Kevin MacDonell's CoolData Blog is a data oriented blog by a prospect researcher particularly interested in promoting the use of data mining and predictive modeling in fundraising. Ooh, scarey...well, slightly. As Kevin admits, he is very much a non-expert as regards techie stuff - his training was in journalism, not statistics - and so it is all very readable and (fairly) easy to understand. 

My favourite post is the one about Google's motion charts. He recently sent me a demo he'd created and it is wonderous indeed! I've yet to actually create my own, but I blame Christmas for that.

Happy New Year!

Oh, and in other news, I have resigned as Chairman of Researchers in Fundraising to concentrate on other matters, not least the imminent arrival of twins. So in a month or two's time, my posts to this blog will become even more infrequent than they are already!

The new RiF Chair is Sacha Tremain, of the National Trust, and I wish her all the best in what is one of the most rewarding, interesting and fun roles around.

Ciao.

The complete Financial Times archive is soon to be available online.

According to the blurb, "The complete searchable facsimile run of the world’s most authoritative daily business newspaper is coming online. Every item ever printed in the paper, from 1888 to 2006, can be searched and browsed article by article and page by page."

It goes on to state that "Every individual article, advertisement and market listing is included and shown individually and in the context of the full page and issue of the day." Cor blimey!

To quote Darth Vader, "Impressive. Most impressive." Although obviously he wasn't talking about the FT archive...but he could have been!    

Does this website remind you of another one?

Hmmm...

The latest Coutts Million Pound Donors Report, compiled by Coutts & Co in association with the Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent, was launched on Monday and gave mixed signals about the effect of the recession on multi-million pound gifts.

On the one hand, charitable donations over £1m have fallen 13% since the onset of the recession (with the number of £1m+ donors falling by 6%), whereas more donations over £1m are being given directly to charities to spend on activities.

The report identified 189 donations worth £1m or more, made by 102 different donors and received by 153 charities. This compares to 2006/07 when 193 donations of £1m or more were made by 106 donors to 159 recipient charities.

Just a quick reminder that the RiF annual conference is filling up so if you wish to come then please click here for a booking form and further details.

Speakers include Martin Tomkinson, an investigative financial journalist and corporate researcher. From 2000-2004 he did the financial research for the Mail on Sunday’s Rich List and from 2005 to date he has worked on the Sunday Times Rich List.

Other speakers include Sacha Tremain, Rob Grimes, Mair Bosworth, Holly Cranage, Helen Carpenter, Matt Ide and Finbar Cullen.

The conference is sponsored by Factary Phi, and Factary Supremo Chris Carnie will be giving a demonstration of their new product and answering any questions you may have about it. Chris gave me a demonstration a few weeks ago and I can honestly say that it is a very neat piece of kit, definitely worth looking at. (Can I have that £100 now Chris?)

There will also be an Expert Panel at the end of the day - featuring Martin Tomkinson, Chris Carnie, Mair Bosworth and Helen Carpenter - to answer your research queries.

Be there or be fucking square, the choice is yours. Or your line manager's, of course. Or your head of department. Whatever girlfriend - just BE THERE!

Only a few days to go until I head over the pond to the colonies for APRA's 22nd Annual International Conference. Ooh, the excitement, etc.

I see from the attendee list that there will be 5 of us heading over from the UK - not exactly an invasion, but better than no one I guess.

Still, more than the one person coming from New Zealand (who we can gang up on, of course...Bwa ha ha ha haaa!)

Latest weather report from Boston - crap. Rain and more rain. Bastards, I'm not flying halfway round the world to get rained on! Except I am. Bum.

Barclay's Wealth have just published a report that looks at how philanthropic habits are evolving and how the wealthy will engage with charities and causes in the future.

"Set against the backdrop of the global downturn, the report indicates that a younger and ambitious type of philanthropist is emerging – a positive sign for causes and charities around the world."

There is also an accompanyng video.

Cor blimey! How very 21st century, etc.

Quick update from Toollkit Towers.

I've added some of the presentations I've given over the last few years to a new page on the website dedicated to...can you guess? Presentations!

You can view it here: http://www.fundraisingresearch.info/page28.htm

Two weeks to go until the APRA conference in Boston - if you are also going do please let me know and we can meet up for a chat, drink, food, etc. We could even talk about research!

Chin chin

Researchers in Fundraising is pleased to announce three new bursaries to help prospect researchers develop their skills and experience.

APRA Bursary

The first bursary is for the 2009 APRA Conference in Boston.

APRA is the premier international organisation for prospect researchers. Their annual conference is attended by over 1000 researchers from around the world and is the perfect opportunity to learn about the latest trends, techniques and resources in prospect research. The APRA bursary will contribute £1,000 towards the registration, travel and accommodation costs of the conference (any further costs will be the responsibility of the winner).

CILIP/TFPL Bursaries

The other two bursaries are for courses run by CILIP and TFPL.

