|
Events feel
the heat in first Hot Potato debate
Hosting an event to debate the burning topic: ‘Event
Fundraising: Money well spent or just wasting our time and effort?’
may seem like the ultimate irony, but Pareto’s new Hot Potato
debate series is all about generating discussion around
sometimes-contentious topics which are of interest to
fundraisers.
Canvassing audience opinion prior to the first Pareto debate
held in November in Sydney, doubt about the fundraising potential
of events seemed to be the order of the day among attendees. The
possible exception was The Cancer Council NSW (TCCN) team who of
course are responsible for an array of hugely successful events
including Pink Ribbon Day, Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea, Relay
for Life and Daffodil Day.
No surprise, then, that one of those arguing against the
premise that events are a waste of time was Marcus Blease, former
Events Director at TCCN who has just taken on the position of
General Manager of Fundraising and Marketing, Cancer Council of
Queensland.
Citing 2006 benchmarking data from the UK, Blease told the
audience that event-based fundraising is the third-largest and
fastest-growing income stream, raising $220 million for 38
charities surveyed, and therefore not an area that could be
dismissed out of hand.
Of course few people were willing to argue that charities should
get rid of events altogether, but the consensus seemed to be that
until you have all the other elements of your fundraising mix right
– including regular giving, major donors, bequests and cash appeal
programmes – it would be folly to launch into an events programme,
particularly if you don’t have the right expertise on board.
Luke Edwards, Fundraising Manager from MS Society, who also
spoke in favour of events, acknowledged that ‘if you don’t focus
your time constructively and your efforts strategically, you are
not going to do well out of events’.
‘The reason that events sometimes fail is because they face a
lack of objectives, a lack of strategy, a lack of planning and a
lack of expertise in the field,’ Edwards said.
Audience member Shelby Burns, Marketing Communications Manager
with international aid organisation Austcare, agreed and said this
was the reason that, even though many interesting points were made
in favour of events during the debate, she’s ‘still not convinced
[holding events is] the right strategy for my organisation right
now. We don’t have the budget, the skills or the capacity.’
But Edwards maintains that if you do have these things in place,
there is no better way to take supporters on a journey, and let
them know about what you do and how they can help.
‘What does everyone try and do when they are seeking donations
from people in general? They try and evoke an emotive response. Who
makes up a large part of your event? People affiliated with the
organisation or cause. Who sponsors, buys merchandise or hosts
those participant events? People they work with, people they are
friends with and people they respect. These are all people who have
some link to the organisation, so you couldn’t get a more captive
audience to cross-promote to.
‘At the MS Society last year, with the Gong Ride, we direct
mailed to people who had fundraised $100 or lower, and we got a
response rate of 2.4%. We also did a direct mail piece to a group
who didn’t sponsor and didn’t donate at all and we still got a
response rate of 2.1%.’
But not everyone was convinced. Peter Thomas, Director of
Fundraising and Marketing at Amnesty International Australia, was
on the opposing team, arguing the events are a waste of time
and effort. He described himself as a ‘refugee’ from a dark age,
when he was involved in an annual Amnesty event known as ‘Candle
Day’.
‘Quality relationship fundraising is about a long-term and
intimate relationship; events are more often than not just about a
one off fling. Events are full of risk. If it rains, the events are
cancelled. Events attract kids, but what do you do when they go
AWOL? What do you do when they go stickering the War Memorial, as
they did one Candle Day past?
‘Events are also capacity monsters. How often are we trying to
get an appeal out, only to have our time co-opted so we can help
out with an event? And how often are those hidden costs not
counted? The numbers for events fund raising just don’t stack
up.’
Fellow team member Nicky Dent, Director of Fundraising at MSF,
backed up Thomas’ comments with some solid figures from MSF as well
as her previous experience with events at Wilderness Society and
Amnesty International.
‘What do we expect from a good method of fundraising? We expect
good returns on investment, good retention rates, good average
gifts and good overall lifetime value. That is really what we
should be calculating.’
She maintains that events don’t generate the same kind of
loyalty as people who respond with a monetary gift in response to
an appeal. Not so, says Blease, who says Cancer Council event
supporters are more loyal than appeal givers, with a 67% average
retention rate across their events portfolio.
‘They also have a twice higher average gift each year. Is that
an audience that you really want to turn away?’ Blease asked.
He and Edwards must have been convincing, because they won the
day, albeit by a narrow margin of only three votes (naturally the
votes were counted in potatoes, and the final tally was 30 v’s 27 –
with 22 people sitting on the fence).
Pareto started the Hot Potato debate series, which runs every
three months, to generate discussion around hot industry topics and
to give fundraisers the opportunity to network with their peers in
an informal yet edifying environment. The next Hot Potato debate
will be in February 2008. If you have any suggestions for topics,
would like to suggest a speaker or volunteer yourself, please
contact Rob on 02 8823 5800 or
rob.novotny@paretofundraising.com.
Peter Thomas, Amnesty International
Luke Edwards, MS Society
Nicci Dent, MSF
Marcus Blease, The Cancer Council QLD
| 