Donors have many opportunities to give to various charities working across every possible sector. But what really captivates them? Is it the charity’s marketing campaign and branding, the cause it is aiming to address, connections to the executives running the show, celebrity endorsement or is it the strategy and the effectiveness of the organisation in achieving its mission?
A little while ago, we published a post and asked whether or not there were too many charities with similar purposes, and questioned whether or not there was an opportunity for some of them to consolidate or collaborate more. This post resonated with readers and created some interesting discussions on LinkedIn, with some saying they weren’t sure that donors really looked that deeply into the charities they supported. This wasn’t news, but we thought that continuing the conversation was important.
I first thought of my significant other, our family and friends, none of which work in the philanthropic and not-for-profit sectors. They all support a wide variety of charities, mostly upon request, after a human or natural disaster and for causes that generally pull at their heartstrings – often times through group fundraising activities, such as marathons, cycling races and more recently the growth of mustaches and dumping of ice buckets etc. After informally questioning 10 or so of them, they indicated that they had never read the annual or financial reports or looked into the charities’ strategy to see if (in their opinion) those charities were using their gifts in the best possible way. In their words, they felt that the charities ‘must know what they are doing, that’s their field of expertise after all, not mine, I just believe that my donation can help do some good’. Unless there is a sneaky friend or family member of mine who has won Tatts lotto and has omitted to share that news with me, I would dare say that most of these gifts were for modest amounts.
Whilst I wasn’t all that surprised by this, I was secretly hoping that at least one or two of them had developed a habit of researching the charities they supported. Perhaps I look into the charities I support because I’ve worked in the philanthropic sector and have seen how very well run organisations can achieve great results (sometimes with very little resources), whilst others, (sometimes very well-funded) find it very difficult to effect change? I believe a lot of this has a lot to do with people and strategy.
Now on to the elephant in the room: the ALS ice bucket challenge. Although there is a lot of debate about this, what I will say is that anything that excites the community and grows philanthropy can only be a good thing, especially in the case of medical research, where is it often impossible for donors to get involved. Some articles are questioning the validity of supporting ALS when there are many other diseases that kill many more people. It’s important to remember that a disease is still a disease and that they all destroy the lives of individuals and their families in horrible ways. Let’s not argue about which disease is more deserving and put down others; instead, choose to apply your funding to those charities you feel can deliver the best results. Also, keep in mind that although rare diseases don’t kill as many people, they remain rare. “Rare” in medical research often entails: little funds, little knowledge and little hope, as it is much less likely that cures will be found soon because there is a lot less money being applied towards it globally.
This campaign has been hugely successful and has most likely attracted a new pool of donors: new donors that may support other charities if they are successful at connecting with them. It is without doubt that the Foundation will be under enormous scrutiny in the coming months and years to ensure their strategy is able to deliver impact.
In the meantime, here’s my advice to all donors: do your research, as where there’s money and goodwill, there is often a minority of those ready to take advantage lurking around ready to ruin it for everyone.
[poll id=”17″]
[poll id=”18″]