CILIP (The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) is the leading UK professional body for librarians, information specialists and knowledge managers. TFPL is a specialist professional services company focusing on knowledge, information, library, records and web & content management. Each CILIP/TFPL bursary is worth up to £500 and is for any course relevant to prospect research run by CILIP or TFPL. The bursaries cover the cost of the course only, not travel or accommodation costs.

For more information about the bursaries, the application forms, and terms and conditions, please go to the RiF website www.rif-uk.org and select Bursaries from the menu.

Please note that the application deadline for all bursaries is Friday 19th June 2009.

If you are not eligible for the APRA bursary do not forget that APRA have offered Researchers in Fundraising members a 15% discount on the cost of their forthcoming conference in Boston regardless of when you register. But remember, if you leave it too late, the conference may be booked up. And flights tend to be cheaper the earlier you book. Further details go to the RiF website and select News.

Mathew Iredale
Chair, Researchers in Fundraising

I haven't had a good rant for quite a while, but the following article from the Sunday Times (19/04/09) is just too much to bear.

I include the article verbatim, but with added notes where appropriate!

Altruists For Hire; Charities Are Being Inundated With Job Applications From High-Flyers Who Are Keen To Ditch The Rat Race And Do Something More Honourable Instead, Says Fleur Britten

There was a time, not so long ago, when working for a charity meant socks with your sandals, lunch with the ladies, and celebrities with skeletons to hide. Then St Bono and His Bobness joined forces, raising millions for needy causes, as well as charity's fashion stakes. [Nice intro, not at all patronising, out of date, ill-informed, and fuck-witted at all.]

Brand guru Jane Shepherdson left Topshop for Oxfam for a 100% pay cut (yes, we know, she now also runs Whistles). And then, last year, when the capitalist skies started to fall in, white-collar disillusionment soon followed. Charity recruitment agencies report a threefold increase in job applicants this year, as droves of young professionals opt for more honourable careers, taking their commercial expertise with them. The once slow, square world of charity [fuck off you patronising tart] is starting to resemble mini advertising agencies and dynamic, fast-paced dotcom start-ups. Charity's got sexy. [Yeah, and journalism's got lazy, if this vacuous crap is all it can offer on the charity sector.]  

Rachel Trayner, 25, is one such career-hopper, moving from "fluffy" consumer PR, working on champagne bars and sportswear, to her new job as a media officer for Voluntary Services Overseas (VSO).

Her Damascene conversion struck on holiday in India . " I saw at first hand the people most affected by the rich/poor divide," she says, " and wanted to do something more worthwhile. If you can't answer the T question - with your hand on your heart - 'Why do you do your job?', it's not worth doing." Trayner started at VSO three months ago.

The switch changed her life."It's nice to feel I'm contributing. I have much more impact now." [Must have been a shit PR agency then.] And less money? Apparently not. [It WAS a shit PR agency!] "People think that charities pay badly," she says, "but it's just like any other job." At the lower end, at least. Charity recruitment experts Flow Caritas point out that while junior roles are competitive with the commercial sector, there's a cap. The top dogs earn around £120K, which doesn't compare favourably. "But," says Rory White, Flow Caritas's director, "there are added benefits, such as a better work-life balance and the chance to feel passionate about your job." [Ah yes, god forbid that someone who doesn't work in the charity sector should feel passionate about their job.] Unsurprisingly, it's all smiles in the charity office. [Fuck, is it? Maybe I should get a job at the VSO, then, 'cos they appear to be on drugs.] Aggressive competition is out - it's all about collaboration. "There's a real sense of solidarity," adds Trayner. "Of course it's challenging, but without all the rivalry and targets, I feel more joy. I'm much more chilled out." [Ah, no wonder it's all smiles. No targets. I'm sure that the various departments and charities that I've worked for would have been happier, smilier places if they'd got rid of all those pesky targets they kept insisting that we reach each year, the mean-spirited bastards.] No wonder so many jobless City folk are knocking on charity's door. Eleanor Hirsch, 28, was made redundant last November from her high-powered job - "with all the trappings" - in capital markets. [Made redundant? Oh, so you didn't exactly come to the charity sector by choice, then, did you love?]

But the timing was "brilliant". The attitude towards bankers was deteriorating, her job had become "more and more unpleasant" (slower work, more pressure, gloomy colleagues), and she found herself dreading that "what do you do?" question at parties. "I was never proud to be a banker,"she says."Banking has no purpose apart from the money, and I wasn't into the money enough." After taking a 50% pay cut, Hirsch now works for the Charities Aid Foundation, which provides financial advice to other charities. How does she cope on half-pay? Pre-empting her departure, Hirsch saved all those bonuses, and says that, now, she isn't going out for dinner quite as much. But at least she looks forward to telling people what she does. [Really? Why? "I got a job on half my salary with a charity so desperate to fill their vacancy that they were prepared to employ a failed banker." Yup, I'd be proud to tell people that too.]

