And quite right too, I suppose. This year's Professional Fundraising magazine 50 Most Influential poll has been topped by a new entrant, never before seen in the poll. The Donor, without whom fundraising and charity work would not happen, is top of this year's poll, knocking nfpSynergy's Joe Saxton off the top spot he has achieved for the past four years in a row.
I'm delighted to see the appearance of The Donor there, not least because the idea for it and resulting debate was first published here on UK Fundraising by Derek Humphries in his blog post Most influential? The Donor needs your vote..." in April. So congratulations to Derek.
Indeed, congratulations to Stephen George, chair of Remember a Charity and director of development and head of legacies at NSPCC, who was achieved the number two spot. Stephen blogs on UK Fundraising too.
This year the top 10 features three practising fundraisers: Stephen George is joined by a new entry, Iain McAndrew, head of legacies at Save the Children, and Alan Gosschalk, Director of Fundraising and Communications at AMREF UK, and chair of the ImpACT Coalition.
But the list is still dominated by consultants and suppliers: this year's 19 is an increase on last year's 15. Still, there are nine fundraisers in the top 20 this year, three more than last year.
New entries this year include two from Justgiving: MD Anne Marie Huby was voted #23 and founder Zarine Kharas #5.
Other new entries include Lucy Harvey, editor of Professional Fundraising magazine (#36), Alistair McLean, FRSB (#26), and Gill Raikes, The National Trust (#44).
The vote was open to readers of Professional Fundraising magazine.
I was voted number 25, so thank you to everyone who considers me influential, or just likes to boost my ego.
www.professionalfundraising.co.uk
Comments
Clarity
Without the donor, no one benefits, without beneficiaries who needs donors? Fundraisers are merely the links between the two.
Of those fundraisers, some influence and others seek influence and so life rolls on..
Catman
Whoa there Tonto!
MP's and company execs always acknowledge their audiences. The problem is, it is just lip service - as is this exercise.
catman
Not lip service
I'd hope it isn't lip service. It wasn't in my case: I was thinking of the many donors whom I've come across whose generosity, empathy, good business sense and other qualities have impressed and moved me.
You might more accurately criticise the campaign as stating the strikingly obvious, or a case of unnecessary navel-gazing, but I don't believe it is lip service. Unless you mean that recognising donors properly is an unattainable ideal.
Will this campaign achieve better donor recognition amongst lots of fundraisers? Probably not, so in that sense you're right that it probably has little direct impact.
But I'm still glad of the symbolism of the vote. It suggests a recognition of the role and importance of the donor in our sector, and given the many stories of selfishness in public and professional life we are currently faced with, I'm pleased to see this result.
I think this is just what is
I think this is just what is needed. Amongst MPs expenses, legalised robbery and fraud in the banking sector, it's good news to see a sector publicly acknowledging the people that make it work.
I know we don't need reminding but let's take positives from the fact that the third sector can at least rise above the self-congratulation and self-aggrandisement for the sake of others.
Well done Derek.
Kevin Baughen is the founder of Bottom Line Ideas (www.bottomlineideas.com) and a volunteer speaker for Cancer Research UK
And the beneficiary?
So if the donor is the most influential 'person/thing/entity' in fundraising, where is the beneficiary or cause?
Should we assume that the 'beneficiary' is, at most, the 51st most influential 'person' because there are 49 named individuals and the 'donor' above?
Once it had been put in the sector's collective mind that, for this poll – originally meant to be a barometer of whom other fundraisers considered were influencing developments in the fundraising sector – fundraisers could vote for abstract groups of people, how comes none of them thought to vote for the people they fundraise for?
In terms of influencing how fundraising develops, beneficiary groups might not be as influential as the 'donor'. But I'm sure they're more influential than 51st.
But perhaps I am totally wrong. Perhaps fundraisers did not vote for 'the beneficiary' because they genuinely do not consider that their beneficiary groups exert any influence on how they carry out their duties as fundraisers?
And if beneficiary groups don't influence fundraisers, ought they to?
Discuss?
The beneficiary...
Thinking about it, I guess the donor will always be more influential than the beneficiary in fundraising because the donor can give the money and the beneficiary can't. The power lies where the money is, bluntly.
Which doesn't mean that beneficiary groups shouldn't be actively involved in how they're represented by fundraisers, nor that fundraisers don't have a duty to be as close as possible to the beneficiaries of their charities in whatever way they can manage.
But if after all that, the approach doesn't play with donors, it's toast.
Beneficiaries should be really influential in how the money's spent. No question. But to give them the maximum possible you've got to get it right with the donors.
Adrian Salmon
Annual Fund Manager
University of Leeds
Always number one?
I don't think we needed The Donor to win top place to remind us to focus on the donor.
I think it was a point worth making once for this listing, not least given the accusations that some individuals have actively campaigned for votes, whether for their own kudos or enhanced business profile.
But the question is - should The Donor win every year? I'd argue not. Unless of course all the other commercial sector awards ceremonies and most influential lists start placing "The Consumer" or "The Customer" in top place. I don't quite see that happening...
What would happen if someone then pipped The Donor to top spot? A fundraiser/fundraising consultant being more important than The Donor? Heavens...
I liked the idea and tone of Derek Humphries' campaign (but then I'm biased on that point, as you can imagine), but don't really see it becoming an annual occurrence. Unless of course the readers of Professional Fundraising vote otherwise.
Point proved?
I'm sure "the donor" will be really proud. And of course, those forgetful charity fundraisers will be motivated to do much better fundraising now that they have been reminded that donors are important. Anyone flogging a "donor-centric" approach to fundraising must be pleased as well.
A win-win all round.
Catman