YouthNet blog
An insight into youth issues, volunteering trends, charity life and more from the UK charity YouthNet
All | Events | Youth | Technology | Volunteering | YouthNet | Charity World
Friday Feb 29, 2008
Elevator pitches, stats and stories
As fundraisers we get tied up all the time about key messages, and here at YouthNet we're no exception. We've worked quite hard to try and succinctly articulate what we do – something that's harder than you think when you look at the broad scope of www.do-it.org.uk and www.TheSite.org.
Anyway, seeing Joe Saxton talk about the "21st Century Donor" (check out the free report here) at the CHASE conference this week got me thinking about the key messages fundraisers use when asking for money.
One of the things he pointed out was that humans are completely irrational, and many of the decisions we make are linked to an emotional response, rather than hard facts. This is backed up by research – the example Joe gave described how when faced with the choice of donating to save one specific child, or a number of children, many people would choose the individual. As he explained, this is linked to "learned helplessness" – something many of us feel at the moment with regard to climate change. We know it's a massive issue, but it's just too big for us to tackle as individuals.
Everyone knows that stories tug the heartstrings and make people donate, not stats. The oldest fundraising cliché in the book is that "people give to people" – another example of irrational, emotional behaviour driving donations.
This raises a really important conflict for fundraisers – we know that we need emotional stories to demonstrate the need for funding, but we also know that we need to be clearly accountable (which in most people's eyes means stats, spreadsheets and piecharts).
Sometimes we don't get the balance right. So, we end up blurring the two together whilst we're asking for money, or we end up overloading people with dry stats. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, we think that stories, rather than stats, will suffice when it comes to being accountable.
I think this may be the root of some of the discomfort fundraiser's feel about being transparent and accountable. We're used to telling emotional stories, and donors want to hear them – but, as Joe said, no one wants to feel like a charity has made a mug out of them.
So what's the solution? I guess being completely clear about what we're doing. If we're asking for money to tackle a clear need, be emotive, but if we're trying to demonstrate the impact, maybe cold, hard stats are the way forward.
By the way, here's our "elevator pitch" – what do you think?
"YouthNet exists to support 16-24 year olds in every aspect of their lives. Whether it's emergency help in times of crisis, support with everyday issues, or getting involved in their local communities, YouthNet is always there for them. Twelve years ago, we were the first charity to recognise the potential of the internet and today we are still known for our pioneering approach."Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:48 AM ) Link to this post Comments[2]
Wednesday Feb 20, 2008
Brokers make hay whilst the sun shines
Those of you involved in volunteering, in particular employee volunteering, can't have failed to notice the increase in brokers and consultants (I'll call them brokers for the purposes of this post) over the past few years. I have – in particular at conferences and seminars about employee volunteering, for example.
A few years ago, it seemed like it was just us fundraisers scrolling through the delegate lists looking for companies that might be potential donors, with the odd broker scattered round here or there. Now the delegate lists feature increasing numbers of them, and I think reactions to them in both the corporate and voluntary sectors are pretty interesting.
For starters, companies seem to be much happier dealing with brokers than they are dealing directly with charities. I know that's a generalisation, but it makes sense – after all, I don't know of many CSR Managers who enjoy being mobbed by fundraisers eyeing up their community investment budget.
I think this also stems from a disconnect between the corporate and charity sectors – in terms of both language and culture. Whether this disconnect is real or not doesn't really matter. If it's perceived, it's there.
It's this disconnect that brokers and consultants look to bridge.
"It's OK" they say to bewildered companies. "I'll guide you though the maze that is the voluntary sector. I'll use the phrases and words that you know and love, and I'll take some of those tough decisions for you."
"And the invoice is in the post."
Of course there's nothing wrong with consultants and brokers charging for their services. Most of them have great knowledge and expertise of both the corporate and voluntary sectors, and they run a slick, professional ship.
What's frustrating is that when charities seek to generate income through providing services to a company, they're often met with "why should we have to pay for that? You're a charity aren't you?"
On those occasions, I'm sure if we re-branded as a consultancy and went back with the same service, those objections wouldn't exist.
I'm not sure why that happens – I suspect it's related to the perceived balance of power in a "traditional" fundraising relationship – eg. "I have some money to give", rather than "I have a need which charity X can solve".
I've got some questions around this new(ish) company - broker - charity power structure - starting with:
If it's OK for a broker to charge a company for sourcing voluntary sector partnerships, is it OK for a charity to charge a company in a similar way for services it provides? (and I don't mean at a discounted, "charity" rate).
If the consultants & brokers are paid by the company out of their CSR budget, shouldn't they be as transparent about how much they pay the brokers as they are about the donations they make to charity?
I guess the crux of this post is where does the power lie in the company – broker – charity relationship?
And why are companies more willing to pay brokers and consultants than charities when it comes to delivering services?