One new-wave charity inundated with eager corporate applicants is We Are What We Do, which aims to "inspire people to change the world one small action at a time" (for example, grow something; support small businesses).

According to its co-founder, Eugenie Harvey, the "little group that hangs around sheepishly after its corporate talks, hoping their boss has left the room, always asking about job openings" has grown over the past year. She understands the motivations - she gave up her first career in PR.

"People are looking to align what matters with the work they do," she says. "We all work hard, and for a long time - we want more than just our mortgage payment." And many of us make career decisions when we're young and not fully formed."I don't know if charity is becoming sexier,"she says."It's more a case of miserable being so unsexy. So many people are miserable, when you see someone that isn't, you think 'I'll have some of what she's having.'" Obviously, there's personal reward in altruism. Franny Armstrong, the director of the eco film The Age of Stupid, says:"I could die tomorrow. It's profoundly fulfilling to step outside the consumerism paradigm [you fucking what?!] and help other people or fight for something you believe in. This is the generation with the responsibility: everybody alive today is so powerful because we hold the future in our hands." [Oh sweet Jesus, how can people come out with such pretentious crap and still keep a straight face?! And saying that "everybody alive today is so powerful because we hold the future in our hands" applies equally to everyone at every point throughout history, you witless tit. The Age of Stupid indeed.]

That empowerment brings happiness, agrees recent convert Amelia Gregory. Her Amelia's Magazine project is online-only, and her new passion is Climate Rush, a group raising awareness about climate change using charity's latest tools: flash mobs and club nights. "It doesn't feel right to do anything else," she says, [what, like going out and getting a proper job, for example?] and the scene has become her social life."I now find people who aren't connected to ethics quite shallow. Those who care are far more interesting to me because they're considering life beyond their small box." But hold onto your halos. Charity is also feeling the squeeze. Its recruitment agencies report a 25% reduction in job openings - just as all those highly skilled corporate rejects join the queue. [Hold on. Did she just say "highly skilled corporate rejects"? Something of an oxymoron isn't it? Clearly they're not that highly skilled, if their previous company was prepared to give them the boot. But they're good enough for the charity sector it would seem. There we go setting the bar too high again, what are we like?!] Besides, warns Harvey, leaving is not necessarily the answer. "Without the resources you're used to, the sector can be phenomenally frustrating," she says. [Not nearly as frustrating as this fucking article.] "It's time to consider what you do - but it could be about how you spend your leisure time, or your disposable income. There are plenty of options before jumping ship." Phew.

Phew indeed, thank god that piece of ill-informed, patronising, sanctimonious drivel is over. I really do hope that it's not typical of the outside world's view of the charity sector, but I fear it may be. But then again, you could hardly blame those outside the sector for their prejudice, given the touchy-feely, tree-hugging, let's-look-outside-the-'comsumerism paradigm' fucknuts that they unearthed for their interviews. Sometimes I despair of this sector... 

My god, it's almost a year since my last TOTW! Not so much 'Tip of the week', as 'Tip of the year.'

Yeah, well, whatever girlfriend. *clicks fingers sassy style*

Tip of the Week #20 is on the subject of advanced training courses for prospect research.

This has been the subject of some discussion on the PRUK discussion group, with some lamenting the lack of courses for advanced prospect research. Well lament no more, because as you will shortly see, there are training courses out there relevant to advanced prospect research. 

But before I get to those, here are some introductory courses for prospect research:

Factary offer one-to-one training, online training in conjunction with ShareTraining and Research Immersion, in which you spend a day at the Factary office learning about research first hand.

Rebecca Funnell of Telos Research and Robin Jones of Milestone Research run regular introductory workshops on prospect research.

Fundraising Research & Consultancy offer courses on i) The principles and practice of research for major donor development or capital appeals and ii) Individual, trust or company research in the UK.

Now on to adanced prospect research. Whilst there are no courses explicitly geared towards advanced prospect research, there are a number of courses that will greatly aid in your development from a humble beginner to a more experienced professional, well versed in the many arcane practises and techniques of witchcraft prospect research.  

To start with, CILIP (the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) run several courses that are relevant to advanced prospect research:

Cutting Edge Internet Search Techniques
Finding and Understanding Company Information
Getting the most out of Google
Going Beyond Google

They have other courses as well, which you may find useful, depending upon the skills set you wish to develop.

TFPL, the knowledge management company, also run a range of courses relevant to advanced prospect research:

Understanding & Researching Listed Companies 
Researching British Companies 
Be a Better Searcher with using Google 
Internet Tools for the Advanced Searcher  
Researching Private Equity 

As with CILIP, they have other courses which you may find useful.  

There is more to being an experienced prospect researcher than knowing the best research resourses or how to create a posh-looking profile. The Directory of Social Change offer a number of courses that will help to enhance and focus your basic prospect research skills to mould you into a prospect research professional!

