I’ve done it once before - been temporarily immobilised, on crutches and all of a sudden started sparing a thought for those where this is reality. Recently, I got sideswiped on my bike and it again got me thinking how I took my active lifestyle and mobility for granted before that Great Cycle Highway Pile-up of 2013. My bandage-laden pondering led me to thinking: "is this how charities acquire most of their donors?" Let me explain…
I imagine a lot of people feel this way when they’re deprived of something (or even of someone) they’ve always had. You become acutely aware of what this is like for others. My wandering wondering then took me onto how much support for a charity comes from people being directly affected by the affliction/situation that charity is set up to combat.
A quick Google search throws up countless examples of people who did something sponsored or even set up a charity because they, or someone they care about, had personal experience of something serious. Indeed, our data seems to back this up.
When we asked people about what makes people support their favourite charities, 41% said that “events in their life led them to decide issues were important”. A third said they “already felt strongly about issues and searched for a charity supporting them”. The personal experience is powerful.
The key stat though, for me, is that just 7% said they support a charity because a charity asked them to. Considering the public believe charities spend 25% of their income on fundraising and say 22% is acceptable, surely there’s an imbalance. 22% of money to get 7% of donors?
Charities obviously rely on donors and fundraising. The public clearly see it as acceptable for charities to spend money on fundraising, but do most of the people who volunteer, give and fundraise do so because of that fundraising? The data indicates no. So then, given there are often so many different charities for the same cause, how and why do people choose one?
Take football clubs as an example. Premier League grounds welcome around 13.5m visitors a year, paying through the nose to watch their team. Teams don’t actively advertise or recruit fans. Many fans dedicate at least some part of their lives to their team because of where they’re from, or their Dad’s preference, or because of a personal experience. The club’s success, profile, presence in people’s lives and sheer reach is what wins them fans.
Assuming people don’t set a charity up themselves, they’re likely to pick one they’ve heard of, be it a huge national (or international) one or a local one that’s big in the community. In the day and age where charities can chat to millions for free on social media, is awareness-raising becoming more profitable than fundraising?
I’m not suggesting that charities should give up spending money on fundraising, or even retrench. For me, fundraising is a bit like the Royal Family. It costs money, sometimes appears extravagant and certain activities might lose money, but as long as it makes a profit overall it helps make steps towards achieving the overall goal and it’s worth it. But it’s crucial to remember there are many charity ‘fans’ that need directing, rather than persuading to give. Our data shows this is unlikely to change.
So are a charity’s donations inevitable? Some of them are I’m sure. Can charities sit on their laurels, save their fundraising money, focus purely on awareness and expect to be sustained financially? None could ever take the risk!
But for as long as your cause exists, people’s lives will continue to be affected by it and so many people will give. With new modern channels and methods of communication, the key concern might no longer be ‘persuading people to give’. It could become how to persuade people to give to you. It’s a world of uncertainty.
What is certain is that life is unfortunately rife with personal tragedy and loss. It’s just heart-warming and reassuring to know something good still comes out of it.
Have we gone up the gears to agreement? Or should we get on our bike? Leave us a comment below.
Very interesting article and
Very interesting article and analysis. It's certainly geared my communications thinking!
Really interesting article
Really interesting article (as ever. I wonder how many of the 41% donated through a mechanism like a tube ad for a charity or cause they care about. More importantly how many of these would not have given that day or that amount if they hadn't seen the ad?
I am finding, as a
I am finding, as a comparative newcomer to the actuality of charities, that nowhere is there a distinction made between the various forms of charity. I think this lack of distinction makes for a very muddy picture which means drawing conclusions is suspect.
For instance: National Trust, Bluebell Railway, Which?, Oxfam, British Red Cross, Geffrye Museum are all charities. However in a survey unless a type of charity is specified the respondents answers could probably be framed by what charity they were thinking about at that moment.
One thing I am sure of and that is high salaries are not appreciated other than by the particular recipients. I note the head of the NCVO receives a salary that in 2010 would have put him in the top 1% of salaried earners in the UK.
For heading up a trade body?!
There's really nothing new
There's really nothing new here. Anyone who has been involved in the NPO/NGO world for any length of time knows that people donate to organizations with which they are personally familiar, particularly if that organization has provided a valued service or product to the individual or a loved one. "Reciprocity" is a powerful motivator for donors. Beyond the anecdotal evidence, we know this from the research of Adrian Sargeant. So, is this really news?
