Getting Started with TikTok: An Introduction to Fundraising & Supporter Engagement

IoF responds to Fundraising Preference Service proposals

The Institute of Fundraising has argued that the Fundraising Preference Service should avoid the ‘total reset’ button option, and should be introduced in a phased manner.
The Institute has published details of its response to the Fundraising Regulator’s final consultation on the Fundraising Preference Service’s model of operation, which opened last month and closed today.
The working group of the Fundraising Preference Service, which was proposed in the 2015 report of the Etherington Review on fundraising self-regulation  first asked for feedback on its proposals in March 2016.
In its response the Institute welcomed the improvements to the FPS model that had been made over the summer.
It agreed with some of the model’s proposals including:

However, it argued that, despite efforts to mitigate unintended consequences of the FPS, “the model proposed will have the inevitable outcome that, by pressing the ‘total reset’ button individuals will not give to charities that would have been happy to support as they will not be directly asked”.
Consequently the Institute recommended a more nuanced approach, suggesting:
“The FPS should be developed to be able to better account for an individual’s choices and preferences. People should be able to indicate whether they are happy or not to receive different forms of communication (email, text, post, phone)”.
It added that “the need, value, and rationale for the service must now be reviewed before implementation and a proper impact assessment undertaken.”
If, following such a review, there was felt to still be a need for the FPS “then we propose a phased approach”. This is the stage, the Institute suggests, at which a further service, such as the ‘total reset’, might be implemented.


Another response to the FPS final proposals has been shared by Nigel Readhead, founder of, a service for donors that he describes as an early incarnation of the Fundraising Preference Service.
He shares his response via LinkedIn, matching various sections of the Fundraising Regulator’s recommendations to his responses and commentary. By explaining how works, he tackles both processes and some of the reasoning behind the FPS’ proposals.
He sees some serious drawbacks with the FPS’ recommendations. For example he argues at one point:


Getting Started with TikTok: An Introduction to Fundraising & Supporter Engagement

“I do not believe this proposal has not [sic] been sufficiently thought through. Our experience of operating (which is an FPS) over 10 years has shown that our approach is (a) correct and (b) does not lead to donors falsely opting out or opting out when they did not mean to”.

He concludes by questioning the scale of the proposed budget of the FPS, pointing out that his existing service could provide the service at one tenth of the cost:

“This service has been offered to the new Fundraising Regulator to take over as the official FPS at a cost of just £350 per charity per year which is just 1/10th of the proposed cost suggested by the working group”.