A fundraising firing squad is now being formed in the UK. Unfortunately, it seems to be forming in a circle.

If ever there were a time for calm, cool, thoughtful and different fact-finding and exploration, it’s now.

I’m afraid that in the name of ‘protecting’ the donor, the true reform desperately needed by our sector — improvements in how donors connect and interact with charities — will largely be ignored. Once again ‘reforms’ will focus on tactics, vendor behavior, and steps aimed at regulating fundraisers’ behavior and preserving organizational income.

Instead we should seize this opportunity to look at fundraising and fundraisers through the eyes of the donor with the goal of producing experiences for the donor that will enhance and motivate giving.

Vindictive, nasty, personal, blame-the-other guy grandstanding will only get the sector in deeper and deeper trouble.

Sadly, the cycle of dealing with this sort of crisis is predictably repetitive. First the media onslaught … next the flood of defensive statements and accusatory demand for change. This phase is immediately followed by demands for regulation and reforms of all varieties — usually wrapped in blue ribbon panels and well-meaning commissions. In the end folks feel better. Lots of paper and promises are generated. Nothing much changes.

This predictable and unproductive cycle appears to be again unfolding in the current UK situation.

• The politicians, including the Prime Minister, were quick to react and condemn. The Etherington commission is being organized. There are the usual demands for new regulation.

• So far the Institute of Fundraising, the principal trade association of the charity fundraisers, has issued pallid tut-tuts.

• The charities themselves are mostly defensive (with some notable exceptions), the exception being the ‘blame-the-vendor’ assaults whose telemarketing or Face-2-Face tactics the charities conveniently blame for this mess.

Let’s get real. All of this hand-wring, running around in circles, and rhetorical demand for redemption misses the four essential truths we must face.

• The press reports, while hyperbolic in some cases, are by and large accurate.

• The true interests of the donor — given only lip service by the sector for decade upon decade — have truly been ignored.

• None of this should come as some sudden surprise. All of us know there is gambling in Casablanca.

• The tragedy is that there has always been a better way of dealing with donors and 99% of all fundraisers and the top leadership in UK charities (and the US as well) have simply cast a blind eye and turned their backs .

In short, the sector is finally paying the price for marketing at donors rather than partnering with them and listening to them.

How very prescient were Ken Burnett’s words in his 1996 book, Friends for Life:

“The donor’s arm, that once we imagined we should twist up his or her back to encourage increased giving, we now see should be draped around our shoulders in friendship and mutual support.”

Ken must be one exhausted prophet. Ever since he issued his classic Relationship Fundraising a generation ago, he’s been rolling the ‘donors first’ rock up the hill of industry apathy. His latest warning/admonition/advice — a five-part series on the ‘Future of Fundraising’ was featured in The Agitator, and I recommend it to you as urgent and must reading given the mess we’re in.

Of course, Ken’s not alone. Giles Pegram, whose pedigree and accomplishments in our sector are unassailable, used the occasion of the Olive Cooke event to once again put forth a helpful and practical guide for the changes we need to be making to secure our sector’s future.

It’s not by coincidence that Giles titled the first in his series a Second Chance for Fundraisers, followed by If You want More Money Stop Asking for It, and wrapping up with the State of Relationship Fundraising.

Longtime Agitator readers should be in no doubt about our feelings on the horrid state of donor treatment. Over the past 8 years we’ve railed about the dangers of failing to focus on the quality of experiences offered donors by nonprofits, including lousy donor service, lousy thank you and recognition efforts, lousy or non-existent opportunities for donors to make their voices heard. Once again we sounded the alarm years before the Olive Cooke story broke.

So now that the car crash has occurred, what’s the solution?

What’s needed is a serious process that will truly address and propose changes that fundraisers must make in mindset and methods in order to put their house in order where the donor is concerned.

I’m talking about major areas in need of review and change. In my discussions with Ken, Giles and many others, here are some examples that surfaced:

• Guidance on the frequency and nature of contact with donors.
• Guidance on active listening to donors’ voices.
• Focus on the recruitment, training and recruitment of staff and leadership including trustees. Clearly, given what’s happened the talent pool is pretty shallow.
• The differing needs and practices between large-scale fundraising machines and smaller organizations.
• Giving donors practical choices on how they’re contacted, how they’re communicated with.
• A Donor Hotline where donors can have issues and complaints dealt with if the charity they’re supporting is unresponsive

I could go on and on and on. So much needs changing and I’m sure you could add at least 10 more items to the work.

Ken and Giles believe the Institute of Fundraising should form what they term ‘A Commission to Improve the Donor Experience’. If the IoF is willing to take this on, I think that would be terrific. [I have to admit, from my experience in the US, the trade groups here like AFP and the Direct Marketing Association have a history of producing pretty weak tea in matters this major; and taking far too much time to do it.]

Perhaps an independent and independently-funded commission within IoF is the way to go. Provided such a commission comprises true experience and expertise, not just the sort of exalted but basically useless public-spiritedness that too often serves as a fig leaf for maintaining the status quo.

And perhaps the charities themselves should pay for the Commission. Those groups who are hanging on to reserves in anticipation of some ‘rainy day’ must surely realize the deluge has arrived.

Judging from the emails I’ve received and the phone calls I’ve made lots of folks are deeply concerned and lots of solutions are being proposed. My major concern is we don’t once again go down the path of the same old, same old.

I fear, unless we demand a bold, new approach that focuses on the donor, we’re once again in danger of forming the firing squad in a circle. Finger-pointing, blame-gaming and improperly-focused commissions focused on regulating the tactics of fundraisers as the target is the wrong way to go.

Nothing could be more pointless and ironic.

If the sector and those concerned with reforming it are truly concerned, the focus of any change must be on the donor. More specifically, the experiences we offer to our donors. Genuine and meaningful experiences that involve the opportunity to be listened to — and heard … the opportunity to learn what marvellous gains their gifts make possible … the recognition that they are an extraordinarily important part of civil society.

Fundraising is not about volume and technique. It’s about delighting and inspiring donors. So far we’ve failed.

It’s time for change. What are your thoughts?

Roger

P.S. For readers outside the UK, please understand that although this post focuses on the quite serious situation in the UK, the main points apply equally in almost every developed market — most certainly in the US. You need look no further than falling retention rates and rising public dissatisfaction and mistrust where the nonprofit sector is concerned.