Regarding NPO/NGO salaries (an issue raised by Patrick Taylor), I believe people in the third sector should be paid what they are worth. If someone delivers value to the organization, they should be compensated accordingly. Why should it be acceptable for the third sector to exploit its employees by under-paying them?
Offering competitive compensation will help the sector attract and retain high-quality workers which will, in turn, allow the sector to be even more successful. I refer readers to the writings of Dan Pallotta.
I find the whole sector pay
I find the whole sector pay thing really interesting. Whilst I have a personally held view that no-one really needs to earn much more than £100k per year, it does strike me as strange that it seems acceptable for bankers etc to earn millions yet for more socially useful people to earn a decent wage is frowned upon.
i think there's a distinction
i think there's a distinction to be made between the reason why people support a charity in general terms, and the thing that makes them actually write a cheque/take out a regular gift etc. Awareness of a charity and a personal connection to its work may be a great foundation for support, if not necessarily a prerequisite. But these may not be sufficient to prompt a donation. Example -- I have a strong personal connection to my university, I am aware of their need for funding and the difference my support can make to disadvantaged students. But the only times I have ever supported them financially have been when a fundraiser telephoned and specifically asked for a gift.
Surely the 22% charities
Surely the 22% charities spend on fundraising is to target the 41% of supporters who are 'led by events', the 33% who 'already felt strongly and the 7% who might be persuaded? So a 22% spend to get 81% of donors. No imbalance there.
Rob, I don't see how the
Rob, I don't see how the football team analogy applies. Football fans please correct me but don't football teams (or other sport or cultural organizations) reward their followers directly with the visceral experience of a game, a performance etc.; and, additionally, a sense of belonging, being part of a social experience? Where is the parallel with say Cancer UK or Save the Children or even a university?
Hi John,
Hi John,
Thanks for your comment.
What I was looking at was not only why someone would decide to watch a football team or give to charity, but why they choose to support that particular one. Other circumstances (other than the reward of a good match or feeling good for giving) can inspire someone to support. So what are those? Being affected by the cause, a family tradition, a fond childhood memory, support from that organisation in their early life or even a member of staff? A personal connection to a charity or a football club could be formed from any of those.
I imagine many times when someone decides to give to charity or to like football, the personal connection could well be why they choose that particular organisation, rather than being contacted by either or any perceived reward. Then again, I've been wrong before!
Another analogy might be with
Another analogy might be with tobacco manufacturers. As far as I recall, they always claimed that cigarette advertising did not make any difference as to whether someone (in particular a young person) smoked or not but simply affected which brand they chose. Charity fundraising may adopt a similar view. I'm not sure the football analogy really works, though I see the point being made. The Premier League doesn't of course attract 13.5 million people in a season, it attracts a far smaller number multiple times. Roughly 350,000 different people attend each full match weekend, of whom (at a guess) 70 per cent are likely to be season ticket holders who will attend all or nearly of 19 home matches. I'd hazard a guess at one million different people over a season. And that shows another probable difference - the football fan will mostly choose only one club, whereas many people support multiple charities, often across a range of themes - maybe a development charity, a children's charity, etc.
Hi Rob - you say, "do most of
Hi Rob - you say, "do most of the people who volunteer, give and fundraise do so because of that fundraising? The data indicates no." But this isn't really the right data. This is qualitative data based on asking people after the fact, and rule number one of this kind of survey is like House's in the TV show - everybody lies. Sometimes the disparity between what people say and what they actually do can be shockingly wide, like in this example: bit.ly/1dhNS3s
There is data available to test this - and it's in the databases of most charities - the line allocated to 'Unsolicited' income each year, i.e. It couldn't be tied to any specific fundraising initiative. If your hypothesis, and the survey data, is correct, it should be a very large proportion of the overall income for many charities. But I'm willing to bet it isn't - for us it's around 5% of our income and I suspect it's around that mark for many other charities too...
This is an interesting point
This is an interesting point Adrian but can you not apply "everybody lies" to this as well. I have certainly seen a scramble around at year end when various teams try and credit unallocated income to their income line to meet/beat their targets...
Sure Charlie, I expect there
Sure Charlie, I expect there's quite a bit of that. But if the data Rob quotes was correct, they would have to be running around to try and allocate up to 93% of the donations they had received that year. I would be astonished if that were anywhere near the case in any charity.