ja_mageia

Like all fundraisers, I take great enjoyment from a successful fundraising activity. “Income ahead of target”, “costs less than expected”. These are phrases I like. However, and I appreciate I may be in a minority of one here, I actually find fundraising activities that don’t work even more fascinating.

Why, when wristbands were so successful, did so many charities seem to come to the party late? Had the public simply become bored of the phenomenon and, if so, why hadn’t the charities been able to predict this would happen and get in earlier?

Why too are some ‘old-school’ activities such as jumble sales, that stalwart of community fundraising, apparently enjoying a resurgence when more modern activities like bungee jumps and zip lines are fast becoming a rare species? Indeed, rumour has it, even some charity balls have struggled to break even in recent months. Worrying times indeed…Or are they?

As boring as it sounds, this is what I think about. And, I believe, if you really want to succeed in fundraising you should too.

There are obvious answers. “It’s the economy, stupid” (or at least a variation of this) is the one I hear the most. But this passing of the baton from what is popular now, to what is popular next is not new. It certainly pre-dates the current global economic downturn.

And, if this has happened before, I surmised, it must be possible to track the changing of the guard from one dominant activity or style of fundraising to another. And if you can track it backwards it seemed obvious you should also be able to project forwards – thus ensuring when the next global fundraising phenomenon hits, we’re all ready and waiting.

Spending more time than I care to admit, I found that it was perfectly possible to track this ever-changing landscape of philanthropy back some way. To 1578 to be precise! Throughout this time, and especially as modern fundraising has taken root, it seems clear that there has been an ever changing, predictable and recordable trend that dictates both a certain lifespan for a new activity/theme’s ‘peak’ time in the public eye and also predicts the arrival date of its successor.

Wristbands weren’t a one off. They were part of a long running saga of ‘single colour, cause association’. As far back as Shakespear’s Othello, the use of the green willow to represent separation from a loved one was used.  It is perfectly possible to trace this particular fundraising activity back to that.

Of course, new media and in particular social media have changed the way we communicate but their influence, it appears, has failed to change the time between a particular fundraising activity or fundraising theme’s ‘peaks’. That is, the evidence suggests, no amount of Facebook promotion can bring about an early peak for a certain trend.  
What does all this mean?

In tracking fundraising trends I found it was possible to create a model that both identified historical trends and was able to make an effort at predicting future ones. Spotting when, for example, the ‘single cause, colour association’ peaked at numerous times throughout history and recording the time between each emergence allowed for a speculative attempt at predicting when it would occur again.

Taking into account the ever-developing ability of news to reach our homes and phones as-it-happens and also taking into account the fact that each time a fundraising trend becomes popular again it will almost certainly have evolved in some way (take Jeremy Irons wearing a red ribbon in 1992 and Lance Armstrong’s yellow wristband in 2004 for example), we ought to be able to predict when, if not exactly what, the next trend in this particular line will be.

Being prepared therefore to spot the emergence of the next peak in this fundraising line, and to capitalise upon it, could be the difference between outstanding success and abject failure. As for when it will be, the model I’ve developed suggests 2015 will be the earliest opportunity for the re-emergence of a sector wide, single colour cause association fundraising activity.

Of course, with almost four years until this theory can be fully challenged, I will end by urging you to consider simply this:  By understanding why some great ideas didn’t work, looking for causes outwith the obvious and seeking to better understand our donors, we can better prepare and further improve our own income and our sector’s professional approach to ensuring we give our donors what they want, when they might want it.

David Cunningham is Director of Fundraising at the ARCHIE Foundation.