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
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]