Over the last 20 years, an awful lot of the British public have started give to charity because some fundraiser or other persuaded them to donate a very small monthly amount. It might only be £2 or £3, but it’s fair to say that the widespread promotion of this type of giving has transformed both the fortunes of many charities and the number of people who give regularly.
There is now a backlash against this type of giving. For some time, fundraisers have been tending to ask for ever greater amounts of money. Part of the reason for increasing the ask is that the economics of giving mean asking for as little £2 a month makes getting a decent payback quite hard.
Street fundraisers are typically asking for £10 a month as their opening bid. One told me I couldn’t give less than £13 a month – and sure enough, his form wouldn’t let me. Telephone fundraisers are no different. One call took my breath away when the fundraiser asked for £66 a month! To be fair, the programme had simply tripled my existing donation. So you’ll hunt high and low for an opening ask of £2 a month, although paper-based requests will sometimes still ask for that amount.
There are other more ideological reasons against £2 a month. A number of prominent fundraising directors have said that this level of donation gives donors a misleading impression about what their money can do. The argument goes that telling people how much their £2 monthly donation will do makes them think they can solve all of the world’s problems on next to nothing.
However, this argument is quite frankly nonsense. The idea that £2 a month makes no difference, but £5 or £10 a month will change the world doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Indeed, there is no amount that all but the richest people can give that will make a real difference. £2 million a month maybe, but not £2. But the idea that we shouldn’t promote £2 a month because it will mislead people is about as watertight as a sieve. It is the collective amount that matters.
Starting people off giving £2 a month has a lot going for it in both fundraising and psychological terms. The higher the amount fundraisers ask for, the greater the hurdle they create in getting people to give at all, not least because so many people give to several charities, not just one. £2 a month (or less) is an easy starting point in a donor development journey which gradually sees engagement, interest and generosity increase.
It is also powerful because it allows for step-free, scalable donation increases. In other words, if you ask somebody for £25 once a year and later want to double their donation, you need them to make a single donation of £50 - quite a dent in that month’s money. Yet if they give £25 over the year by donating a small amount every month, you only need to increase that by £2.
Many years ago I went to a talk by a fundraising consultant who said he made a good living by going into charities, asking them to tell him all the fundraising appeals they had made in the last decade and then getting them to redo the one that had worked the best.
As the fundraising world asks for ever higher amounts of money, perhaps it is time to go back to asking for £2 a month. Then we can see how we can encourage a new generation of people to start giving on the very first rung of the regulation donation ladder.
I may be one of the senior
I may be one of the senior fundraisers accused of talking nonsense... there's no evidence in what Joe says! Show us the evidence that significant proportions of £2 / £3 a month givers upgrade to bigger gifts please as I don't have it. Otherwise you're promising to solve the World's problems for just £2, so why would anyone give any more?!
Interesting stuff Joe.
Interesting stuff Joe.
It all comes down to the numbers (or it should do at least). But how many fundraisers have got the long term numbers at their fingertips to make the right financial call, and how many make the judgement on subjective views of what is or isn't misleading to the donor. There's a lot who do the former; sadly there's also a few who do the latter.
If asking for £10 a month gets a better payback over time than asking for £2 or £3 a month then surely the choice is made for us. But it doesn't have to be one for all. £2 a month for certain types of donor works and can make money, £10 or £50 is quite possible for others. It's about targeting the right ask at the right people.
Re your breath-away telephone call, I suspect they may be using a Dutch auction tactic - go in very high and come down in price, the logic being that you'll get more this way than if you started low in the first place. Not very elegant, but I've seen it work!
Hoorah, thanks Joe. £2, £3
Hoorah, thanks Joe. £2, £3 or (maximum) £5 per month has served us well for more than twenty years and has got youngsters giving when bigger asks would have failed. It's the way many people take pleasure, spreading their support across a range of charities. It's being criticised now because fundraisers can't be bothered, for the sake of £24 a year, to set up the processes that welcome, nurture and woo these supporters to bigger amounts later in the relationship; and ultimately the legacy. That's because most fundraisers never meet these small donors nor share their pleasure at their small but significant gifts to causes they believe in.
Great article and some good
Great article and some good debate here...
My own charity enables people to give for free to their causes as well as cover our costs to collect and distribute to thousands of UK based causes. What we see is that people are changing their behaviour regularly to generate regular small amounts for causes they choose (£2 - £3 a month). We've generated almost £1m so far this way.
We see a growing propensity to want to make a difference. From the "giving" side there is a large unlocked potential as the pool we're tapping is worth hundreds of £millions. We need to see a range of "products" that lower the barriers to engage in philanthropy and enable donors to enjoy it and recommend it.
The danger is that philanthropy can be seen as pushy and overbearing and preying on guilt. Gets the results but would the supporter recommend the charity and the method of support to others?
For smaller organisations we work with in a more community context, you cannot treat people in the same way when you know them and they know each other. Simply asking everyone for higher amounts will get positive responses but annoy others. Your reputation may plunge with everyone in a connected community.
I think that the big shift is to become more "customer centric". Your charity exists to do social good but your customers need to be happy with the product(s) they are buying. The wrong way to consider this is to only look at what you want to sell - £10 a month or more for example... You customers want to make a difference at a level that feels right for them - make it easy and enjoyable...
Surely by now we should have
Surely by now we should have a good picture of the best in sector and worst in sector in terms of upgrading, maintaining and losing these donors. Surely we have stats to back up the assertion that starting people giving at a low level creates a long term base of support, or the theory that people giving at low levels either maintain the same level, or stop giving rather than increasing their giving over time?
And if not, why not?
I am one of those donors who
I am one of those donors who was wooed in at £2 or £3 per month and now gives significantly more to my chosen charities each month. I could not afford at the time to give £10 or more a month and if that was the only choice my charities would have lost a potential donor. Over the years I have given thousands of pounds to the charities I support by regular direct debit so for people like me the small amounts work. For Alan Grosschalk to dismiss people like me - and I know I'm not the only one - is hurtful and makes me angry. I hope he is nothing to do with any of the charities I support!
Hi Elizabeth. I definitely
Hi Elizabeth. I definitely did not intend to 'dismiss people like you'. Supporters of charities are wonderful, generous human beings who make a massive difference to the World around them, and of course people give what they like to whom they like. I was questioning whether it makes sense for charities to ask people to donate £2 a month or whether asking for a different amount is a better approach.