The Fundraising Firing Squad Forms A Circle
Three weeks ago we announced the Agitator’s sponsorship of “The Summit”— a different and serious effort to challenge sacred cows and hopefully trigger desperately needed change in our sector.
Alas! Over the weekend, the organizers announced the cancellation of The Summit. The reason: furor (‘furore’ for our UK and Commonwealth readers) over the composition of the panel — 8 men, 1 woman — plus some inappropriate remarks from Giles Pegram, the co-chair of the event. Remarks for which he’s fully and appropriately apologized.
If you want the back story and also Giles’ apology you can check them out here and here.
As lifelong feminists Tom and I fully respect and champion the need for more gender equality, especially in our sector where women play such a pervasive role. And so do Agitator readers. Indeed, the day we announced The Summit, Agitator reader Rachel Collison of Engaging Networks commented: “It’d be nice to see a few more female speakers on this list. Given that there are so many female experts in fundraising and particularly innovation in the UK, I’m quite surprised…”
In fact, the organizers were aware of the issue and some of the male panelists offered to give up their slots in favor of female participants. But the barrage of Tweets, too many anonymous for my taste, had already been released. The feeding frenzy was on. Summit cancelled.
The unfortunate paradox of all this? On the one hand, the absolutely correct reminder that women play an important, equal and vital role in the future of our sector. On the other hand, at a time when there is a crushing need for significant change in the sector, the derailing of this event makes that change less likely — a fact that helps no fundraiser, male or female, no organization, nor any mission.
To top off the whole sorry mess, the reputation of great man, a giant in my eyes, has been wrongly maligned. Sure, he made some awkward remarks on Twitter – for which he’s genuinely apologized. But many of the remarks he’s supposed to have made he never actually said – at least in the way and with the meaning attributed to him.
I’ve known Giles for 30 years, seen the wonders and innovations he’s worked in our sector, and watched him steadfastly champion equality in an era when doing so was not only difficult but dangerous. In those days the championing had to be done face to face, not behind anonymous Twitter accounts. Sadly, a giant nibbled at the heels by dwarfs.
Roger
P.S. The importance and need for “The Summit” is as relevant now as the day it was announced. Change is urgently needed. I think we should organize a version of it in North America and then bring it back to the UK and Europe. What do you think?
25 responses to “The Fundraising Firing Squad Forms A Circle”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Very sorry to hear that such a valuable event was cancelled, whatever its perceived weaknesses.
While I agree with others that it’s a shame that women weren’t more significantly represented in the first place, as an ardent lifelong feminist and long-time fundraiser, I cannot help but be stunned that people claiming to be feminists would call themselves ‘charity chicks’.
I can’t think of a more self-demeaning way to describe myself. It seriously makes me cringe.
You can’t say that gender equality is not important in today and that there aren’t benefits to having everyone represented at whatever table you are hosting events and discussions. But I think something to underline and to make explicit is the ease with which it is possible to create massive “social noise”, whether negative or positive, around a post or status update and that industry would do well to validate and consider the newsworthyness of the claimant before allowing them to gather momentum.
Just to give a handle on this situation more clearly: It is possible to create over 1,000 twitter account at the push of a button, populate the twitter feeds and to all intents and purposes make it believable to a casual by-stander that any commentary and voice made by these profiles are actually genuine. I wouldn’t say this is common knowledge but it can be purchased off the shelf.
I believe that it is sheer cowardice that sees people, events and discussions publicly outed in social media circles and then when you actually go and see what public face these people are putting out – while they freely name the people and organizations – and then see that actually they don’t want to put a face to their own identities. Unfortunately “unique angles” for news stories is what makes news nowadays and them standout. Pre-internet it was much easier to be newswothy!
So Jill, I am not surprised that these people call themselves charitychicks because it would fit with what I think the actual validity and authority of this twitter profile is. I’d even suggest that this whole “commotion” was a way to get a good targeted twitter profile and we can see if these “charitychicks” go and run some events in the near future and leverage the list of supporters they have now gathered through their “campaign”, which is how I see it.
I am also not surprised that there have been apologies from people running the event because the problem is that many of the older guard perceive any twitter commentary posted in a negative vein as the equivalent of having their name splashed across all the broadsheets, when in fact the reality is that they’ve had their name put in the classified ads section on a regional daily.
The fact is that any organization and it’s staff need to be super careful when using twitter. It might be a casual dialogue but if you say something wrong, I could, but many other social media experts will use their skills of redistribution to take your comments out of context for their own purposes.
I do campaign marketing in Twitter for organizations. Here we have an event that has been cancelled and the only winners I can see are the charitychicks, so we can look forward to them helping bring light on the issues they raise (but I won’t hold my breath!).
Be careful out there!
