h1_bkg

No cold calling: a decisive moment for fundraising self-regulation

The world of fundraising self-regulation has a key decision to make. How should it respond to the lack of clarity in the Code of Fundraising Practice on whether fundraisers should knock on a door with a ‘no cold calling’ sticker on it?

For many, myself included, the answer is simple. Fundraisers should not knock on a door which says ‘no cold calling’, just as they shouldn’t cold-call a phone number which has signed up to the telephone preference service or mail a household which has said ‘no cold mail’. Those with a sticker may be elderly, or have poor mobility, young children or vicious dogs. ‘No cold calling’ might not imply a view one way or the other about those who call, and might just indicate that answering an unwanted doorstep call is simply a hassle.

For the leadership of the fundraising community, life is more complicated. Recently I listened to two leading fundraisers tell us how ‘complicated’ it was, how a working party has been formed and so on. Rather than make a clear and bold decision to respect the public’s wishes, fundraising self-regulation is fudging it. My understanding is the new guidance is likely to be that fundraisers should not knock if the sticker says ‘no cold callers including fundraisers’.

The fundraisers’ argument is that ‘no cold calling’ doesn’t mean fundraisers, it means somebody else. The media and politicians are always creating a fuss about successful fundraising, they say. It used to be telephone, then street and now door-to-door. Doorstep fundraising, so the argument goes, is a hapless victim of a sticker intended for others – a cuddly dolphin caught in the nets meant for someone else.

However, the publicly available research is pretty clear (from a recent Future Foundation report). Charities make up 51% of the doorstep calls, according to a public survey, with the next highest category – home improvements – at just 20%. So when people say ‘no cold calls’, the research indicates the probability that they are very likely to be thinking of charities. Of course, they might love charities knocking at their door. However, my guess is that all research will lead to the same conclusion. Charities are a very significant portion of doorstep calling and the majority of the public think that ‘no cold calling’ should apply to fundraisers.

The drive behind the fudging and hand-wringing by the fundraising community is not difficult to understand. It’s getting harder and harder to recruit new supporters and doorstep fundraising is one of the great success stories of recent years. Every ‘no cold calling’ household would be another potential supporter lost and I have no doubt that fundraisers can point to households who have signed up despite having a sticker.

Just as many charities argue that we need to have sustainable economic growth and sustainable development, we also need sustainable fundraising. Today’s fundraisers shouldn’t, through their techniques and approaches, make it harder for tomorrow’s fundraisers.

This is where self-regulation comes in. The purpose of any regulation is clear – it stops people doing things they would otherwise want to do. The energy companies are now prohibited from doorstep selling. The Advertising Standards Authority stops people from doing ads that sell through deception or false claims. If regulation does not inhibit anything, it’s not worth much, unless there is no need for the regulation in the first place.

The problem is that the people who make the rules for self-regulation, the Institute of Fundraising, are also the representative body for fundraisers. The people tasked with stopping fundraisers doing what they want to do to raise more money are… fundraisers. This is a massive conflict of interest which the Institute has never resolved. A key point is that there are no donors or representatives of the public on the Committee which crafts the regulations.

This is why the decision on ‘no cold calling’ is so important. It is a decision which will test the mettle of the self-regulatory system. If we want fundraising to be sustainable, we have to listen to donors and the public. We cannot allow practices to continue that corrode trust and confidence in charities to the detriment of today’s public and tomorrow’s fundraisers.

  • Kevyn

    I don’t think the conflict of interest is as massive as Joe fears.
    It is in the long term interest of door to door fundraisers as a whole, to have high standards. The profession needs to maintain a high reputation to avoid imposed regulation that may be unnecessarily restrictive. The only beneficiaries of low level self-regulation are dodgy, short-term fundraisers.