Are we all too focused on ‘the next big idea’? Paul Farthing considers the true meaning of innovation

The many presentations of excellent ideas at SOFII’s recent ‘I Wish I’d Thought of That’ conference showed that there are many candidates worthy of the title of best innovation in fundraising. The thought-provoking event contained some ‘new’ ideas to explore, and some to reconsider. It also reminded me that the best innovations are often the simple ones; those that required imagination and even courage, rather than technical ability and great expense.

When it comes to the greatest fundraising idea of all time, my number one candidate would be the first letter to supporters to ask simply and honestly for a donation in their will. Legacies are one of the biggest income sources – around £2bn at current figures – yet so much of our marketing over the years has been apologetic. More surprisingly, many charities were too afraid to do it. In my time working for agencies it was not unusual to hear a charity executive say “we don’t really do that”.

I don’t know whose idea it was, or for which cause, but I do know that the idea of leaving gifts in wills goes back to Roman times. I also know that some charities have been advertising the idea for a long time. One small advert I found was for Imperial Cancer Research Fund (a predecessor of Cancer Research UK) from 1947. But writing a direct ask is different, more personal, more risky and ultimately more effective.         

It would have taken courage to be the first, given the sensitivities of the subject (for clarity, I don’t mean those who wrote to people offering a free guide to draw them in). It may have featured a very personal story, described an important cause or even used a bit of humour. (It was Victor Borge who said that “laughter is the shortest distance between two people” – and just ask any administration officer about some of the things that are left in wills. In essence I mean a well-written, direct message that would ask the reader to do this amazing thing. Now I really do wish I had thought of that.

New or repackaged?

Many great ideas have become known as ‘innovations’. It is with good reason that one of the most significant clichés in our sector is “there is nothing new in fundraising”. On one level this is blatantly not true. There have been lots of new campaigns, new events and new technologies, but in another way perhaps it is. So maybe we need to ask ourselves, what is real innovation? And what is repackaging? Then, we might also ask what the purpose of innovation is. Is it to find new ways to do something? Or it is about adapting what we do to a new context or audience? For some readers this might be an academic argument, but in my experience innovation programmes that lack real clarity over their purpose have an increased risk of failure.

So, does innovation create new ways of giving, or should we focus more on how we manage changes in society? I think this quote from Wikipedia sums up the point:

“Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself. Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different (Lat. innovate: ‘to change’) rather than doing the same thing better”.

There is no mention of the word ‘new’ in this definition – rather, it’s about adaptation, change, renewal.

Causing a stir

Looking at a couple of areas causing the most excitement in fundraising at the moment might help to illustrate the point and draw out some conclusions.

The first has been the growth in supporter engagement that has been driven by online donation platforms. Over the past decade there has been a wave of digital platforms that offer the supporter the opportunity to ask their friends and colleagues to support. This has developed into the latest trend of ‘crowdfunding’: groups of people coming together in an online community to fund a project. We witnessed this phenomenon after the London riots, and regular readers of the Evening Standard may have observed that most issues contain a very tender story of an individual or a family that needs help. This is a plea to the community of London, the idea of helping a neighbour we’ve never met, trying to draw together individuals who would ordinarily never cross paths in a common cause.

Yet, how different is this really from the others stories we read, where families organise events in their local pub or hall, trying to draw in their community to help in troubled times? This community is different, more local, probably poorer, but nonetheless brought together to support a neighbour who they may have met, but hardly ever speak with.

However, what these methods do is fit giving into new types of community and family structure. Historically, families and communities anchored in a geographical community would come together to achieve change. We now simply have different types of community to tap into.

Outdated products

Exploring the development of face-to-face fundraising (or ‘chugging’ to its detractors) demonstrates this point. Introduced in its modern form by Greenpeace Austria over 25 years ago, it has barely moved on. One could argue that this is its strength: it is a reliable, consistent performer and its predictability might prove what a great approach it is. Personally, I would argue it is more of a weakness. Any product, unless it constantly renews itself, becomes outdated, and gathers dust. Just take a look around you at home. It is the outdated products that people tire of, like the gadget that sits at the back of the kitchen cupboard.

The reason why this has persisted is because face-to-face fundraising as we know it today ‘is’ the revolution. The old product is collecting coins in a can in the street. When we see street collections these days it looks outdated and as anyone who has spent a couple of hours outside with a collection bucket on a cold, wet Saturday afternoon knows, most of the time it is not very profitable.

The big breakthrough a few years back was the switch to knocking on people’s doors to ask for a direct debit, with now two-thirds of face-to-face activity done this way. But is this really different from the local community clubs or the political parties collecting their subs on the doorsteps in the 50s and 60s?

The ‘new’ thing is text to donate. It provides a really easy way for someone to make a donation without either the time or engagement required to get someone to sign a direct debit. Yet is this so different from the person rattling the can for a couple of quid? It is no revelation that young people carry less cash these days. You only have to be caught behind the person paying £1.70 for a paper and a Pepsi and who forgets their pin number to be reminded of this. Text giving has replaced cash collections (at events for example) but still provides a way for us each to make a small contribution. The ‘innovation’ is that with a text, the charity gets the donor’s data. For the donors, though, is the engagement any greater? I suggest not.

What’s the big idea?

So where does this lead me? Well perhaps that innovation is not really about finding completely new concepts. Maybe as a sector we can be too focused on looking for the shiny and the new – the next big thing in fundraising, new ideas, new products. Yet both the dictionary definition and the evidence of our eyes shows that innovation is really about adaptation.

I have been fortunate to become involved with NESTA’s Innovation in Giving programme, which aims to identify new ways to engage the public with charities. The first wave of the programme funded 33 entrepreneurs with the vision to find new platforms to drive income or volunteering. Yet, as bold as some are, I still look at many of them and think “these are not new; they are adaptations”.

So what? Well, I think it means that we need to be more selective about how we approach innovation. The temptation is to go out and seek new ideas, from wherever they come and in whatever form they may be. But this kind of scattergun approach takes up a lot of time and energy.

I am a big fan of the presentations on trends and the latest jargon that describe what is happening in the world around us. However, I do wonder whether some in the futurology industry have focused too much on the latest technology or commercial offering. Perhaps the emphasis should stay focused on what people are actually doing or using, what they did in the past and what they might want to continue to do in the future, but in a different way.

Same but different

We at Age UK are in the process of establishing the charity’s fledging innovation programme. It is early days, but one of the first decisions we have taken is to focus the programme on tackling a small number of specific challenges, four key areas that drive or could drive our current income. We are not in search of ‘the next big idea’, but the changes we need to make to revitalise our programmes, as we already have in a number of other areas under our new brand.

These are all areas where we know that our current or potential supporters are changing their behaviour; therefore we need to change with them. As fundraisers we often forget (and we do so at our peril) that we are but a small part of the day for most of our supporters; they are spending most of their time and energy doing things that we are not involved in. Often fundraising success occurs when we find a way to adapt in order to fit in with their behaviour, needs or aspirations.

So whatever innovation you examine, whether truly new or an adaptation, it is really about understanding the same core emotions and drivers that we have always had.

The real challenge is to find new ways to adapt to our ever-changing environment. Perhaps by focusing on the current and future changes in how we live, rather than technology or the latest fad (has anyone been on Second Life recently?), we can see what is coming around the corner and be prepared. In turn, this will lead us to think of the things that others will be talking about ten years from now.

Paul Farthing is fundraising director at Age UK

This article first appeared in The Fundraiser magazine, Issue 20, August 2012