Extract from article:
If you travel on the London tube you will see charity ads inside the carriages. Often they say £3 could do this or that. It’s part of the fundraisers obsession with hooking donations to activities or items (it’s the way we were taught to). Of course those of us in the know realise that £3 won’t actually be used to buy a mosquito net, or whatever, as some where will be the word ‘could’ or some variation (such as your £3 is ‘enough’ to buy this item – which again doesn’t mean your £3 will buy this item!). Somehow I think it waters down our ability to win people over – as its a twist of the truth. Yes £3 is the cost of a mosquito net but the £3 you give is not going to be used to buy one. Most likely it will a contribution as part of the organisations overall programme. Actually it belittles the true cost of making change happen: the cost to get that mosquito net into someone’s hands and ensure it has the impact you are seeking. That’s not to say £3 can’t make a difference – I believe it can as the example I am about to use will show.
Using impact as the basis for your fundraising proposition
There is another way. Instead of using activities and their cost, focus on impact. Impact is the ultimate consequence of all your activities. It does mean you need to invest resources in determining it – but it’s worth it. Actually I think it’s more transparent than using activities as the basis for a fundraising proposition. An activity is just one part of all your work – it’s why you have to say your £30 ‘could’ fund this. Usually you have hundreds if not thousands of activities. But outputs are the sum total of your activities and impact is the consequence of your outputs. You may just have one or an handful of outputs and several impacts.
Read the full article by Richard Turner, ifundraiser