It looks like I'm not going to get my moment in the sun. There are so many people trying to make comment on the Gambling Harm Reduction Bill that the only slot I could get was in Christchurch, and seeing as I'm based in Wellington, that's not going to happen.
So far the jury is out on whether this Bill will last the distance. My personal feeling is that there may be some sort of middle of the road solution which pops up, and let's face it, no one will be happy. In the meantime we've all been distracted from our real work - fundraising!
I heard an interview on the radio recently about the politics of the Pink Ribbon campaign. You may remember a few years ago in New Zealand that people were complaining that too many companies were tagging along with the Pink Ribbon, for minimal effort and minimal payment. The Breast Cancer Foundation responded to the criticism by putting aside a greater amount of money into research, rather than just focusing on awareness raising. Anyway the whole issue of corporate involvement in charity campaigns will become more transparent with the passing of the Fair Trading Amendment Act recently which will introduce a range of regulations governing fundraising. The most relevant to this issue being transparency around cause related marketing. It may be that corporates will have to disclose how much they are donating to charity through marketing campaigns.
On the corporate side of things, check out the website Business and Community Shares www.bacshares.org.nz This is a new hub of on-line corporate social responsibility (CSR) in New Zealand. There should be some good tools and information useful to fundraisers and also you could get yourself profiled there. Check out the flash survey they've undertaken - "who do you call?".
Also incredible freebies - if your organisation is based in Wellington and you want some help with your website or social media presence - talk to Wellington ICT - they have a fantastic range of volunteers who can help. www.wellingtonict.org.nz
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Corporate Endorsements
Met up with Jo Burrows recently. Jo is director of Rededge Fundraising Solutions, based in Victoria.
Funnily enough, a week later I was looking back on some fundraising resources and found an article by Jo written for the Aus magazine, Fundraising and Philanthropy.
Back then Jo had introduced The Sensitive Choice endorsement for the National Asthma Council in Australia.
The subject of endorsement is a fraught one and I noted that the board of the Asthma Council had asked how they could endorse products in a safe and low risk way.
Endorsements are difficult and should not be entered into without serious consideration of the risks. Too often I find that charities/nonprofits entering into any kind of business relationships fail to do any due diligence or risk assessment.
What should we be looking for?
First I would do a company search through the Companies Office. Check up on the shareholders and directors and their past history. How long has the company been around?
Don't forget the obvious - website and google search. If there is no website, or you can't easily find it, that's a bit of a red flag for me. If you find a website, make sure you look at the history, the annual report if it's attached, and any other links.
Look out for previous media coverage. Have their been any scandals or unfortunate headlines?
If they are reasonably big you might find more information in the Top 200 company's listing which is published in Management Magazine once a year.
Having found all the public information, create a risk register which outlines all the potential risks of partnering with the organisation. Capture all the "What If.s"...Think about things like the company being sued, managers with their hands in the till, product recalls, environmental pollution, bankruptcy etc.
The final thing is to make sure that you are happy to endorse the product or service. That's the absolute bottom line. If you can't eat or drink the product, or stay overnight, or drive the car with a smile on your face, then don't go any further with product endorsements!!!!
Funnily enough, a week later I was looking back on some fundraising resources and found an article by Jo written for the Aus magazine, Fundraising and Philanthropy.
Back then Jo had introduced The Sensitive Choice endorsement for the National Asthma Council in Australia.
The subject of endorsement is a fraught one and I noted that the board of the Asthma Council had asked how they could endorse products in a safe and low risk way.
Endorsements are difficult and should not be entered into without serious consideration of the risks. Too often I find that charities/nonprofits entering into any kind of business relationships fail to do any due diligence or risk assessment.
What should we be looking for?
First I would do a company search through the Companies Office. Check up on the shareholders and directors and their past history. How long has the company been around?
Don't forget the obvious - website and google search. If there is no website, or you can't easily find it, that's a bit of a red flag for me. If you find a website, make sure you look at the history, the annual report if it's attached, and any other links.
