Balancing fundraising needs with program work in the developing world - mini case study

[Guest guest]

Hey John, we agree with 100% on that one and feel your pain, being a very

small org here. There is now way that little orgs, even the one¹s helping

people, are going to be able to turn over 30% of donations just to get more.

I doubt it¹s ethical as well ­ but, there are alternatives, some that we

found to be fairly successful are described below. The general idea is to

find a product that benefits animals and is related to your org¹s goals, and

manufacture and sell that to raise money for your organization¹s projects.

This is social capitalism at it¹s best.

 

Mini-Case Study

Animal Nepal tried two different approaches in this arena of merchandising

for animals. 1) Rock Œn Bark CD - The first approach was to get animal

loving musical volunteers to get together and donate time doing what they

loved the most: making music. Then we found a charitable studio and animal

loving engineers to donate the recording time, and got businesses to sponsor

the costs of printing and replicating a compilation of animal-friendly

music. The ulterior motive behind this effort was to engage younger people

in activity and entertainment, all with a save-the-animals theme. We also

wanted to get businesses engaged, but u know capitalists, they need

something for the dollars they donate, and in this case it was free

advertising. So everyone got something out of the project (satisfaction,

awareness, entertainment, advertising, etc.), and thousands of dollars in

pure profit were raised. 2) Pet Products for Poverty Reduction - The second

approach was geared more towards the general consumer. The idea was to

produce pet products by employing Nepali handicrafts people and sell the

items to animal lovers world-wide, benefiting both people and animals alike

from the fruit of this labour. Heck, the idea alone netted us several

thousand dollars (http://www.bidnetwork.org/artefact-7191-en.html).

Unfortunately, the scale and economics of this approach was not so

successful, as even the Gap can¹t seem to make a profit from Nepali goods

like it used to - due to the situation in Nepal at the moment. However, I

still have a design for pure hemp dog Frisbee that could make millions

someday - I¹m sure of it:)

 

But the point of the above mini-study is this: there are alternatives to

raising money other then the traditional handout way, which may not work for

small orgs, at least for those not on the corporate tax-exemption dole. I

believe that other models exist, yet undiscovered, that can raise funds

ethically and efficiently based on an organizations needs and interests. It

just may take some thinking outside the traditional dog bowl. Here¹s hoping

you and yours the best of luck in this regard...

Jigs

Volunteer, AN

Nepal

 

 

 

 

--

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 2008:

 

Balancing fundraising needs with program work in the developing world

 

Last year after forwarding our annual accounts to Animal

People for inclusion in your annual Watchdog Report on Animal

Charities, I received a stinging e-mail from editor Merritt Clifton

pointing out that if we wished to survive we simply had to invest

more money in fundraising and marketing. He pointed out that

successful charities usually reinvest between 20% and 30% of their

income on such activities.

Whilst accepting the validity of this statement, I pointed

out that as a small foundation working in the third world, we like

many others depend almost entirely on a few volunteers to do the

work, and with increasing demands on our resources, every cent we

raise goes directly to assisting the animals we help. Working in a

poor community, we are almost entirely reliant on overseas donors.

Although there are many wealthy expatriates living in our region,

most are interested only in making money, not in helping animals.

We would love to employ a high-powered marketing manager on a

six-figure salary, but unfortunately if he did not deliver, that

would be the end of the foundation.

Clifton pointed out that most major donors would never

consider donating to charities that operate in such a fashion. My

question is why not?

Every organization must start somewhere. In our case it was

three concerned individuals who under five years ago decided, with

no funding and at their own expense, to try to do something about

the suffering street dogs and cats in Phuket, Thailand.

Today, having spent virtually nothing on advertising and

fundraising, but through the sheer hard work of a few committed

people, one of whom was recently named an Asian of the Year, often

working seven days per week and 14 hours per day, we have now

sterilized over 18,000 dogs and cats on Phuket alone, producing a

reduction in the street animal numbers here.

We employ two full-time vets, run one of the best animal

shelters and hospitals in Southeast Asia, have an education program

where local children are taught how to care for animals and the

importance of sterilization, and are now expanding our clinics into

other areas of southern Thailand, where previously dogs in particular

were simply culled through poisoning and drowning.

Yes we still operate on a hand to mouth basis, but we are

recently getting support from individuals who have told us they have

lost faith with large societies. One told me that the organization

she helped had refused to send promotional material because the

trash-and-treasure market where she planned to raise funds was not in

keeping with their image!

