What’s wrong with face to face fundraising?
August 26, 2011In some ways, nothing. In many ways, lots.
As I’ve proclaimed many times through this blog I love face to face fundraising (I include door to door/malls etc in this category).
I really love it. For a number of reasons but mostly because it’s about real conversations with real people, and because its transformed the fundraising sector in so many countries. Like it or not, you can’t argue with the data.
So I was naturally drawn to Ken Burnett’s recent post about how we can change the way the public views F2F. There’s some really good stuff in here with insights from a number of really smart people.
I again started thinking, what is wrong with F2F? And why do we find ourselves constantly defending it? A recent example of the channel coming under fire was this pot shot from David Koch.
I came up with three key things wrong with the vehicle:
- Most people don’t “get it”. By most I mean members of the public and for a large part people within the sector. By “get it” I mean understand not only the mechanics of how it works, but also what it means to so many organisations around the world.
For example, hundreds of thousands of new regular givers recruited each year in Australia. Three quarters of a million in the UK. More than a billion dollars for Greenpeace since its inception in the early 90′s. The Australian Red Cross generating more than $10m a year from F2F.
Most wouldn’t know this. And to be fair why would they? Powerful data though. Difficult for the punter on the street to get ticked off at canvassers when they can see impact like this. Or more poignantly when they realise the number of peoples lives it has changed.
As I often say to friends who challenge this, what’s more outrageous: a fundraiser approaching you and interrupting your busy schedule or a kid who can’t get a meal tonight because the soup kitchen he visits is run down, decrepit and about to close their doors? It’s about perspective. Again, difficult to argue with.
- It’s not different enough. Some really good points made in Ken’s piece about the need to differentiate the F2F conversation. Add some drama to the pitch.
Wouldn’t it be great if people on the street wanted to talk to a fundraiser rather than avoid them like the plague? We’ve all done it: pretended your on your phone, walked to the other side of the road to avoid saying no.
What if we were drawn to talk to the fundraising team? Can we move the conversation from a push to a pull situation?
Perhaps the way we do F2F requires a paradigm shift. Each organisation needs to think about how they can look and feel different to their friends on the other side of the street.
- We’re average (at best) as a sector at the follow up. Big statement, yes. Exceptions to the rule, always. But invariably we fail miserably at understanding how to get F2F recruited supporters excited about what we do. This comment is gleaned as a perennial mystery shopper, promiscuous donor, and of course as a fundraiser. It’s also gleaned from looking at lots of data. In Canada year 1 attrition levels of around 30%, in Australia around 45%, in the UK topping 50%. Clearly the current model doesn’t work.
Square peg, round hole is the way I see it. We send stuff our audience couldn’t give a toss about. Long letters, boring newsletters. What about rich video content, podcasts, texts, invitations to attend exclusive events, opportunities to ‘have your say’?
I know Mark Phillips and the gang over at Bluefrog have done some really cool stuff in an effort to stifle soaring attrition rates and are having some great success. We’re working with clients now looking at completely changing the way we engage with F2F supporters. The two words I’ll leave you with on this: think mobile.
I don’t purport to have all of the answers in under 700 words. I suspect the second and third points above are easier to manage/fix. The first, whilst bigger in scale, requires individual commitment from fundraisers as well as sector buy in and advocating to change the way people view what is an incredibly important part of the fundraising landscape.
Long live face to face fundraising. But perhaps in a slightly different way.
Jonathon
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.8 Responses to What’s wrong with face to face fundraising?
-
-
Jonathon Grapsas says:
Hi John
Thanks for the note and interesting question.
You’re absolutely right, high attrition is partly caused by volume, no doubt about that. But I don’t believe it’s OK to simply accept that. Yes its a function of the channel in some respects but there are elements we can control, including the way we engage with people, educating others about the channel better and of course the interaction in the street to begin with.
So I guess in summary its both the follow up and the initial interaction (added to the volume paradigm). But I think we can do a much better job at the things we can control and not really worry about the things we can’t.
Cheers
Jonathon
-
-
Think mobile indeed!
Great post Jonno. I hear lots of talk about poor attrition rates from F2F but rarely see real action to make a difference to the way F2F recruited supporters are welcomed and communicated with after that initial passion filled, engaging and convincing conversation on the street. Or as has been pointed out elsewhere, little innovation in the actual recruitment moment.
