Comments

Thank you all for this interesting analysis. Using the data you provide, the fundraising to donation ratio overall is: 2003 17.8% 2004 17.0% 2005 11.7% 2006 14.1% 2007 12.7% 2008 13.4% 2009 14.9% 2010 16.7% 2011 17.3% 2012 18.1% 2013 18.8% The Indian Ocean tsunami in late 2004 dramatically boosted fundraising and acquisition of donors. Do you think it is possible that the increase in fundraising ratios since 2006 is largely the result of the tsunami's impact on donations and the gradual drop out of those new donors acquired in 2005?

Very nice analogy Glenn and Gerard. I would like to suggest that you could also consider one of the more influential aspects of the game - the laws of rugby. Unlike soccer, the laws of rugby are often seen as being numerous, confusing, ambiguous and interpreted differently by referees. I can easily see the parallels here to how donor rules are applied to development. And sometimes the referee decisions (aka donors!) are not fair... PS: The ‘set pieces’ example was classically shown in the World Cup by the 2nd Japanese try against the Springboks (scored by the fullback Goromaru)...a beautiful example of set piece perfection...only if development set pieces could be so pure!

I certainly agree Ashlee that it is important to try to keep up with changes in the audience but it is my experience that most of the big charities do try to do that. If you look at the aid charity sector there is a large range of styles, messages and strategies - none seem to have found a way of unlocking much greater support. I also agree that income pressures are part of the issue as well as other society-wide factors including level of participation in formal religions, materialism, social trust, xenophobia and individualism. It's these bigger issues that I think will largely determine how much is given in the future, not the efficiency of fundraising which is already quite innovative and knowledge-based.

Hi AJ For the best remedial measures, PNG's people can look to lessons from its own past. PNG has demonstrated it has the strength to get itself out of this type of situation before - but it will be hard. The type of policies put in place in the late 1990s to deal with the economic crisis should be re-considered. These were not limited to just fiscal adjustment, but went deeper to build the framework for sustainable development. Personally, I am very hopeful for PNG's long-term future - lessons from its own past can be adapted to the current challenges. Paul

I think this could be part of it Garth--but I also think that the methods having always been annoying, having always used mailouts etc, could also be a sign that it's time for a rethink. The methods haven't really changed--but perhaps the audience has. In this era of 'innovation', perhaps this is a space that actually needs it. One thing that would be interesting to know, on your point of whether we have hit a fundraising wall, would be the age profile of donors. For younger people, particularly in cities, there's a lot of housing and rental cost pressure, there's childcare cost pressures, there's educational debt from undergraduate and higher degrees. A lot of people I know would like to give more, and they support international development and NGOs in principle, but when 40% or more of your take-home income goes on rent or a mortgage, it can be hard to free up more resources for giving.

The economic trend is all doom and gloom, downward spiral to 2020. Skimming through this article, I question - what is the best 'remedial measure' this government or the next can do to rescue the economic situation of the country. I wish academics and writers could 'foresee' or give 'pediction instead.

That's good to hear! Really should get back onto Facebook one day...

I don’t think annoying fundraising is to blame. Those fundraisers have always been quite annoying. Bounce back mailings to people who have just given a donation and plenty of appeal letters have been the norm for decades. The street canvassers are prolific because they are relatively successful in raising funds for organisations, even if at the same time they turn many people off. Fundraisers have always been faced with trying to get the balance right between leaving off and pestering, and they have found that not being pushy is a recipe for fewer and smaller donations. Perhaps this extra fundraising expenditure is like revving a car with its front pressed against a wall. More fuel is used, more noise is made but the car is not going anywhere. Maybe Australia has hit the wall with fundraising. We know that, despite media and politicians’ statements about our generosity, only a small amount is given by Australians in total to charities each year - around 0.3% of GNI (https://devpolicy.org/changes-in-donations-to-ngos-over-time-an-analysis-of-abs-data-20140313/;http://business.nab.com.au/nab-charitable-giving-index-indepth-report-12-months-to-august-2015-13518/;http://eprints.qut.edu.au/72596/1/Tax_stats_2011-12_Working_Paper_ACPNS_63.pdf). You could argue that this leaves a lot of room for expansion, but given that decades of fundraising have delivered no more than 0.3% of national income to charities then you would be a very optimistic fundraiser to think that this total could be lifted by a large amount. Perhaps more and more charities are fighting amongst themselves for a relatively small and fixed amount of money.

Like Simon, I also wonder about the efficacy of some of the methods used. For example, an NGO that I donated to last year constantly sends me paper mail outs. As someone who frequently has to use the services of professional printers in my job, I know the high cost of creating these things. Despite initially donating to this NGO online, at no stage have I ever been able to opt in to receiving digital spam instead, which frankly I'd probably be more likely to click on a donate link from, particularly if I could pay really quickly using something like Paypal. The mail outs often go straight from letterbox to recycling bin. The paper mail outs actually really annoy me. I agree with Simon that some of the methods need a big rethink, particularly if targeting younger donors. Also, the charity muggers at the shops are often so ill-informed about development, the NGO they are spruiking, or anything really. I mean, it's not surprising that would be a high turnover job, and I might not be the average donor given where I work, but I think younger people are well travelled and a lot more savvy about these things. Plus there is so much choice out there that if you have one annoying experience with an NGO (i.e. a particularly irritating charity spruiker at your local shops, mail outs that you don't want), it's pretty easy to support your chosen cause without choosing to support a charity that has mildly irritated you.

I am a development worker and have always set aside a portion of our annual earnings for charitable giving but I have to say Australian charities have become noticeably more aggressive and predatory in their marketing techniques. I expect part of the explanation for falling effectiveness of promotion is down to this. If you donate you are immediately sent another donation request and plagued by phone calls. Fundraisers reject one off donations wanting people to sign up to monthly deductions. You can't go to a supermarket without having to run the gauntlet. I think these techniques are backfiring. Some research and reflection is necessary if this problem is to be redressed.

Hi David, You may be interested to learn of a new operator serving Australia and New Zealand to the Solomon Islands. They will be covered in the next www.sendmoneypacific.org data collection in December and will then be listed on the website's comparison tables. There is information about their service in the Solomon Islands news section of the website. Best, Jonathan

Thanks Garth, And I definitely agree that form and environment of the question are important. Indeed, this is (hopefully) something I'm going to try and do some more work on (or at least trying to expose people to more information than can be contained in a simple question, in a form that they might expect to read it). Terence