A number of thoughtful and concerned UK Agitator readers weighed in this week expressing a range of emotions from distress to disgust over what some termed the Institute of Fundraising’s (IoF) latest “betrayal” of the sector.

On August 18 IoF announced an Update to the Code of Fundraising Practice.

In effect the new rules say that, for fundraising purposes, in the absence of written permission from the donor charities may no longer contact donors who are on the Telephone Preference Service list — even if the charity has an ongoing business relationship with that donor.

It appears to some that the IoF caved in to what must have been severe arm twisting from the Information Commissioner’s Office. This happened despite assurances in early August that the IoF would seek to persuade the Commissioner that a different set of rules should pertain to charities.

However, given the new rules promulgated this week, “It seems IoF ‘took a dive’ in acquiescing to the pressure [from the Information Commissioner] and did not take the steps necessary to fully educate the Commissioner about the pitfalls of overreach.”

“Overreach” because the new rules mandate that to contact the donor by phone you have to have the written consent of the person telephoned. That the impact could be severe is an understatement. The IoF itself estimates that the new rules could prevent charities phoning up to 70% of donors.

If the mail and phone calls I’ve received are indicative, many fundraisers in the UK are furious with the IoF, questioning what their membership fee has brought them. Either IoF couldn’t stand up to the pressure, or it wouldn’t. Either way they call into question their very reason for existence.

Let’s give IoF the benefit of the doubt and say they thought their action, however costly, was the price they’d have to pay to placate the powers that be. All they’ve done is feed the beast, and left themselves wide open when the inevitable onslaught against other forms of fundraising — mail, digital etc. — comes.

Frankly, I’m not familiar enough with the workings of IoF to know what they were thinking — or even if they were thinking — in capitulating so readily. What I do know is this ready acquiescence will have a major impact on charitable fundraising in the UK. A negative impact particularly on those charities who have built committed giving programs and will now have no way to contact current donors by phone to renew, work through payment issues, or make additional one-off solicitations without a written permission to make telephone contact.

Let’s face it. No matter how ‘noble’ the pie-in-the-sky written ‘opt-in’ concept, in reality most charities will only be able to collect a very limited number of written opt-ins no matter how much time and money they spend trying to do so.

The result if this new guidance is allowed to stand? Serious damage to some great UK national charities. Damage not easily fixable at some later date when more thoughtful and calmer heads prevail.

In addition to needlessly lost revenue there are two other major casualties. First the donors. Cutting off a key communication channel to donors at the very time the media is bashing charities is to leave them isolated, confused and alone. And to do it apparently in the name of protecting “vulnerable” (read “old”) donors demonstrates not only disrespect for donors but ageism at its worst.

The second major casualty involves the concept of “self regulation”. While our sector talks a good game about the importance of self-regulation it’s clear that the demand for change is being driven by the media not by the sector itself. After all, who was calling for any changes in regulation before this media storm? A few forward-looking veterans, but none of the associations. So in the absence of thoughtful discussion and debate, what have the new regulations looked to address? Whatever the media decided to focus on during a few slow summer news weeks.

When the media storm hit beginning with Olive Cooke and was repeated with reports of gross and abusive over-solicitation, the first line of defense was the feeble ‘we’re good people just trying to do good things’; and then the cowardly defensive move on the part of some to throw the telephone fundraisers and Face-2-Face vendors under the bus.

Giving in to media and regulatory bullies is neither good self-defense nor meaningful self-regulation.

Can this situation be salvaged?

Of course. But only if leadership emerges that puts the proper focus on change where it truly belongs — on the experiences UK charities offer their donors. Only if the donor is placed front and centre, and new rules and regulations are designed to make charities more relevant to their donors, will there be any hope for truly constructive change.

It will be interesting to see next month what recommendations the Etherington Commission comes up with and how quickly the leadership in our sector moves to act on these recommendations.

Allowing the Office of Information Commissioner to present and prevail with the straw man of telephone solicitation is more than untenable. It’s an admission on the part of our sector that we’ve failed to provide our donors with the sort of experiences that lead a donor to welcome and look forward to getting a call from an old friend and not some telephonic mugger.

It’s time to stand up against the media bullies and over-zealous government regulators. Time for some true leadership and mindset changes. It’s called genuine self-regulation.

What are your thoughts?

Roger

P.S.  Agitator readers in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Asia, please don’t think for a moment that all this doesn’t pertain to you.  The UK has more of a regulatory regime than most countries, but the problems that have led to all this — ignoring the needs of donors and offering them lousy experiences — are present everywhere. We can all learn from the UK’s experience.