So, now it’s happening, what should the Fundraising Preference Service look like?

Following Etherington's Fundraising Summit, and the threat of statutory regulation from Rob Wilson, we’re all wondering when the FPS will come into being as opposed to if – and the new question on everybody’s lips is what should it look like?

There's an enormous amount to consider, and it's time for all fundraisers to take the time to seriously think about this question, and share their answers and thoughts with their Heads/Directors/Boards. I encourage all to then contact the FPS working group with their views and recommendations. And, if you’re IoF members, contact the IoF policy team too – they need to know what their members want in order to confidently speak for us!

Obviously, with so much for those looking to implement the FPS to consider, this is far from a comprehensive list, but it's a good starting point…

It needs to be more complex than a simple “reset button”

It needs to allow individuals to separate the charities they do want to hear from and those they don’t.

Furthermore, it should allow supporters to stipulate the nature of approaches, and the frequency of them, they are happy to receive and not encourage all individuals to simply stop everything from everyone.

It needs to be simple to administer for both donors and charities

Donors need to be able to sign up, with all of the extra conditions, easily – via the channel they choose.

Charities need to be able to interpret the data easily, otherwise it will be impossible to administer for many and risk damaging their/the sector's reputation with donors.

Screening against the FPS can’t cost the world

If screening against the FPS covers a cost (ie if it’s not covered under the levy applied by the Fundraising Regulator) then it needs to be cost-effective for charities, and should cover a fixed fee (perhaps annual, linked to fundraising spend/volumes) or a low charge per match.

It needs to be clear as to which approaches it relates to

Realistic expectations need to be set for donors, and charities need to readily understand what they can and can’t do – there can be no ambiguity.

Will supporter magazines/annual reviews/service updates/acknowledgements be covered as well as fundraising-specific appeals? Which channels will be covered? (Obviously face to face, door drops, inserts etc. won’t be – but this needs to be clear to the public from the moment the FPS is promoted)

It needs to apply to all charities of all sizes

You can’t have a service, as suggested by Rob Wilson, which has the potential to stop all communications from charities – but exclude smaller charities from it. This wouldn’t benefit the most vulnerable individuals who do need to stop absolutely all communications and pull the worth of a “reset button” into further question.

It needs to be designed as a renewable service

Registration should be valid for a set period of time. Signing up to the FPS once shouldn’t mean a lifetime of never hearing from charities.

We understand that individuals may be in vulnerable circumstances, and those circumstances can change. The service needs to take this into account.

It needs to be promoted in the right places

The FPS can't just be pushed by the Daily Mail, it needs to be promoted in a way which ensures it reaches the individuals who genuinely need it.

It shouldn’t be promoted as the only, or best, answer for the vast majority

There are many ways individuals can reduce the number of approaches they receive. The recent code changes will already reduce addressed cold DM volumes but, for example, individuals can register with the MPS to stop other cold communications (not just from charities), register with the TPS to stop cold calls (again, not just from charities), and individuals can contact the charities they support directly and have an honest dialogue about how and what they want to hear about from those charities. Those conversations need to be encouraged and are an important mechanism for improving trust in charities.

The above may not be the answer for everyone, but nor is the FPS.

The effectiveness and need for the FPS needs to be reviewed at every stage

The FPS can’t simply happen because they've said it will. If the FPS proves unworkable (which I think, considering the complexity of what's needed, it is), the idea needs to be stopped in its tracks, and alternatives need to be sought – could the MPS/TPS be better promoted/work harder? Should direct conversations with 'warm' charities be promoted?

Once the FPS has been launched it needs to be regularly reviewed, with feedback from both charities and donors taken on board.

All outstanding questions need to be answered before it's launched, and both donors and charities need to be given the opportunity to shape those answers.

For example:

What happens when individuals have numerous links to charities – donor/volunteer/board member etc.

What happens if a couple at the same address donate and one is on the FPS - does one individual not get thanked?

What are the rules around allowing third parties registering an individual with the FPS?

Does change of address mean re-registering or does the existing registration follow the individual?

When does a relationship/an opt-in mean more than an FPS registration?

How does it interact with the MPS/TPS?

So, what’s on your list for the working group?

*This post was taken directly from The IG Manager's Blog - the new blog for current and aspiring Individual Giving professionals. Visit www.igmanager.com to ready more like this*