscribe to get the report.