Look out for previous media coverage. Have their been any scandals or unfortunate headlines?
If they are reasonably big you might find more information in the Top 200 company's listing which is published in Management Magazine once a year.
Having found all the public information, create a risk register which outlines all the potential risks of partnering with the organisation. Capture all the "What If.s"...Think about things like the company being sued, managers with their hands in the till, product recalls, environmental pollution, bankruptcy etc.
The final thing is to make sure that you are happy to endorse the product or service. That's the absolute bottom line. If you can't eat or drink the product, or stay overnight, or drive the car with a smile on your face, then don't go any further with product endorsements!!!!
Monday, September 3, 2012
Fair Trading Amendment Bill
An amendment to the Fair Trading Act is not exactly exciting news unless you are a serious fundraiser who is keeping your knowledge up to date.
The passing of this legislation is a forewarning of regulation in the charitable sector, forcing transparency of fundraising practices including cost of fundraising. In a nutshell the Bill allows the Minister of Commerce to make regulations requiring organisations and professional fundraising companies to disclose the cost of their fundraising activities.
So there is small window of opportunity to stave off any regulations by ensuring that the sector is open and accountable and fully able to report on the cost of fundraising if required.
The legislation has serious implications for marketers also. As a specialist in corporate/charity relationships I've been frequently annoyed by cause related marketing campaigns which proudly announce that a donation is being made to a charity from a sale of a product or service. "How much?" is rarely explained. the new legislation now brings this under the realm of the Fair Trading Act, and if regulations are introduced, then marketers will need to be aware of what they say about such donations, including how much is being donated.
More information can be found about this legislation in the Fundraising Institute magazine Newz Viewz, August issue.
The passing of this legislation is a forewarning of regulation in the charitable sector, forcing transparency of fundraising practices including cost of fundraising. In a nutshell the Bill allows the Minister of Commerce to make regulations requiring organisations and professional fundraising companies to disclose the cost of their fundraising activities.
So there is small window of opportunity to stave off any regulations by ensuring that the sector is open and accountable and fully able to report on the cost of fundraising if required.
The legislation has serious implications for marketers also. As a specialist in corporate/charity relationships I've been frequently annoyed by cause related marketing campaigns which proudly announce that a donation is being made to a charity from a sale of a product or service. "How much?" is rarely explained. the new legislation now brings this under the realm of the Fair Trading Act, and if regulations are introduced, then marketers will need to be aware of what they say about such donations, including how much is being donated.
More information can be found about this legislation in the Fundraising Institute magazine Newz Viewz, August issue.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
CFRE is it worth it?
There's a lot of talk about at the moment about the value of a qualification in fundraising such as the CFRE (certified fundraising executive). It's a hard qualification to gain, you have to be doing practical fundraising and it only lasts for a limited period. I managed to gain the CFRE myself but only because I was working with a client who actually asked to me help with their fundraising. Normally I would only advise people on how to go about fundraising rather than actually doing it for them.
The sad thing is that CFRE is hardly recognised in job adverts, and I've certainly not seen any fundraisers rewarded by their employers for gaining the qualification.
But like a lot of things in life, it's over to you to promote the value of the qualification. I certainly highlight it at every opportunity. I mention it in media releases, in client proposals, in presentations and at workshops.
Not everyone of course will aspire to this level of commitment. There's a cost to it, and not everyone is motivated by the challenge of a four hour exam. But if you want some international recognition for your professional development, then this is it!
There is little else on the market. Of course there are no specific tertiary qualifications and no plans for any NZQA accredited courses.
FINZ is working with FIA to develop some trans Tasman courses. There is the Principles and Techniques of Fund Raising Course from the Centre on Philanthropy at Indiana University, brought to you in New Zealand by the Fundraising Institute. There are also privately run courses on various introductory and specialised topics, run by private providers like Foresee Communications.
