If I were to broaden my thinking like this, I’d have to include my parents for giving me the inspiration to work for causes bigger than just me and my wife for supporting me every step of the way in making the life-change to work in the non-for-profit sector.

Keep up the challenging ideas.

It is appalling how difficult it is to find annual reports for some charities – either because of bad navigation on the web site or because they are simply not there at all – including some major organisations as you have found. There should be a rule – if a donor/potential donor can’t find your annual report online within 30 seconds, you’re obstructing them. And, even where there is information online, the detail can be very poor – e.g. perhaps the largest voluntary organisation in the country does not break down its’ turnover of over €200m!

You could request the information from the CRO, though you’d have to pay a search fee – but it would also be very interesting to see which organisations hadn’t filed recently.

I know it’s probably out of date, but don’t TCD Centre for Non-profit Management have such data – or maybe it’s all anonymized?

The figures are a bit of a mixed bag (as I said, it’s rough – this is two hours worth of digging). I’ve used the latest available figures on their websites, or in some cases approximated it from overall turnover figures.

As far as I know these are gross, rather than net figures – unless I’ve completely misread the accounts. But as you know, the degree and quality of reporting varies from the excellent (Concern, Trócaire) to to appalling (I won’t say).

There are problems as you point out. Some are Republic of Ireland only figures, others include the North and others include UK or worldwide operations. So the easiest way to look at it is “money fundraised by Irish-registered charities”.

Trying to ascertain what is voluntary income is also tricky. All I’m consistently excluding is Statutory Income (state and EU).

I’ve since found Gorta – at €5.7m they surge into the top 10.

CMRF – couldn’t find any figures on their website, ditto for Mater Foundation, but I’m going to check those out. I have a rough figure for Temple St, but I need to double check it.

Dublin Simon are the only Simon likely to be above €2m but again, couldn’t find figures on their website.

Of the others you mention, I couldn’t find any figures for Chernobyl and Women’s Aid’s voluntary income in much less than €2m. I’ll go searching for the rest.

As for Guidestar or their ilk. Well, having data would be nice. Once we don’t end up with a ‘watchdog’ that’s obsessed with CEO salaries and fundraising ratios instead of the quality, value and impact of the work.

I presume these are NET incomes? Of course the trouble is that some like Concern show full fundraising costs (inc. salaries and other overheads) whereas most just show direct costs only.

Does it include all income fundraised in Ireland (ROI and NI?) – or all income fundraise by Irish-based charities (e.g. inc. Concern’s UK income)?

Does it include non-statutory grant income (from ElectricAid, private foundations, etc?)

Off the top of my head, you appear to be missing CMRF (and other hospital foundations – e.g Mater, Temple St), Self Help Africa, Gorta, Christian Aid, Niall Mellon, Haven, some of the other hospices (e.g. St Francis), MS Ireland, the various Simons, RNLI, Community Foundation Ireland, CRC, Cooperation Ireland, COPE Foundation, Croí, Chernobyl Children’s Project, DFI, Irish Wheelchair Assoc, Jack & Jill, Merchants Quay, Rehab, Women’s Aid. Then there’s the university foundations (and private schools) and the missionary societies.

Some of these might be below €2.5m fundraising income, at least if it is net, but most of them should be over by my reckoning.

Thought it was just me :-/

Great post. I’ll take more time to watch all the video later. Just wanted to share with you the video that got me to open my wallet today. It doesn’t get any more emotional than this. Lucy Buck at the ChildsiFoundation is so sincere, genuine and honest. I frequently find myself tearing up when I watch her videos and they don’t cost much money at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzxwUIE7wDQ&feature=youtu.be

Great blog. Thanks.
Kimberley
PS Hope that link works!

When I worked in fundraising you generally aimed for a 10% response rate to your direct mail campaigns (I’m talking here about your ‘warm’ mailing lists, with a ‘cold’ list you’d do well to get even 1%). Anything less than that was a disappointment, anything more was a bonus. If you got a 15% response you felt kind of chuffed. Once in a while, if the gods were looking favourably on you, you might clear the 20% hurdle. The point about all this is that even when your campaign has been a relative success in fundraising terms, and you get your 15 or even 20 per cent response; the question remains – ‘what about the other 80-85 per cent?’ Is it possible that the message you conveyed, which was so attractive to approximately one-fifth was totally off-putting to the other four-fifths? You can’t please everyone and when it comes to marketing you shouldn’t even try. Also, don’t think think too much about it – it runs the risk of never doing anything!

So what I’m really saying, in a rather round-about way admittedly, is that some people might respond ‘emotively’. But others might not. You shouldn’t hesitate to adopt the cool analytic approach if the situation demands it. Target your audience before you craft your approach.

Thanks for commenting and sorry for taking a while to reply – it’s been a busy week here.

I’d echo what Jules says and add a few things.

If you’re dealing with the sometimes life and death issues that we deal with day in, day out – childhood cancer, poverty, disability, end-of-life care, violence against women – then there should never be anything fake about speaking or writing emotionally about your issue. In fact, I’d contend, that if you don’t write emotionally, the donor will spot, not necessarily a faker, but someone who doesn’t appear to care. And if you don’t appear to care about your issue, why should I?

And while I would never suggest writing an angry letter to donors (angry in the sense of cranky that is) there are times when making a donor angry is a valid, important and legitimate approach. Who wouldn’t feel angry at the lack of life chances afforded to many children with disabilities in parts of Africa? Or the failure of hospitals to treat dying people with the appropriate care, respect and dignity?

And, finally, you can never assume that people already ‘feel like doing something’. That’s always a very big and dangerous assumption to make. Most donors aren’t sitting around waiting to hear from you, with their cheque book at the ready. They’re busy with their lives, you need to reach out, engage them, inspire them and persuade them of the rightness of your cause. And the best way to do that is by appealing to their heart first, not their head. This isn’t about fakery, or manipulation. It’s simply about using the most effective communications tools at your disposal to make your case.

It works when it’s done right. A supporter with a lump in his or her throat is a supporter who cares. A supporter you’ve moved. A supporter who will give. And give more.

Damian is not suggesting we send anyone an angry letter. He’s suggesting the opposite. That good fundraising is fundraising which evokes a positive emotional response in your supporters.

We don’t do “despondent”, we move the donor with emotions that engage them: empathy with a fellow human in pain; sympathy for a child in need; anger at the mistreatment of animals; indignation at the denial of human rights. Is this desirable? Well, our most emotionally charged campaigns are also our most successful. Consistently.

An emotional response is, as you say, a spontaneous reaction. And the art of good fundraising writing is to craft letters that illicit just such a reaction from supporters. But just because a letter is written with the intent of bringing a tear to the reader’s eye, does not make it fake.

I’m sure, like me, you’ve read novels or watched movies that brought tears to your eyes. I was overcome with emotion when I read the last page of “The Grapes of Wrath.” I’m sure Steinbeck ‘manufactured’ that ending with absolute intent. I imagine he re-wrote and re-wrote those last few passages until he was satisfied they would elicit precisely the emotional response he was aiming to achieve.

Did I spot a fake? No. I cried. It was a turning point in my life.

That’s the kind of emotion we’re talking about.

Is not emotion supposed to be a spontaneous outpouring? It isn’t really emotion if you can just turn it on and off. Donors will know. They can spot a faker.

‘Making people cry’ runs the risk of making them despondent and depressed – a bit like including free razor blade with every direct mail letter you send out. ‘Make the world a better place – Kill yourself!’

What if people are already at the stage where they ‘feel like doing something’? Do you still have to go through the whole rigmarole of getting them highly emotive? More likely to be a hindrance than a help.