Improving your Time Management
Becoming an Assertive Professional
Communication to Influence
Confidence at Work
Data Protection and Confidentiality
The Effective Administrator

How useful these courses will be to you depends upon your own strengths and weaknesses and the situation in whch you find yourself. I think that nearly all researchers would benefit from a course in time management, especially as their research progresses and increases, but whether you think it useful to improve your communication or assertiveness skills is down to you and the situation in which you find yourself. If it is just you and a fundraiser, you may not see the point. If you are one researcher amongst a team of fundraisers, each with different demands upon your time and resources, learning how best to deal with their different characters and demands could prove very useful.  

OK, so none of these courses is a substitute for a course (or courses) explicitly tailored towards advanced prospect research, but until that time comes, they will have to do.

Answer: when it's DONORRESEARCH-L.

I’m hesitant, as the Chairman of Researchers in Fundraising, to show such ignorance in public, but I have to ask, what the hell is going on with PRSPCT-L?!

On the 1st January I received the following email (as I imagine a lot of us did):

Next month CharityChannel will mark the beginning of the 5th year of hosting the PRSPCT-L discussion list. It continues to be a privilege to serve all of you.

CharityChannel remains committed to the donor research community, and has a number of new initiatives in the works that will be of interest to this professional community, to be announced shortly. As part of the new initiative, the PRSPCT-L list is changing its name to DONORRESEARCH-L.

The new posting address is: DONORRESEARCH-L@listserv.charitychannel.com

OK, fair enough.

But I also received this email:

As promised, the "L" is now back online and better than ever!   Our new list address is www.APRA-PRSPCT-L.org.

If you click on this website you get redirected to a Listserv address which lists the following email: PRSPCT-L@LISTSERV.APRA-PRSPCT-L.ORG

The email from APRA says, Many people have asked, "What's going on?" 

Yeah, and I’m still asking!

I’m now getting emails from PRSPCT-L and from DONORRESEARCH-L.

Are there now TWO discussion lists???

Well, it appears that there are. To find out what’s going on and why, I recommend you read Stephen Nill’s blog at Charity Channel.

The question is, of course, do we really need two prospect research discussion lists? There's a little debate going on about it on Stephen's blog here.

Well here we are, another year, another website of the week.

Robert Frank’s Wealth Report is an insightful, sometimes irreverent look at the lives and culture of the wealthy and fast becoming my favourite blog.

For the insightful, check out Millionaires Lose 30% of their Fortunes

For the irreverent, check out 10 Status Symbols We Hope Disappear in the Recession.

Happy 2009!

This week's WOTW is David Broussard's RelationshipMapReviews.

As David says on his site, "in the field of prospect research, we are often asked about a donor's connections to others or what the best path might be from our institution to a particular donor, corporation, or foundation."

This is where Relationship Mapping Technology (RMT) comes in, as it allows you to see clearly how your board members, trustees and donors are connected to the prospects you want to meet. And by visually mapping relationships between individuals, organizations, companies and universities, prospect researchers are much more likely to uncover hidden relationships.

"In addition to saving hours of time spent researching these connections and helping development officers to know who is the warmest connection to a prospect, RMT provides at-a-glance professional presentations of multiple networks for executives."

But what products are out there and which are best suited for prospect research purposes? This is where David's site comes in, as he has systematically reviewed seven different RMT solutions with various features and levels of functionality and laid out the results on RelationshipMapReviews.

One downside for those of us in the UK is that the products are all North American and so unless you wish to map a load of American or Canadian data, you will find them of little use. On the other hand, I know (as I tested it recently) that at least one of the products, Donor Gateway, allows you to create your own connections from your own data, and the other products may also allow you to do that.

Just a few days to go until I row 10K in support of The Stroke Association.

As I said last week, if, over the last 2 years, you have found this (free!) resource at all useful to your work, job, sanity, then please, please consider sponsoring me.

I'm not asking for a huge amount, just a pound or two would do (although if you would like to give more, then I would have no objections). ;-)

Go on, spare a pound! Or the baby gets it.

www.justgiving.com/mathewiredale

Fundraising Recession Watch is "a space for ideas, aricles and research based on whether the recession is having an impact on fundraising in different countries".

Created by Sean Triner of Pereto Fundraising it has various tips, articles and links of relevance to fundraising in a recession.

Comment from Adrian Beney on the current financial crisis (posted on PRUK):

While clearly many people will have lost money, I am sure that as many of the super wealthy will not have done. One of my colleagues interviewed a potential donor for a client about two weeks ago. That interviewee described this current situation as "a poor man's crisis."

And he's right; if you have enough wealth to have a reasonable amount in cash at the right moment - and most of the really wealthy should have - then now is a phenomenal buying opportunity. Barclays is already 20% above its nadir, and is up 12.4% just today.