So you can go so far with your professional development until you need a qualification, then it's over to CFRE.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Not everyone appreciates what we do!
Media Management and crisis communications are jobs usually reserved for the comms manager rather than the fundraising manager but it's certainly something we all need to be aware of. A very minimum requirement is that the organisation should have a risk management plan that includes fundraising issues.
Recently in Australia, as was reported in a recent issue of Fundraising New Zealand, a news media reporter registered and attended the annual fundraising conference. Surely this would be a good thing? At long last the public would hear of our good planning, our donor stewardship, our love of people, our great success at our chosen profession and all the good we are doing for the community. Oh no, from the public point of view we were presented as cold, calculating and money hungry! How could this be?
The worst headlines came from a session on bequests. A few unfortunate jokes (you can imagine what they might be!) cracked by a presenter were used to demonstrate how callous our fundraising strategies might be.
So we need to think carefully about how we present ourselves at all times. Ditch the jokes, however internally they may be intended! Remember at all times that our donors are amongst us. Remember the higher calling of our profession and that what we do is a wonderful thing.
Our own Fundraising Institute, along with the FIA, is looking at media management. Currently there is little budget for media work. But our professional reputation is important so we should be supporting our professional body to represent us. We need to let Council know that this is an important issue and that we support budget going towards media management.
In your own organisations make sure you are prepared for media crises. Identify the potential issues, how things may be interpreted, the questions the media may ask. Prepare answers and decide who will represent you to the media. Make sure everyone knows who has the media speaking rights. Only one person should speak for all. Make sure they are trained. Yes, its expensive but it's an investment for your brand. Perhaps your corporate partners will help you with this. You may be able to attend media training courses for their staff at no additional cost. Finally ensure you have contact details for all important stakeholders so you can alert them to any upcoming headlines.
Let's hope its something you don't ever need but better to be ready, than lost!
Recently in Australia, as was reported in a recent issue of Fundraising New Zealand, a news media reporter registered and attended the annual fundraising conference. Surely this would be a good thing? At long last the public would hear of our good planning, our donor stewardship, our love of people, our great success at our chosen profession and all the good we are doing for the community. Oh no, from the public point of view we were presented as cold, calculating and money hungry! How could this be?
The worst headlines came from a session on bequests. A few unfortunate jokes (you can imagine what they might be!) cracked by a presenter were used to demonstrate how callous our fundraising strategies might be.
So we need to think carefully about how we present ourselves at all times. Ditch the jokes, however internally they may be intended! Remember at all times that our donors are amongst us. Remember the higher calling of our profession and that what we do is a wonderful thing.
Our own Fundraising Institute, along with the FIA, is looking at media management. Currently there is little budget for media work. But our professional reputation is important so we should be supporting our professional body to represent us. We need to let Council know that this is an important issue and that we support budget going towards media management.
In your own organisations make sure you are prepared for media crises. Identify the potential issues, how things may be interpreted, the questions the media may ask. Prepare answers and decide who will represent you to the media. Make sure everyone knows who has the media speaking rights. Only one person should speak for all. Make sure they are trained. Yes, its expensive but it's an investment for your brand. Perhaps your corporate partners will help you with this. You may be able to attend media training courses for their staff at no additional cost. Finally ensure you have contact details for all important stakeholders so you can alert them to any upcoming headlines.
Let's hope its something you don't ever need but better to be ready, than lost!
Monday, May 14, 2012
National Charities Beware - Gaming funds will be off the table!
At the FINZ Conference Trevor Garret of the Charities Commission reminded us to have a look at the amendments to the Fair Trading Act which include the Amy Adams proposal. This one certainly bears a look. It all started the year before last when Amy Adams proposed that charities should be challenged to notify donors about the cost of fundraising.
The second Bill we need to be aware of is the Gambling Harm Reduction Bill proposed by Te Ururoa Flavell. Again this has been around for some time but it has now passed its first reading by 83 to 7. Winston Peters is the only name of note opposing it largely because it removes racing as an authorised purpose.
