Imagine this headline: a 22% increase in online sales in one year. Now imagine you are a journalist, interviewing the chief executive of the organisation that has just delivered these results. What question would you ask? How about: ‘How has this affected your high street sales?’ (They have increased). Or maybe: ‘How have you achieved this growth?’
So, on the
morning this news was announced (13 November 2017), what question did BBC Radio
4’s Today interviewer ask Oxfam GB’s Chief Executive, Mark Goldring? After an
initial lead about whether we have “reached peak charity shopping in the UK” he
seized the opportunity to renew the media war on fundraising: “People just hate
being subject to an avalanche of pleas from charities: why don’t you stop it
altogether?”
That a
journalist on the BBC’s flagship morning news radio programme could ask this
question says far more about editorial standards than fundraising standards.
Those of us who watch or take part in BBC Children in Need 2017 this weekend
might reflect on the hypocrisy of an organisation that asks us to donate to its
campaign whilst questioning Oxfam’s right to do the same.
Meanwhile,
over at the Telegraph, another inflammatory front page headline: “Charities
dodge begging ban” (11 November 2017), followed by the usual inflammatory
content: “Charities are circumventing a ban on begging letters to elderly
people … targeting vulnerable people … bombarded … regulator admitted it is
powerless to stop charities … begging for money”
On the
subject of ‘begging for money’, hours before that story went to print, the
Telegraph launched its Christmas charity appeal 2017, with the heart-warming
line that “your donations, small or large, have proved a lifeline to our chosen
charities and are a source of great pride to this newspaper.”
Charity
fundraising, you might conclude, is acceptable only when it creates virtue
signalling opportunities for media owners.
The charity
sector has lived through more than two years of unprecedented challenge and
change. There is absolutely no question that some fundraising practices were
unreasonable, unethical and even unlawful: it is right that these practices
were challenged and stopped. Despite all this change, however, news about
fundraising is still a springboard for questioning its very existence, and
lawful fundraising practices have to be defended against charges of
exploitation.
It is time to
turn the page. For too long now, every media interview with a charity feels
like an apology or defence plea. Yes, fundraising
must be “responsible, respectful and reasonable”, as Mark Goldring said in his
interview. Yes, fundraisers need new ways of engaging with the people who
support our causes. Of course we must develop meaningful relationships with our
supporters. And we must explain how we use their donations to fund the causes
they care about. But we must also assert our right to fundraise.
The total
amount donated to charity in 2016 was an estimated £9.7 Billion[1]. In a recent survey[2], 81% of donors did so
having been asked, rather than spontaneously, and of these 30% would not have
donated at all.
So how will
the Treasury plug the funding gap if fundraising becomes unsustainable? Who
will fund the cancer research? Who will respond to humanitarian emergencies?
Who will provide care to enable terminally ill people to die in their own
homes? Who will pick up the phone to answer the call from someone in crisis?
If we as a
sector are to stand up for those in need, we must first advocate more
forcefully for ourselves. It is time to stop apologising. And when we are asked
tough questions, it is time that we ask tough questions in return.
[1] The Charities Aid Foundation, CAF UK
Giving 2017, April 2017
[2] Institute of Fundraising / YouGov,
Insights into charity fundraising, May 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment