你好，我目前正在普利茅斯大学攻读公民CPD硕士学位，为此我需要准备一份包含一些课程计划和工作计划的作品集。开云体育主頁(欢迎您)在我去伦敦上课的路上，我坐在地铁上，注意到一张《经济学人》的海报，上面写着为什么我们应该出售我们的器官。我简直不敢相信我所看到的，然后我注意到另一张海报上写着为什么我们不应该出售我们的器官。我决定以这个主题为基础，并添加一些关于器官捐赠的课程计划。课程的部分标准是让非政府组织的一名成员参加我的课程，并就课程内容和课程进展情况提供反馈。你能来吗，或者你知道谁愿意来吗?
. .[…]贝斯的报告有更多有价值的见解，可通过以下地址:http://blo开云体育app客服gs.kent.ac。英国慈善/ 2010/06/24 / how-donors-choose-charities / < / > [& # 8230;] < / p >
贝丝，第三区关于“财富”not being synonymous with “philanthropic.” I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Rick
Rick Holland CFRE
Director
Confident Philanthropy Ltd.
http://www.confidentphilanthropy.co.uk
完全同意。辩论得很好。< / p >
A quick look at one of the (seven) GOSH charity accounts on the CC site shows an income in excess of £60million last year. I doubt that as a % the income from the song will make much overall difference to this years target. I also doubt that from a PR point of view being associated with XFactor will increase an already high profile.
Not sour grapes, I think GOSH has proven to make an enormous difference to the lives of sick kids and their families.
But there really are many less attractive causes that with just this type of high profile association would not only make a huge financial and awareness difference, but could result in life changing opportunities for their stakeholders – the children.
Thinking organisations that work with improving the lives of kids on the streets, drug/drink dependency outreach work . Kids acting as primary carers for their parents, the list is endless but not hopeless.
XFactor can afford to take a risk and support some of these less known but equally important organisations that change the lives of many more children than GOSH could ever reach.
Good luck to GOSH, but one vote XFactor wont be getting from me for missing such a huge opportunity to make a REAL difference.
Whizz-Kidz (the charity I work for) was very fortunate to be selected as Tesco’s COY (2006), and it hugely raised our profile, considering we are very modest in size. But the criteria for entering was a lot more transparent.
http://robdyson.posterous.com/how-do-i-apply
http://twitter.com/RobmDyson
http://twitter.com/thirdsectorPR
你现在可以在
http://blog.virginmoneygiving.com/2009/10/30/richard-branson-talking-at-raising-funds-from-the-rich/
它不包括问答环节
Rick Holland CFRE
rick.holland@confidentphilanthropy.co.uk
http://www.confidentphilanthropy.co.uk
不幸的是，这种方法并没有让我感到惊讶。< / p >
When I worked for a charity (many years ago), I found myself in the presence of a major funder and unfortunately I just became out of control. One part of me was shouting “Mark, don’t do it. Just be nice. Say how pleased you are that he’s here. Ask if you can help him in any way and then just leave him alone!”.
The other part of me dropped a very unsubtle hit for cash into the conversation. Luckily the person was very sensible. He changed the topic of the conversation, made his excuses and went to speak to people who knew better. He carried on giving to my charity and I never had any other contact with him again.
In doing so, he taught me a great lesson.
And this is the point. The approach of the questioners simply shows inexperience or arrogance (both of which really don’t offer much to a good pitch for support).
If the actions of the few help the fundraisers at the event to now appreciate a little better the advice of the previous speakers, I think it is a positive outcome and perhaps one of the best learning opportunities that some fundraisers will ever have.
Your point about the impression it gives is, however, a valid one. Let’s just hope Richard has seen enough of charities to know that they aren’t all populated by twerps like me.
Great post. Should be required reading for all attendees.
Mark
[…] //www.jandeweb.com/philanthropy/2009/10/17/wh开云体育app客服en-is-it-a-bad-idea-to-ask-a-billionaire-for-a-don…[& # 8230;] < / p >
I could feel my jaw dropping as I read through your post, Beth. I was unable to attend this year’s RFFTR, and I hope that Action Planning’s Branson coup doesn’t end up being a one off.
As much as we strive to build trust with donors and professionalize our work (through accreditations like the CFRE and those offered by the IoF and other institutions), behaviour like this repels donors and sends the wrong message about the sector. One step forward, a billion steps back.
Rick
rick.holland@confidentphilanthropy.co.uk
http://www.confidentphilanthropy.co.uk
Lack of recognition by donors should not affect a charity’s willingness to invest in fundraising. There are all the other methods you mention that charities can use to measure (to some extent) the impact achieved by fundraisers.
I’m受到事实的鼓舞，即筹款人不’在捐赠者’回忆他们为什么给予。那真是个了不起的成就。< / p >
On the assumption that the billions of pounds donated to charity each year are not all given in response to news items or genuine personal philanthropic drive, fundraisers are clearly operating very effectively, especially if they leave donors with the sense that they gave out of their own free will.
Fundraisers are of course not out of the picture. I think fundraisers can feel pretty satisfied with this phenomenon, if they can assume that very few donors would ever bothered to have explored the workings of Gift Aid, legacies and payroll giving, had they not had them presented and explained to them by fundraisers.
在回复里克·霍兰德CFRE。< / p >
Thanks for your comment Rick, it reminds me of that quote: “You can achieve anything so long as you don’t care who gets the credit”!
I think there’s also a further issue here about the extent to which fundraisers facilitate, rather than raise, funds – particularly from major donors who expect to be approached by a peer rather than a charity employee. In the absence of peers willing to approach their circle, fundraisers have to step into the asking breech, and I wonder to what extent that depresses the final amount raised.
We shouldn’t care who gets the credit, but in light of targets and goals we too often do! Trust or major donor? Event or community fundraising?
There is so much crossover among income streams that we now need to reexamine traditional fundraising roles (trusts, MDs, events, etc.) to reflect this emerging reality.
[…]认为‘在我的上一篇博客中，我选择在这两个极端之间徘徊，承认最独特的特征之一[…]
[…]原文:
正如你所说的，要说服家族企业的成员捐钱需要更多的时间–(以前的捐款产生了真正影响的证据等)但这肯定不会随着第一次捐款而停止吗?
在‘长期’一家以这种方式运营的公司难道不希望经常报告他们的资金使用情况吗?< / p >
Also, as family run businesses are often smaller than other types of business, does this not mean that donations would be smaller and therefore to get the same amount of money as one would get from a single larger organisation, one would have to build up relationships with quite a few of these companies thereby increasing the amount of maintenance it would require to keep them?
[…] ‘是一个你在美国经常听到的短语，但只有少数英国捐赠者公开谈论过这样做，其中最重要的是大卫·塞恩斯伯里，他努力花光盖茨比基金会的全部余额，这使他成为英国第一位亿万富翁慈善家[&# 8217;]