So what is the purpose?
The aim of this Bill is to enable “local authorities, in consultation with their communities, to reduce the number of, or even eliminate, pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm”. The Bill also changes the responsibility for distributing pokie funds and “proposes to give gamblers more ability to limit and control their own gambling behaviour through player tracking and pre-commit cards
From an outside point of view this Bill be supported by a large number of charities but there are some drawbacks as I shall explain. The Bill proposes that territorial authorities will replace gaming societies as the arbiter of who gets the funds. Societies will no longer exist and each local council will instead appoint a committee of local people to make local decisions. At least eighty percent of the funds raised will go to local worthy causes.
So my question one is what happens to national applications. The Bill is only 11 pages long and I cannot find any positive explanation of how national charities could apply. So national fundraisers beware. You will have to apply to about 65 local body councils to get funds for a national project and then you will have to show how it's being spent in each council area.
For local organisations I see no particular benefit. Societies will be replaced by councils but there is nothing to say that the fund distribution committee will be anymore supportive of your group than any other. In fact if someone on this committee doesn't like your work (or you personally) there will be nowhere else to turn! At least at the moment you can find differing opinions by going to different gaming machine societies. If you don't succeed with one, you can at least try your luck (Ha!Ha!) with another. Under the proposed legislation you will be stuck with only one local funder. This actually gives amazing power to a few appointed people in your community. Too much power I would advocate! And remember if these people are appointees, they will change with every local government election. If your politics don't fit - all of you will be out!
I have to declare my personal interest here. I am an elected member of a licensing trust which has a class four gaming licence. We are established to support our local community which is a more restricted area than our local council covers. Under the proposed changes our gaming funds will be added to a pool for the entire area, thus having the opposite effect than the Flavell Bill intends. So in our case, our very local community will suffer as we're taken over by the big boys!
I'm also unsure how the local council will cope with responsibilities of owning/managing and supervising gambling in their communities. They are not going to be funded to run pokie venues. They don't have the ability to create economies of scale like the societies have done. They don't have specialist staff - they will need to recruit managers and inspectors. They will need to create mechanisms for appointing (and perhaps paying) community representatives and while this may sound like a great job, realistically would local people want to be held responsible for approving and declining funding for organisations and people that they know very well! Corruption is just as feasible in this scenario as it is with gaming societies.
So where is the good news?
This will benefit some very local charities who will have the opportunity to lobby very local representatives. Full stop! I can't really see anything else. I don't advocate that our current system is perfect but nor do I see this as a reasonable alternative.
Be aware, be very, very, very aware of all the implications and remember that it was passed on first reading 83 to 7!!!!!
The second Bill we need to be aware of is the Gambling Harm Reduction Bill proposed by Te Ururoa Flavell. Again this has been around for some time but it has now passed its first reading by 83 to 7. Winston Peters is the only name of note opposing it largely because it removes racing as an authorised purpose.
So what is the purpose?
The aim of this Bill is to enable “local authorities, in consultation with their communities, to reduce the number of, or even eliminate, pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm”. The Bill also changes the responsibility for distributing pokie funds and “proposes to give gamblers more ability to limit and control their own gambling behaviour through player tracking and pre-commit cards
From an outside point of view this Bill be supported by a large number of charities but there are some drawbacks as I shall explain. The Bill proposes that territorial authorities will replace gaming societies as the arbiter of who gets the funds. Societies will no longer exist and each local council will instead appoint a committee of local people to make local decisions. At least eighty percent of the funds raised will go to local worthy causes.
So my question one is what happens to national applications. The Bill is only 11 pages long and I cannot find any positive explanation of how national charities could apply. So national fundraisers beware. You will have to apply to about 65 local body councils to get funds for a national project and then you will have to show how it's being spent in each council area.