The trick has to be to carry on being warm, passionate, engaging and convincing. That means changing the way supporters recruited in this way are engaged with. Mobile delivered content, outbound welcome calls, SMS thank you messages, townhall conference calls to bring the work alive, these are all things that could be blended into or replace the existing welcome processes that were designed for other supporter types.
I blogged on the subject a while ago, (If you keep on doing the same things, the same things will keep on happening http://bit.ly/gVMDOu)
But this really is one of those situations where standing still and doing nothing isn’t an option.
-
Well said Paul, cheers for the comment.
Your blog about same things happening reminds me of one of my fav sayings about tradition. Just because you’ve always done something doesn’t mean it isn’t incredibly stupid.
-
-
Like the blog as ever Jonathon but have to disagree with aspects of the first point regarding ‘people not getting it’:
“Difficult for the punter on the street to get ticked off at canvassers when they can see impact like this. Or more poignantly when they realise the number of peoples lives it has changed.”
I’m not sure that’s the case. The causes that float my boat are not the same as the causes that float other people’s boats. I know you’re not suggesting an over-simplified approach but I (like millions of other pedestrians) simply don’t care as much about every single cause and can therefore perceive an assertive face to face fundraiser as intrusive, irrespective of how strong their case for support.
“As I often say to friends who challenge this, what’s more outrageous: a fundraiser approaching you and interrupting your busy schedule or a kid who can’t get a meal tonight because the soup kitchen he visits is run down, decrepit and about to close their doors? It’s about perspective. Again, difficult to argue with.”
And again, it’s not difficult to argue with if the ‘punter’ doesn’t care as much for this cause as the fundraisers do.
I think the key is the difference between the public’s ability to sympathise with a cause when someone makes a powerful case and their preparedness to then give to support it.
For example, most people intellectually accept the case for the prevention of torture and abuse around the globe but more people will actually give to animal welfare charities as it feels closer to home; perhaps more tangible?
Thanks for getting the grey matter turning. In fact you’ve inspired me to post an article over at the Penguin Blog all about a journey through London and sympathetic face to face fundraising.
Check it out here http://bit.ly/qIgMMM
-
Cheers Kevin for the insight and comments.
I guess my point is whilst I accept many/lots/most people avoid canvassers like the plague, whilst many do because they may feel its intrusive or simply don’t care about the case – there would be a much greater acceptance (not necessarily empathy) if people generally understood the role of f2f for charities.
For every 10 people I speak to – that aren’t fundraisers – where the subject is raised, I invariably hear things like “that can’t/doesn’t work does it”? A 2 minute conversation with some empirical evidence behind it about the magnitude of the channel often changes perception. I would say for almost all of those I manage to engage with. usually ends in “fair enough, I didn’t know that… wow”
I’m certainly not seeking an overwhelming sense of public endorsement or empathy with every single cause on the street, but a greater acceptance of why it’s conducted and its role would be a welcome place to be.
That being said this doesn’t mean that poor and overtly intrusive canvassing is acceptable, in fact it merely diminishes everyone else’s hard work. Remembering that what different people think is intrusive varies greatly. To some merely asking them or walking toward them is uncomfortable and perhaps even seen as aggressive, for others it’s being badgered several times whilst walking pastt.
In summary I would like us to push toward a level of at least public “acceptance”.
-
-
James says:
Hi Jonathon, good article. Do you have any online sources you can point to for these stats:
“For example, hundreds of thousands of new regular givers recruited each year in Australia. Three quarters of a million in the UK. More than a billion dollars for Greenpeace since its inception in the early 90′s. The Australian Red Cross generating more than $10m a year from F2F.”
-
Hi James
The UK data is courtesy of the PFRA – http://www.pfra.org.uk/
Aussie data is a combination of numbers gleaned from sector benchmarking (I.e. Pareto Fundraising’s annual benchmarking study) combined with data shared from other F2F fundraising agencies.
The GP data is a guess-timate but there are a few sources that show them generating more than $100m a year globally from F2F. http://www.sofii.org/node/226
Cheers
Jonathon
-
I really enjoy your weekly thought provoking Jonathon.
Is it follow up we are bad at or misunderstanding the relationship to begin with?
Personally we don’t tend to try – or expect to develop deep intense relationships with everyone we meet – but as fundraisiers nearly everything we do is based on volume. I don’t know the answers I suspect though that as long as we focus on volume high attrition rates should be an expected outcome.