'SHOULD
THE SHOWS GO ON?'Stephen Bitti, Chief Executive of UKC, ponders on the choices a charity fundraiser has to make
It was 11.00am, Paddington Station. Sitting on a crowded train departing for a weekend away.
Some passengers had reserved seats and now proudly staked claim to more than their fair share of the table in front of them. Others were struggling to find a suitable place in the sea of bags and bodies that surrounded me.
What if we didn’t have to fight for space on a hectic train? What if we lived in a perfect world? And if I was in charge of trying to make it perfect, without setting anyone up for disappointment, how might I begin to set out to please at least some of the people some of the time?
I guess I would take the first step by aiming to create as many opportunities for people as required. And allow greater personal choice.
At this point I remembered my own job and began to smile. Many of us are aiming to offer diverse selections of programmes to diversely affected communities in the HIV sector. We’re not aiming to provide the same menu for all. Well, of course not.
Yet when it comes to the income side of things - in raising funds to pay for these programmes - I detect much less debate and agreement on what the right fundraising approach is. What’s the right combination of bucket collecting, applying to grant-making trusts or staging high-profile annual events - however grand or small?
Does it matter how charities fundraise? And how important are the by-products of this process, the signals their fundraising give out about their intentions, and who they ally themselves with?
Not being a fundraising expert I recently attended a course in search of some answers. I was heartened to find that I was not the only one searching. I learned that there is only one thing that you can expect from donors: they give money. In all other areas they are unpredictable.
I was encouraged to discard any preconceptions about classifying donors into normal categories (government, foundations, individuals and so on) and to form three new classifications:
Though all of the above classifications require equal attention if you are to create a successful fundraising portfolio, every charity’s fundraising strategy should begin with the “Close Constituents”. They will require a considerable investment before you begin to reap the benefits. Even though they share your aims and objectives and regard you as their most important community activity, there is a need to legitimise your organisation through engagement with this group. They have the ability to further raise awareness about your cause.
In the case of HIV, this will inevitably be those most closely affected by HIV: the gay and black and ethnic minority communities, people affected like family members, and dedicated workers in the field.
One key area of community fundraising that is sometimes criticised by those it is meant to benefit is the ‘big money’ fundraising event that requires considerable financial investment and planning.
Some of these types of community events are hugely successful. Others 'only just break even'. Yet all have the potential to deliver great dividends on raising the issues.
Too much can and does go wrong - often beyond the control of the organisers - but we do it because they are an intrinsic part of any long-term funding strategy. The need is to offer a choice to our donor base - a range of fundraising opportunities from which to choose. Our regular donors will then become strong advocates of the issues that matter to us all. After all, where are our "Unusual Suspects" to come from?
We can also use the financial success of "Close Constituent" fundraising as a selling point when approaching the "Usual Suspects". They will appreciate the fact that you have gone to your community for funding before applying directly to them.
I leave you with this question. What if we didn't stage the 'big money' fundraising events? And the winner is...?