The people who will be hurting are those with lots of their wealth in assets that they can't just sell, like commercial property, and those whose wealth is still tied up in single companies whose shares have tanked recently.

Philip Green is not talking with Baugur for nothing...

The lesson for us: an understanding of the nature of wealth, where it comes from, how people make it and how people hold it. And for the fundraisers is to stick with their potential donors through bad times as well as fair ones. When the Korean economy faltered a few years ago the UK Universities that profited were the ones who took the long term view. A bit like Warren Buffet - now he knows a thing or two...

A post which prompted this reply from John Sauvé-Rodd:

Adrian - this is great, authoritative comment, sage, practical, short (224 words) and should be posted far and wide.

I agree - hence this post.

Important Message (with apologies to Abraham Lincoln):

Four score and seven months ago I brought forth on this planet a new website, conceived in my office, and dedicated to the proposition that all men (and women!) should have equal access to a free prospect research website.

Well, OK, it wasn’t 87 months ago. More like 26 months ago. But apart from that, Lincoln’s my sentiments are correct.

And in that time, many of you, I am very glad to say, have made good use of the website and some of you have even been kind enough to let me know how it has helped you.

BUT NOW IT’S PAY BACK TIME!

Sort of.

Basically, due to a rush of blood to the head, I have decided to take part in a sponsored row in aid of The Stroke Association. Yup, that’s right, I aim to drag my sorry carcass down to the gym and row 10 kilometres to raise funds for research and treatment into stroke. And this is where YOU come in.

This is my plea to you. If, over the last 2 years, you have found this (free!) resource at all useful to your work, then please, please consider sponsoring me in my epic struggle to row 10 kilometres. I'm not asking for a huge amount, just a pound or two would do, although if you would like to give more, then I would have no objections. ;-)

Who knows, if this goes well I might do something really crazy like the marathon!

Please sponsor me by clicking this link

Thank you!

Mathew

We may not (yet) have a black rich list, but we have the next best thing, a black power list.

Michael Eboda, CEO of Powerful Media Ltd, has produced the PowerList: Britain's 100 most influential black people.

Interestingly, he did consider producing a rich list:

According to recent story from the Press Association, machine gun bullets, samurai swords, a dead rat and a set of nude home videos are just some of the more unusual items donated to a charity in the last year.

Animal hospital charity PDSA compiled the list of the most kooky donations that its well-meaning, but misguided, benefactors had donated. Describing some of the items as like "props from a Monty Python sketch" PDSA said one would-be philanthropist even handed over a rat cage to staff complete with its deceased former occupant. 

Volunteers at a PDSA charity shop in Stevenage were equally shocked to receive a cache of machine gun ammunition and promptly contacted the police. Other donated weaponry included samurai swords and replica handguns. A cheekier, but no less appropriate, donation included a set of home movies made by a naturist who hoped his naked body could raise some much needed cash for sick animals.

However, sometimes charity shops strike gold - literally. One PDSA charity shop was astonished, and delighted, to be given a princely collection of Tiffany jewellery and Rolex watches.

Donating nude photos? Bare-faced cheek!

This all reminds me of the time when I worked in the Finance Dept at Imperial Cancer. Amongst the more memorable donations were a gold tooth (I can still recall the expression of surprise mixed with revulsion on my manager's face when she opened the tissue containing said tooth) and several pairs of women's underwear. As if this wasn't bad enough, they were accompanied by an explanatory letter signed by - wait for it - John. Yup, tranny knickers. Nice.

The Institute of Fundraising is calling for session proposals for their 2009 National Convention.
 
If you attended the 2008 Convention you will be aware that prospect research was greatly under represented, to say the least, so we in the RiF Committee are making a concerted effort to encourage more researchers to submit a session. And we are leading by example: I, and three other members of the committee, have already submitted a proposals for the 2009 convention. (So far we have the following proposals: a session on the Data Protection Act, a session on how researchers and fundraisers can/need to work together and a session on dispelling some of the myths or misconceptions that fundraisers have concerning research.)
 
I spoke at the 2006 Convention and found the experience invaluable. Not only did I get some great feedback about research from the delegates, I also made a number of excellent contacts/friends. Speaking at the Convention gives you the opportunity to educate fundraisers about the role of prospect research, helps to raise the profile of prospect research generally, and gives you the opportunity to show off your skills and knowledge to your fundraising peers. And it looks good on the CV too!
 
Not too sure about speaking in front of other people? Then why not share the load and present a session jointly with a friend or colleague?
 
As to the sort of things you could talk about, really anything that you feel confident to talk about in front of a room of fundraisers who carry out research part time, or who are thinking of doing some research. There may be a few researchers at the conference, but in my experience the delegates are mainly fundraisers with only a little research experience, so do not feel that you need to aim your session at a room full of experts. This isn’t the RiF conference, and so there will be plenty of people coming who are not greatly experienced, research-wise. 
 