Hi Roger
I can understand your frustration and sympathy for Giles, but I’m not sure that language like ‘a giant nibbled at the heel by dwarfs’ helps the situation. I’m sure that there was some anonymous commentary going on on Twitter, but the majority of what I saw was not inflammatory, but simply registering huge disappointment, and what’s more was posted by people under their own names, including some very senior and respected female fundraisers.
I admire and respect Giles hugely, but I do think the Summit has attracted justified criticism for this, and ad hominem attacks (or indeed attacks that could be construed as ‘ad feminam’) on the critics really don’t move this important debate forward.
And the debate is important – Giles’ Twitter comments implied that he did not feel women were yet fully contributing to the top-level debate on fundraising practice. The make-up of the Summit could, and did, have led outside observers to conclude that this was because their views were not being invited. That’s a big issue for the sector to correct as soon as possible.
First, if a firing squad forms a circle (and shoots) it kills itself. Perhaps another image would have worked better.
Secondly, when the Summit was announced and I saw the flyer I thought ‘For these unelected oldsters to call a Summit is a rather grandiose.’ Then a senior fundraiser asked me ‘Should I go?’ and I said ‘No. It’s old thinking by old guys with old ideas and antique bees in their bonnets that we’ve heard buzzing for years and which offer nothing new.’
Third, I find now that in the Civil Society coverage no lesser authority than Joe Saxton went on the record and branded the event as ‘an old farts’ conference’ the accuracy of which made me smile, but, much more importantly, said that his firm’s research showed that donors were actually quite satisfied with charities. That they are not is an old refrain from Giles Pegram. Kind of out of touch.
I think old war-horses like these Summit-eers have to be careful not to fall behind the curve. I don’t have a view on how the Summit was stopped. That it promoted incorrect views on donor satisfaction should have been enough. The Summit was a bad idea but it was not that which killed it. It was Twitter. Is this the first example, do you think, of such a bringing down of an event by a kind of gossipy campaigning pressure?
If the Summit-eers have courage they’ll take their rebuff as a challenging opportunity, put a young female voice like Rachel Collinson in the chair (so, no pressure, RC) and let rip.
How very, very sad.
The criticism was justified, the reaction poor, but there is only one loser – the charity sector.
It reminds me of an interview given by Bruce Kent in The Guardian many years ago. He was asked what makes him most depressed. His response (and I’m paraphrasing) was the ability of people who come together do good, to end up using their energies against each other.
I’m afraid that old farts (of both genders) have the experience that the young innovators (of both genders) need. Those who think we have nothing to learn from them are misguided at best. The techniques that I have borrowed from our fundraising ancestors have paid huge dividends.
The trouble is, you don’t know what you don’t know. That’s why we need The Summit. Can we not get it back on track in a revised form?
And if we are making recommendations, I’d love to see Bluefrog’s Creative Director Aline Reed given a free brief to share her thoughts on what’s right and wrong with fundraising today.
Maybe we need another twitter campaign? #weneedthesummit
That the gentleman didn’t know when to just listen and acknowledge the concerns of his potential attendees brings into question the quality of what the summit would provide. His remarks suggest much more interest in defending his position than in using the discussion to broaden his view. A simple reply requesting a list of potential presenters for future summits may have been very valuable, providing approaches and resources he might not have considered. Have to wonder if his donors questioned an approach he was using would he respond in this same manner, explaining to them why they are wrong in their feelings and opinions?
It appears that this summit was planned in a tone deaf and non-inclusive manner. The fact is, the summit’s planners did not see anything wrong with organizing a panel that included just one woman and mostly/all elders. This is not the world we live in. Does anyone read Inc. or Fast Company? Did the planners understand how much innovation comes from the younger members of our species? Apparently not.
Hello all.
Interesting and insightful debate from all – it’s all very interesting, and we agree with Adrian – the debate is important. We’ve blogged our response to ‘the furore’ – you can find it here: http://charity-chick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/responding-to-furore.html
Hopefully this will respond to most, if not all, of the comments here. And just to clarify, we’re a group of fundraisers who have come together under the name Charity Chicks. If you look at the posts on our blog you’ll see that very few are anonymous. We’re proud to put our name to what we say – and will continue to do so where possible.
As we said in our first blog on The Summit: When questioned about this, Giles responded that he doesn’t believe in quotas (in a very nice polite open to discussion way. I don’t want to turn him into the next Suzanne Moore and get him hounded off twitter by feminist rage).
And as we say now: Giles has given so much to our sector and is great fighter for equality. The Summit, not Giles, is what we wanted to discuss. And The Summit is an example of the problem, but not the problem. There is so much to discuss and improve around the issue of diversity in our sector.
But, please read for yourself. And engage us in debate. It’s what we want!
The Charity Chick writing this is Danielle Atkinson.
