I’m troubled by something. I’m increasing hearing a view of fundraising that I fundamentally disagree with. As UK fundraisers grapple with the significant challenges presented to us over the last few years, there’s an increasingly prominent view that our fundraising efforts should be directed at a smaller group of more affluent donors. A view in some quarters that it’s almost bad practise to seek to engage the public at a low or non financial level.
And while I understand life time value and how to calculate ROI, it’s a view I fundamentally disagree with for two key reasons. A short one. And a longer one. Reason 1: Any successful fundraising or engagement strategy needs balance. It shouldn’t rely on a small number of fundraising products/channels/approaches for success. That would be stupid. Reason 2: Reason two is a bit more personal. I work in this sector and do the job I do because I want to drive impact. Big, significant, important, world changing impact. I’m not interested in incremental change or limiting my ambition and participation in change to a narrow band of influence defined by my job description or existing skill set. I fundamentally believe it is up to people like you and I to inspire, recruit, activate and inform as many people as possible to support the causes we have the honour of representing. It doesn’t matter to me if that initial interaction is a ‘like’ or a large cash donation. So long as there is a strategy and a reason to continue to communicate, engage and inspire that person. What matters to me most is that we give people a reason to give a shit and support our cause or mission. What matters to me is that I don’t waste donors money. What matters to me is that the things I get involved in drive progress as well as real and lasting change.