In case you are feeling a little unsure, confused, or dense, here are some suggestions for topics:
 
- How to set up a research function.
- How to carry out research into trusts (or companies, or foreign prospects, etc.). This could be done in conjunction with one of your trust fundraisers.
- Which sources of research are best for finding out specific pieces of information. I.e. financial, family, property, friends, work colleagues, philanthropy, etc.
- How to carry out research for a specific region.
- How to determine how much a prospect may give.
- How to search the internet effectively. I.e. limitations of Google, other search engines, etc.
 
If you have any questions about speaking at the convention then please feel free to email me.
 
You can find a submission form for the 2009 Convention here:
 
http://www.national convention. org.uk/submitses sion.php
 

It may be nothing to get excited about, or it may revolutionise the way in which we search for information on the web.

Either way, Google's new browser, Chrome, has got a lot of people very excited.

Cool logo too!

Is it my imagination, or do the last four descriptions on the links page of The Oxford Fundraising Group's website bare an uncanny similarity to some of the descriptions on the links page of the Researchers in Fundraising website?

If I didn't know any better, I'd think that those cheeky scamps at The Oxford Fundraising Group have simply copied and pasted the links I wrote for the RiF website.

Surely not...?

I'm having a few problems with formatting, so keep needing to republish the site - apologies to anyone who gets the feed and gets this message more than once.

The Telegraph is running a series of articles on Britain's 100 biggest private companies.

So far, they have covered retailing, property, manufacturers, food & drink and transport & leisure. Some entries are a little lacking in detail, but it's all interesting stuff.

EDIT - link should now work.

My word cloud, that is:

This week's website of the week is JumpKnowledge.

Have you ever wished you could add your two cents to a site—anywhere you wanted—not just in an itty bitty blog area? Have you ever wished you could email a web page with your comments inside it?

Well now you can, with JumpKnowledge.

What does it look like? You can see an example using my own wonderlful site here.

On a more serious note, I have created an example here using the Charity Commission's website, which could be emailed to a colleague about to apply to the Trust in question.

I've only just started to use JumpKnowledge, but I think that it could prove to be very useful, very useful indeed.

What a busy few days it's been, what with the RiF Conference, Henley Regatta (OK, not, I admit, anything to do with prospect research) and now the IoF's national convention (again, little to do with prospect research, some might say!)

The RiF conference was, by and large, excellent (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?) Some excellent speakers and some controversial opinions - well, for a RiF conference - and I was pleased with the venue, although I have reservations about the visibility of the speakers for some of the delegates. Hopefully lots of people will fill out the feedback form when we send it out and we'll know what everyone thought.

I shall be attending the IoF's convention on Tuesday and Wednesday - I know, what larks! So, if you are planning to be there, do grab me as I pass by (in a trance-like state, if you get me late in the day) and say hello. I will also be at the drinks Tuesday evening, although I am still in two minds about the party...

One of these days I'll actually get some work done, ho hum.

Those of us who are full-time researchers sometimes forget that for many people research is just one aspect, and perhaps not the most significant aspect, of the work that they do. Many smaller charities do not have the resources to employ a researcher, and so rely on their major donor fundraisers to carry out their own research. And some of those charities will only have one person doing all the fundraising for their organisation.

This week's website of the week is for those people, but also for anyone reading this - researcher or otherwise - who wishes to carry out a little fundraising on the side; perhaps for a local organisation or group that is too small too have their own fundraiser.

RaisingFunding contains over 60 articles written by fundraising experts, who continually update and add new content. Subjects include legal advice on fundraising, using fundraising databases and software, fundraising for an individual cause, planning a fundrasing event, and much much more.

When you join the PRSPCT-L discussion list you get sent a Netiquette email – basically a list of dos and don'ts to prevent or minimise irrelevant, pointless or abusive messages.

And one of those don’ts is the following:

No requests for "a researcher from XYZ University" to contact you. We are researchers - find them.  Why inconvenience 3,499 list members with messages intended for a single member?

Why indeed? It's really fucking annoying and also - this is what really gets on my tits - the people that ask these questions are supposed to be researchers!

Honestly, what kind of a researcher are you if you need to ask for the contact details of another researcher? This must be the research equivalent of asking someone to wipe your arse: lazy, unnecessary and staggeringly infantile. 

And yet people continue to send out such emails. Most recently, someone asked "Could a Yale researcher please contact me? I have a quick question."

Yeah, well I have a quick question too:

"Are you so crap at research, or so lazy, or so bleeding THICK, that you cannot find a Yale researcher for yourself?!"

I mean to say, how fucking hard can it be?

Well, let's find out...

Finding Yale researchers

1. Time to open the PRSPCT-L archive and search for messages with the word Yale – less than a minute.

2. Time to find the first person with a Yale email address – less than 2 minutes.  

3. A quick Google of her name and I had the following information:

Nancy Faughnan

Assistant Director of Prospect Research

Yale University

203-432-XXXX

nancy.faughnan@...