The last thing any new summit needs is an agency creative director pontificating (though with Pope Benedict resigning 28th Feb he might be available for the gig).
It should be a practitioner-led not supplier-led process. Why? Because agencies cannot stop themselves from sell-sell-selling.
We have an Institute of Fundraising in Britain. It is 30 years old on March 25th and some of its members know a thing. It is from the IoF that thought leadership should come.
I’m disappointed. I was truly disappointed that women were not well-represented in the summit, but I’m also disappointed the summit isn’t happening. I was really curious to hear about it, and to learn what did and didn’t work in this new format.
I have commentary, but instead I will ask questions, and try to keep the question in forms without commentary (Ha!): Why not just recruit some knowledgeable women? What does it mean that the organizers chose not to just add more women? Why cancel the summit instead of adjusting to the demands of the customer? We are fundraisers adept at meeting the needs of our donors, aren’t we also adept at meeting the needs of each other? Ok, maybe that had a bit of commentary, but they are legitimate questions.
I’m concerned…
P.S. Ok, I can’t help my commentary after reading the links. Sorry! I can gather ten experienced, knowledgeable, “THINKING” women in philanthropy from my community alone within hours. I seriously doubt there are not enough “thinking” (Yes, that ruffles my feathers!) women in all of the UK. Honestly. That is just ridiculous. Are you getting soft, Roger?
To be honest I don’t think I could say it any better than Adrian in the comments above. Maybe that’s because I can’t think for myself though…
I’m also part of Charity Chicks, and disappointed in this article. It was no one’s intention for this to be a personal attack on Giles, someone who I’ve engaged in lively debate with on Twitter in the past and who I admire greatly.
It was a comment on the make up of The Summit. Which has been blurred by some inappropriate and outdated comments by just one person who was taking part. Sadly, none of the other Summit contributors were able to engage in the debate from what I can see.
We wanted to challenge what the Summit could offer – not attack Giles. And I think you’ll find that most comments made on Twitter were certainly not from anonymous fundraisers – but people proud to work in the sector, both male and female, and upset that the people they work with, and for, were being described as non thinkers or that they lacked the ‘ wisdom, rock solid experience, and years of practice’ to talk at the Summit.
Certainly not dwarves, but the future. They’re challenging, trying to improve things, move forward (whilst still listening to the wisdom that has come before), and change the world for the better. In your words, give those people a raise.
Yes Roger. Let’s establish the Summit in the U.S. soon and hopefully export to the U.K. and other parts of the world.
The main criticism levelled at The Summit was its lack of practising fundraisers on the line up. The gender imbalance has become a more popular story line. Please can ANYONE focus on the value current practitioners bring to the table (regardless of gender).
It is with trepidation that I wade into this. You see, I am (was) a Summit panel member, different I suppose than an organizer but will let others judge.
I am a 42 year old, white, male. I founded and run a company that sells product and service to the non profit sector. Relevant? I’d say categorically not but, again, will let others be the judge and create however many debates they want.
My extreme bias and prejudice is for content that is thoughtful, meaningful, research based and practically applied – i.e. proven.
There are plenty of people with good content by this definition.
Every Summit panel member, in my view, met this threshold and as importantly, were able to tie it together into a cohesive and different narrative – different from the other, best practices conferences that already exist in abundance.
This is a marketplace like any other. Part of the market spoke and the Summit organizers reacted – whether that critique and subsequent reaction was good, bad or in-between is once again, something I’ll let others debate.
The facts of the sector remain with trend-lines in the wrong direction and entirely too much sameness among a growing number of charities and a static or shrinking pool of donors.
Debates of a variety of forms are likely required to help this stark, painful reality. Whether this particular debate qualifies is yet to be determined.
I would just like to correct John Sauve-Rodd on one point. I’ve heard Aline Rees speak on a number of occasions. And pontificate is the last thing she does. A rather unkind comment about a dedicated and experienced fundraiser who’s worked with dozens of organisations.
Speaking as a feminist, why not hold the summit now that various objections have been raised, and hold it with gender parity?
Hold it with 5 men, 5 women, some trans/non-identifying people, make sure some of these people are young people of color, and make it a done deal?
You got called out, so let’s fix the problem, instead of stopping the game!
I mean, some people call you out on your lack of gender inclusiveness, and your response is, “I’m gonna take all my toys and go home then!”
Come on. We still need to come together, discuss the issues, find solutions together, uplift the sector.
Why not work this out?
Here’s a radical thought – maybe we could all learn from each other? Thoughts such as those with experience are the only ones who can impart knowledge and learning, or that those currently practicing are not eligible to sit on a panel discussing innovation in the sector, or that those who are ‘old farts’ have nothing to offer, are all clearly rubbish ideas. Anyone who currently practices as a fundraiser, or who has worked in fundraising, has something to offer others.
