It’s time for charities to stop being afraid of their marketing spend
Instead of equating frugality with morality, Lawrence Jackson says it’s time for charities to take control of their marketing spend and realise that to make a big impact, they’re going to have to spend a dollar or two.
Whether it be someone shaking a tin at the traffic lights, a cold call at dinner or a personalised letter from a charity, chances are: you can recall the last time you were asked to donate.
And yet, despite what feels like increasing persistence from a growing charity sector, fewer Australians are giving.
According to the Giving Australia report in 2016, while the average donation has increased by 38 percent, the number of Australians giving had gone down by about seven percent over the decade.
So, what is wrong with giving, and how do we fix it so the sector can benefit from digital disruption, rather than be shattered by it?
A cultural issue that I have noticed with the non-profit sector is that if they invest in their office space such as to update their computer hardware and software for newer safer more-capable equipment, it is considered that they aren’t focusing on their core mission.
This leads to things like inefficiencies or data-safety and compliance risks that can affect the organisation and its mission. What needs to happen is to see this culture change so they can maintain an efficient office and that the data that represents the organisation, its donors, membership and beneficiaries is kept safe and there aren’t any liabilities that could affect the organisation and its stakeholders.
Donors have gotten wise to the fact that the money they donate is usually used to pay for marketing and administration. And we’re tired of it.
But it doesn’t have to be that way.
First, charities need to get rid of the multi-level staff structures – donors hate them. Why does a charity need, for example, two fundraising officers, and then a fundraising manager to manage them? It’s just big-noting nonsense. Cut the bloat from your staffing, and you’re halfway there.
Secondly, look for other ways to cover staff salaries. One charity I know of was given a grant by a corporation to pay the salary of a key person for one year.
They advised all their donors of this, and used it to promote the fact that donations would all therefore go direct to charitable endeavours.
It worked a treat, and they got more donations than ever.
Interesting article Lawrence. We are actually working on a digital tool at the moment designed to capture and increase the ‘pull’ donations while allowing social networks to do the ‘push’ job.
Our charity prides itself on giving 100% of funds donated to the families we support. We do this by covering administration costs by charging board members a fee to serve on the board of the charity. Board members are also expected to purchase their own shirts, aprons, hats etc and pay their own way at any event we host. Our President even pays the annual insurance bill from his own pocket.
Chailis is a charity I am proud to be a part of. If only there were more charities where the majority of funds went where it should, the whole sector would benefit
Interesting article Lawrence that covers a lot of issues. I’ve worked as a consultant for 20 years building partnerships between companies and charities 1) perception of charity is still warped as you can see from the comments. No organisation, charity or commercial can operate without admin costs, it isn’t feasible. Ive worked with small charities who try to do everything on the skin of an oily rag and they are inefficient, miss opportunities, burn staff and burn volunteers. Alas due to the poor perception non profits are afraid to be transparent because consumers wont understand. 10% admin costs is very low and yet I know very intelligent people who think that this is too much. Not always but mostly.2) Social media has provided an incredible opportunity for non-profits to tell their impact stories at a very low cost and yet many have not embraced either social media or storytelling due to old fashioned board members who won’t evolve. 3) Instead of collaborating and merging there are too many charities doing the exact same thing and this is escalating as more charities are formed every day. The sector needs a complete overhaul but I fear it won’t evolve without a crisis, as occurred in the UK a few years ago.