Getting any financial assistance from the big boys is

virtually impossible. Most don't even reply to requests for

assistance. What I find hard to accept is that whilst they will not

give financial assistance to our education program, because it does

not fit their criteria, and insist on expenses being covered before

sending someone to provide training, we often receive invitations to

attend conferences in exotic locations at expensive prices.

Sorry, but I do not feel our donors would be happy about us

spending thousands of dollars on flights and accommodation to attend

a conference at the expense of helping the animals here.

I can hear people now saying " Yes, but that is how you

network and maybe get donations. " Sorry; I am not prepared to

gamble the lives of what would be the equivalent of hundreds of dogs

on the chance somebody may donate some money at one of these events.

My conscience would not allow it.

Our ambition is to expand throughout Thailand and I accept

that this is unlikely to happen unless some wealthy individuals

donate enough for us to be able to appoint skilled marketing people.

But at least I can sleep at night knowing that the old lady in the

U.K. who sends us a ten-pound check every year from her Christmas

pension bonus need have no fear that her money is not actually going

to help an animal, and instead paying for a fancy hotel room on an

expense-paid visit to the other side of the world, that often

results in little or no action.

--John Dalley

Soi Dog Foundation

c/o 57/61 Laguna Golf Villas

Moo 4, Srisoonthorn Road,

Choengthale,

Phuket 83110, Thailand

<dalleyj <dalleyj%40loxinfo.co.th> >

<www.soidogfoundation.org>

 

Merritt Clifton replies:

 

Most charities in every nation and every field " depend almost

entirely on a few volunteers to do the work. " This does not exempt

them from the need to dedicate 20% to 30% of their budget--both in

time and money --to raising the resources necessary to continuing

their mission. The need to raise funds to sustain a charity is as

much a reality as the need of an animal to find food.

The affluence of the location or abundance of the habitat is

a factor in survival, but so are resourcefulness and adaptability.

Proudly proclaiming that " every cent we raise goes directly

to assisting the animals we help " is like proudly proclaiming that

one eats every scrap from one's field, without either saving any

seeds or selling enough produce to buy seeds. Parables and

admonitions about the necessity of reinvestment are incorporated into

the teachings about charity in every major religious tradition, for

example the story Jesus told about the rich man who gave each of his

servants a sum to invest, and religion is the oldest and still

largest branch of charity, often thriving in even the poorest

communities.

Every church or temple--and Phuket is famous for temples--is

a monument to successful fundraising. Fundraising for animal

charities is much like raising funds for religion, especially in

that the major motivations for giving include seeking peace of mind

and benefits to self-image, with the reward often envisioned but

unseen.

As in religious fundraising, one may build on local myth and

tradition, or on current events, but either way, success depends

on convincing people that donating will making them feel better about

themselves and the future, whether the goal is going to heaven,

escaping hell, or simply walking down the street without seeing

hungry animals suffering from untreated injuries and mange.

The problem of potential donors being " interested only in

making money, not in helping animals " is just a matter of developing

stronger persuasive ability. Globally, being seen as

animal-friendly is a money-making strategy, visible in television

advertising in almost every nation, even where there are few

functional humane societies and is little charitable tradition. Many

highly materialistic and self-interested people are major animal

protection donors, along with many of the most altruistic, because

someone has convinced them that becoming known as a donor is to their

advantage.

This does not take a " high powered marketing manager on a six

figure salary. " Indeed, the most successful fundraisers I know are

dogs, some of whom successfully work people for handouts who never

give a thing to anyone else--and some of those dog are among the

ugliest mutts in creation, who have nonetheless mastered winning

ways.

My standard conference address about fundraising is titled,

" Learn from your dog, " because the average dog is born knowing more

about fundraising than most fundraisers will ever learn. Dogs will

eagerly teach what they know, if one only pays attention. They will

approach anyone, at least for a sniff, and are rarely deterred by

refusal.

Major donors of either the self-interested or highly

altruistic sort will usually expect a charity to practice effective

re-investment in fundraising because major donors are people who have

earned lots of money, and earning lots of money requires appropriate

investment in promotion.

" Consider the lilies of the field; they toil not, neither

do they spin, yet even Solomon on his throne was never arrayed in

their splendor, " because flowering plants evolved as a demonstration

of the importance of successful advertising.

Concerning conferences, the animal charities in the

developing world which have experienced the most rapid growth in

recent years, building the most successful programs, are almost

without exception those whose founders attend at least one major

conference per year. Few actually obtain donations or grants at such

events. What they do is learn tactics and techniques, make

contacts, and give potential sources of assistance a sense of who

they are. This becomes the basis for developing the confidence in a

mission or program to later win funding, material aid, publicity,

and useful introductions, which are often the most useful help of

all.

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]