So, in under 5 minutes I had a name, a phone number, an email address, and her title. Everything I need to contact her and ask my "quick question".

The PRSPCT-L archive also found the following Yale researchers:

Benjamin Vossler (message dated November 2007)

Rich Horne (June 2007)

Melinda Papowitz (July 2006)

Rick Gropper (February 2006)

So, if Nancy happens to be away when you try to email or phone her, there appear to be plenty of other Yale researchers available to ask.

And there is more than one way to skin a rabbit, as the old saying goes.

So, with that in mind...

Finding Yale researchers, take 2.

1. Google Yale University to bring up their website: www.yale.edu

2. Click to open the site and then put Nancy Faughnan’s name in the search box on the home page. This brings up a search page with 3 results, none too promising, but there is a Find a Person tab.

3. Click on that, enter her name again, press search and there she is.

All in less than a minute.

And the Find a Person search also found Benjamin Vossler and Melinda Papowitz (but not Rich Horne or Rick Gropper, who I presume have now left Yale for pastures new.)

So, I now have the names and contact details of 3 Yale researchers. Now you tell me, how fucking hard was that?

Yeah, really hard. If you’re a lazy, brainless fucknut, that is.

Oh, and in the unlikely event that the person who wrote the original request should happen to read this and feel like responding - please don't. If I wanted to speak to you I'd find you myself - I do know how to do that.

Most of the newspapers have given a great deal of coverage to Chris Hohn's £466m donation - largest ever, dawn of new era in philanthropy, etc. etc - but City AM's The Capitalist approached the story from a slightly different angle in yesterday's paper: 

The Riddle of Hedgie's Missing Millions

MUCH has been made recently of hedgie philanthropist Chris Hohn's £466m donation to the charity connected to his hedge fund, the Children's Investment Fund (TCI).

However, a quick trip to the Charities Commission website shows that last year, only £11.7m of the gift was actually used - so what happened to the rest? The answer is that much of it is returning to be reinvested in TCI, completely fee-free.

The reason for this, a spokesman for the Children's Investment Fund Foundation charity tells me, is that the gift works on an "expendable endowment structure" - which, after a good few minutes of explanation, I take to mean that its charitable grants are executed over the long term.

"It's essential to take a prudent approach to managing the charity's assets," chides my spokesman. Of course he's right but we remain keen to find out when and on what the money will be spent.

Quite.

We appear to have entered the age of the Super Gift.

Whilst us mere mortals have to contend with rising inflation and falling property values by tightening the belt, the very wealthy are moving in the opposite direction by giving away ever larger donations to charitable causes.

It all started in February of last year, when David and Simon Reuben gave Great Ormond Street Hospital a "multi-million pound donation".

Nothing too unusual there, you might think: Wafic Said gave £20m to Oxford University in 1996, a donation equivalent to between £25m and £33m today, depending upon how one measures the relative value of the £, and Gary Tanaka gave Imperial College London £27m in 2000.

But the Reubens' donation was just the start of a sustained run of Super Gifts for UK institutions, the like of which we have not seen before.

In October the financial services firm Morgan Stanley pledged £10m towards Great Ormond Street's appeal, in November the reclusive Barclay brothers, Sir Frederick and Sir David, gave them £11 million, and in April of this year Aditya Mittal, the steel billionaire's son, gave them £15m. 'Gosh!' you might say, if you were one for lame jokes. Which of course I'm not.

Fast forward to last Tuesday, when it was anounced by Oxford's Christ Church College that alumnus Michael Moritz had donated $50 (over £25m) to the college - the largest financial gift in their history.

But this extraordinary gift was itself topped the very next day when it was announced by New Hall, Cambridge, that they would be changing their name to Murray Edwards College following a donation of £30m from alumnus Ros Edwards and her husband Steve (himself an alumnus of Oxford - ooh, that £30m to rivals Cambridge must have hurt! Or perhaps not, given that they sold their software company for £700m in 2001).

Of course, large as they are, all these donations pale beside Lord Nuffield’s £3m donation to Oxford in the 1930s, a sum which would be equivalent to between £98m and £130m today. But this enourmous sum itself pales in comparison to the £466m donation made by Chris Hohn, as reported in Saturday's papers. Although given that this donation was made to his wife's foundation, rather than as a lump sum to a single institution, perhaps it should not be included with the other Super Gifts described above.

All in all, a most extraordinary sustained period of donations. Whatever next, I ask myself?

Wealth estimation is a difficult task, even for the experts, and so it's not surprising that they occasionally get it wrong.

Having valued the architect Lord Rogers and his wife, Ruth, co-founder of the Riverside Cafe, at £52m earlier this year in their annual Rich List, the Sunday Times were forced to offer an apology when Lord Rogers brought it to their attention that he was not nearly as wealthy as they claimed.