For local organisations I see no particular benefit. Societies will be replaced by councils but there is nothing to say that the fund distribution committee will be anymore supportive of your group than any other. In fact if someone on this committee doesn't like your work (or you personally) there will be nowhere else to turn! At least at the moment you can find differing opinions by going to different gaming machine societies. If you don't succeed with one, you can at least try your luck (Ha!Ha!) with another. Under the proposed legislation you will be stuck with only one local funder. This actually gives amazing power to a few appointed people in your community. Too much power I would advocate! And remember if these people are appointees, they will change with every local government election. If your politics don't fit - all of you will be out!
I have to declare my personal interest here. I am an elected member of a licensing trust which has a class four gaming licence. We are established to support our local community which is a more restricted area than our local council covers. Under the proposed changes our gaming funds will be added to a pool for the entire area, thus having the opposite effect than the Flavell Bill intends. So in our case, our very local community will suffer as we're taken over by the big boys!
I'm also unsure how the local council will cope with responsibilities of owning/managing and supervising gambling in their communities. They are not going to be funded to run pokie venues. They don't have the ability to create economies of scale like the societies have done. They don't have specialist staff - they will need to recruit managers and inspectors. They will need to create mechanisms for appointing (and perhaps paying) community representatives and while this may sound like a great job, realistically would local people want to be held responsible for approving and declining funding for organisations and people that they know very well! Corruption is just as feasible in this scenario as it is with gaming societies.
So where is the good news?
This will benefit some very local charities who will have the opportunity to lobby very local representatives. Full stop! I can't really see anything else. I don't advocate that our current system is perfect but nor do I see this as a reasonable alternative.
Be aware, be very, very, very aware of all the implications and remember that it was passed on first reading 83 to 7!!!!!
Sunday, May 13, 2012
FINZ conference 2012
Just come back from the FINZ Conference held at Waipuna last week. Great line up of speakers, exhibitors and attendees. Over fifty percent were new attendees which shows some activity in the profession. International guests included Sandy Rees, Stephen Pidgeon and James Greenfield. Sandy invites people to register for her enewsletter. Sean Trinor, who hasn't missed a conference in years, was also (as usual) a popular speaker.
Awards were won by such diverse organisations as Rural Women and Ronald McDonald House Canterbury through to the Cancer Society for their relationship with ANZ National Bank.
Frank Claridge won the Henry A Rosso Award for his contribution to the profession. I became a Fellow for my contribution the Institute and the sector. Wow that was a special moment! I need to change my cards!
We had some good discussions on topics such as whether it was appropriate to take government money, through to what are the attributes of high performing fundraisers and whether they are a liability or an asset. I know which one I think is right!
Keith Dignan once again shared some fantastic statistical insights into telemarketing. A morning tea with James Greenfield persuaded me that we do need to take a lot of notice of financial reporting requirements. Breakfast with our good friend Trevor Garrett from the Charities Commission warned us about the update to the Fair Trading Act which would require charities to report on cost of fundraising. We will have to up the ante on our reporting if that is passed. It's already moving through the process. Remember this was the Amy Adams proposal from a few years ago. It didn't go away.
Awards were won by such diverse organisations as Rural Women and Ronald McDonald House Canterbury through to the Cancer Society for their relationship with ANZ National Bank.
Frank Claridge won the Henry A Rosso Award for his contribution to the profession. I became a Fellow for my contribution the Institute and the sector. Wow that was a special moment! I need to change my cards!
We had some good discussions on topics such as whether it was appropriate to take government money, through to what are the attributes of high performing fundraisers and whether they are a liability or an asset. I know which one I think is right!
Keith Dignan once again shared some fantastic statistical insights into telemarketing. A morning tea with James Greenfield persuaded me that we do need to take a lot of notice of financial reporting requirements. Breakfast with our good friend Trevor Garrett from the Charities Commission warned us about the update to the Fair Trading Act which would require charities to report on cost of fundraising. We will have to up the ante on our reporting if that is passed. It's already moving through the process. Remember this was the Amy Adams proposal from a few years ago. It didn't go away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)