I thought the gender issue was problematic because of the impression it gave of the Summit. It made me think the Summit might be a rather patronising ‘Elders’ lecture, which I don’t think was what was intended.
I watched the ensuing discussion and aside from a couple of news items that highlighted specific comments in order to make it ‘newsy’, the discussion was pretty reasonable and polite, and interesting. I follow a huge range of sector people on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other sites. I respect people like Giles for the work they have done and what they can teach me from their experience. I also respect the large number of current fundraisers who can also teach me a lot from their practice. It isn’t one or the other, it’s both. I’m greedy and I will happily take learning from wherever I can get it.
I understand the reasons for the cancellation of the Summit, but perhaps an event with past, present and future sector leaders, of all types, will arise before long. (Hint, hint to those that can make it happen!)
Now, THAT is the event I want to go to!
Ref: Reuben Turner (The Good Agency, creative director, in case anyone didn’t know) and agency people pontificating at summits, you’re missing the point. It is practitioners who belong at such a table, you know, men and women on salaries, doing their jobs.
In my experience agencies have little insight into the management issues that are the real coal face of fundraising, and fundraising managements wrestle daily with tasks incomprehensible to agencies.
To prove me wrong perhaps you’d care to speak at a Summit on, oh, say retail strategy. Or income forecasting tools. Or why direct mail is irrelevant. Yes, that last one might be within an agency’s scope.
As a grumpy old fundraiser, who wasn’t invited to speak at the Summit, I’ve followed the furore and commentary carefully, with some trepidation and sorrow. Giles clearly did get it wrong and rather than stop digging continuted to do so, but has now apologized, as I understand it, unreservedly.
The demise of the Summit is, I guess, to be regreted as it seems to be the baby and the bathwater syndrome. However John’s suggestion that the Institute should be where thought leadership is promulgated is spot on. There is an opportunity to reconvene a detailed discussion of these vital issues, if not at the convention, then as soon afterwards as is possible. It needs, not just gurus but practitioners, researchers and, of course, a strong understanding of age, gender and diversity issues. We live in a multiculture society of 58m people and an understanding of the increasing complexity is, I suggest, a pre-requisite to any forum attempting to explore the difficulties and seek solutions.
John, John, John, really. That’s a massive oversimplification. The best agency professionals – men and women on salaries, doing their jobs – can hold their heads high with anyone who’s worked inside charities all their working lives, and deservedly so.
Just change both instances of the word ‘agencies’ in the second paragraph of your comment to ‘donors’ and that’s why. Donors don’t get the management issues and internal complexities either and nor should they. But as fundraisers working within charities, it is possible for us to know too much, and for this to obscure our vision of what really motivates our donors.
That’s why a great agency, focused on seeing their client as their donors see them, and not over-burdened with internal concerns, can be a pearl beyond price for a charity.
Wait. Direct mail is irrelevant, you say? Stop the bus!!! Someone needs to inform donors they need to quit giving to the stuff we send in the mail right this instant. Seriously: maybe better to base comments like that on actual results. Because results I’ve seen as recently as Christmas tell a far different tale.
Then again, I still follow the advice of ‘old farts.’ And thank God for that.
So women (and I assume men) who work for agencies shouldn’t be allowed to present at conferences? Because they might sell, sell, sell?
Sell what? And for how much?
Well, here’s the stuff that Bluefrog has sold at various conferences over the past few years…
The largest qualitative study into the motivations of UK mid-value donors.
Two huge qualitative studies into the motivations of UK legacy donors.
The only qualitative study (that I’m aware of) into the motivations of Canadian legacy donors.
The only large scale qualitative study (that I’m aware of) into the motivations of (UK) in-mem givers.
The largest qualitative study into why (UK) donors lapse.
A six nation mystery shopping exercise to help charities identify best practice.
The largest qualitative study into the need states of (UK) donors.
The only qualitative study (that I’m aware of) that investigates the needs states underpinning alumni giving.
Thats hundreds of thousands of pounds of up to date information aimed at making charities more effective.
All research has been paid for by Bluefrog (or part paid with one other agency in one instance), all transport costs have been paid by Bluefrog, and all reports have been made available to all fundraisers at what cost?
Absolutely nothing.
I must be the world’s worst salesman.
Every person who has ever posted an opinion/experience/blog/tweet on fundraising that I have read, I’ve learned something from. Mostly, I’ve learned I’m a dreamer. I’ve learned even more from this event (if that is the right word).
Most of the books I have read that I have learned from are by the boys. Most of the social interactions I have had that I have learned from have been courtesy of the girls. I think in the long run, both will stand me in good stead.
I look forward to a summit about Mary.
I agree, Mazarine!