<em>“…those who don’t, don’t.”</em>

One of Harold Sumption’s lesser-known aphorisms is, “Those who give, give. Those who don’t, don’t.”

Many fundraisers seem to believe that all people are potential donors. But the truth is that half of us don’t give to charity. 

At all.

Ever.

When I first heard Harold’s observation, I did some digging. There is a vast swathe of the population that doesn’t give. Their reasons are the focus of debate and research (⟶ See Ian MacQuillin’s excellent blog). Research by CAF, for example, suggests that just 66% of people claim they give to charity (other sources gave even lower figures)*.

What is more, there will inevitably be a research bias. Respondents will tend to say what they think is an acceptable answer: they want to be seen as likeable and virtuous. In practice then, the proportion of people who actually give to charity is likely to be less than 50%.

You will have noticed a determined cynicism about charities in the red tops. The Daily Mail, in particular, uses click-bait articles chock full of spurious reasons not to give. These hit pieces tend to feature undeserving or feckless beneficiaries, appalling fundraising practices, expensive and grandiose headquarters and CEOs’ salaries that are many multiples of the readership’s pensions. Some even accuse charities (the RNLI and National Trust come to mind) of being unpatriotic, or even undermining the fabric of the country. And those commenting below perpetuate and expand the myths. 

They can be really poisonous. They sow doubt in the work of charities; doubt which we have to address with contrary evidence.

Often, in discussions, I hear “the public” or “people” as if this is the universe of potential supporters. This is fundamentally flawed. We shouldn’t waste time trying to convert committed non-donors. They are not virgin prospects who are amenable to your strategies. They are a waste of time and money.

The alternative is to try to chase them using more and more aggressive communications. Shocking, not engaging, images. Twenty-seven ‘asks’ on the first page. Upfront premiums. They don’t convince the non-givers. Nothing will. And they turn off real potential givers. It’s a double whammy. 

Our focus on “committed non-donors” should not be about persuading them to give, but informing them fully and accurately, thus avoiding giving them the ammunition to spread counterpropaganda.

Be like Harold: focus on the givers and on those who actually might be inspired to give. 

*At Rogare Ian MacQuillin is exploring further the justifications people make for not giving to charity. I look forward to finding out more about what he comes up with.

⟶ About Giles

⟶ Services

⟶ Back to overview