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 5:15 PM ) Link to this post Comments[2]
Friday Feb 15, 2008
Life to the Max
When Max Gogarty, 19, set out on his blogging adventure in The Guardian travel section whether or not at the behest of a parent, it's doubtful he expected to be greeted by such a torrent of commenting. After 475 comments were notched up on Max's blogging entrance of all blogging entrances, The Guardian had had enough and pulled the plug on the commentators.
Today, they axed the accompanying photo of Max Gogetter. Andy Pietrasik, The Guardian's Travel Editor, posted his response:
"So, Max is 19 and off on his own for the first time to travel around India and Thailand. You can bet he's feeling a lot older and more worldly-wise this morning.
I take on board many of the criticisms that you levelled at me and Max yesterday, and can see where they came from."
Meanwhile, on TheSite.org it made us think of our own travel section and this gem, a rant from a few years ago by Tom Allebone-Webb who had another take on the joys of setting out into the big wide world. It's a great antidote to the head of steam that Max's writing has helped build up amongst the Guardian readership.
"What's that? You've been "travelling"? Oooh, how pleasant. Got lots of exciting photos of you bungee jumping, you with a snake, you getting pissed up in a sarong? Really? I'd love to see - but wait, haven't I seen these before?
Of course I fucking have, everyone has. You go away to your middle-class Ibizas (generally somewhere in South East Asia), have your yearlong holidays and do exactly the same things as everybody else. You spend ages "finding yourself" only to realise you're exactly like every other numpty who ever went travelling. Then you come back, feeling all enlightened and insist upon regaling everyone with stories of your daring exploits going shopping in a local market or on a brief guided tour around a little bit of jungle. I'm sorry Indiana, I think you may have mistaken me for someone who cares."
It takes all sorts. There's room for everyone in our view, whether you're Max, Tom or whoever, we want to hear from you. You can read other young people's blogs on their experiences volunteering overseas on do-it.org.uk.
Posted by Patrick Daniels ( 4:10 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Wednesday Feb 13, 2008
Recruitment in a digital world
How do you recruit in the digital age?
Youth media consultancy/training company/friends of YouthNet 'MediaSnackers' have posted a recruitment video on YouTube which makes a call for new training staff. It's innovative and a great use of the medium - and is posted below for you to see.
It should also work: what MediaSnackers want is people who are totally in touch with emerging media and online tools - those frightened off by this kind of recruitment device are already effectively deselecting themselves. Also, potential candidates will be partly judged on how creatively they respond to the advert, using video or other digital mechanisms to apply. As a way of separating out the properly keen from the can't be arsed, it is an excellent approach.
Unrelated note: the Guardian tech podcast this week covers NGOs, charities and not-for-profits and chats to star charity-new-media evangelist Beth Canter. It's an interesting enough show, but I can't help but note a slight whiff of condescension, that because it's not commercial it's somehow not 'proper'.
Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 2:23 PM ) Link to this post Comments[2]
Tuesday Feb 05, 2008
Using Facebook to communicate with volunteers
I went to the last meet up of the Charity Web Forum on Monday and took part in a discussion about using social networking tools to communicate with volunteers.
I think a lot of the discussion of social networking is often in a marketing context where the focus is on how social networking online can be harnessed to increase the reach of a project, campaign or organisation. However, I think one the most valuable ways in which a website like Facebook can help is by building community amongst already established groups or networks by setting up closed or secret groups.
From our standpoint the big attraction of Facebook was that most of our volunteers and project members were already there. A hurdle many online communities fall at when trying to reflect already existing networks is that not everyone migrates to the new place, splitting your community between those there and those not.
In a practical group communication management sense, I think Facebook has made a huge difference. In particular, this has been felt most in what I call more vertical forms of communication, e.g. where you need to get a newsletter out to a group, an invite to an event and track responses, etc. However, I think the jury is really still out on the more horizontal kind of communication, i.e. where everyone gets to talk and 'see' everyone. A lot of horizontal communications, such as group members contacting each other independently, is below the radar. This isn't a bad thing- but it can make it harder to gauge your community's activity.
Obviously the potential is huge for building community once you've got everyone together online in the same place on a website they may well be visiting regularly. However, whether your community is communicating to each other as much as it could is certainly debatable in most cases. For example, discussion boards and link sharing are consistently underused across groups on Facebook. Why so when the potential is so great?
- A big part of this is the lack of functionality (searching or tagging your info in your Facebook group is terrible or non-existant).
- Another part of this is that there's no get out clause- you can't back up your group or export your data easily.
- Finally, it's crucial to be continuing to include the non-Facebookers in your group- which can become more complex, the more you find yourself wedded to the Facebook platform.
For Facebook development of groups has hardly been a priority- but arguably it's one of their greatest success stories. Here's to hoping Facebook start getting a bit more socially aware :-) Posted by Patrick Daniels ( 12:54 PM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