He explained the situation in a letter published in Building Design on 9th May:

And correct the mistake they did. On the 11th May, the Sunday Times printed an apology and removed Rogers from the online version of the rich list:

I haven't really had enough time to play around with this one yet, to determine how useful it may be, but I suspect it could prove very useful, so for that reason alone, this week's WOTW is TouchGraph.

Touchgraph has a number of basic functions, but the one in which I am most interested allows you to explore the connections between related websites by producing Google search results in the form of a clustered graph.

You can see the results for yours truly below.

It shows various websites, some directly related to me, others not really related at all, but enough information to allow someone to get an idea of the sorts of things I was into. The left hand column lists the websites, sorted in the same groups as the graph.

As I say, I have not had time yet to really test this sucker, but I have a gut feeling that it could be good. Or I may just be hungry.

TTFN

Tomorrow, the World!

Yup, that's right, my name is up in lights, well, black and white, anyway, in today's Times newspaper.

If you go to Page 5 of the Public Agenda section and look at the “In the Professional Press” column on the right hand side you’ll see that I’m quoted in the second paragraph (quote taken from the article I wrote for Professional Fundraising magazine.)

What larks, eh?!

I have had an article published in the latest issue of Professional Fundraising Magazine.

What fun!

Except for two things.

They spelt my name wrong.

They have edited the crap out of it (although it might heve been too long in its original version).

If you wish, you can read the full, un-expurgated version here.

Why, oh why, can't people spell my fucking name properly?!

Why why why why WHY?!!!

It's Mathew - one T - not Matthew. M-A-T-H-E-W.

It's not hard to spot, it's not rocket science, it's not asking for a solution to the Schleswig-Holstein Question or for a micro-realistic theory of quantum mechanics, it's just paying a little attention to a name.

Normally I don't mind, I'm used to it by now. But when my name is misspelt in a publication that will be read by thousands of people, that means thousands of people thinking that my name is spelt Matthew.

Grrrr.

P.s. more details about the publication in question when the latest issue appears online.

Just been checking out the latest FreePint Bar Digest, the excellent summary of the latest postings at the FreePint Bar, and what do I see?

An advert for the Dow Jones Booth at the Special Libraries Association Annual Conference inviting you to visit their booth to have an expert analyze your handwriting!

What the fuck?!

Dow Jones, as you may be aware, is the company behind Factiva (the news archive) amongst other products, and a serious player in the research/information managment world. Why, then, do they feel the need to attract people to their booth at the SLA Conference by endorsing such fuck-witted mumbo jumbo as handwriting analysis?!

No, I will not call it graphology - I refuse to dignify such infantile drivel with that term, ridiculously pseudo-scientific though it is.

This sort of shit really gets my goat.

"You can have Sarah or Ruth Holmes, both nationally known handwriting examiners, amaze you with their ability to read your personality from just a sample of your handwriting."

I will be amazed indeed, if they can glean absolutely anything of any substance about my personality from my handwriting. Especially as they promise to "get insights into your true self" and "the analysis of your handwriting only takes a few minutes."

Only takes a few minutes?! People have multiple sessions with psychologists to try to discover their true self that may last hours at a time and yet these handwriting people can discern the same information in a few minutes. Fucking miraculous.

Let me guess what form this 'analysis' will take.

It will say that I am a confident/caring/outgoing/sharing/loving/imaginative/compliment of your choice/etc. etc.

I.e. lots of general drivel designed to make me feel better and absolutely nothing about my real personality, except if they hit upon something by sheer luck.

What it will not say is anything that is really about my true self: that I am manipulative, devious, arrogant, hostile, lazy, misogynistic, xenophobic, etc. etc. Not that I am - well, not all of those things (!) - but everyone is a mixture of good and bad things, but you wonlt get that from these people.

And to suggest that the complexities of the human brain, with its billions of interacting neurons, can be discerned in any way from how you write a few words on a page is fucking crazy.

Why of why then, are Dow Jones promoting such puerile bullcrap?

Dumbarses.

There is a new book out about prospect research which could be well-worth reading.

It is written by Bobbie Strand, "a nationally recognized leader in major gift and prospect development, capital campaign planning and implementation, major gift management, cultivation, and solicitation" as the CASE website puts it.

You can read a 'sample chapter' (actually the introduction) here.

It's fairly expensive, at £25, but then again, if it enables you to find the prospects to support your work with a decent donation or two, it's rather cheap!

I shall be ordering a copy forthwith. Well, after lunch probably, now I see what the time is.

Not so much Website of the Week as Website for the first time in several Weeks, but hey ho, what do I care?

So, this week's WOTW is AltSearchEngines, which contains extensive information about alternative/niche search engines (as well as the big boys). Their goal is to make AltSearchEngines “the definitive destination for everything related to alternative search engines - over 1,000 of them!”

Whilst not anti-Google, they do wish to emphasise the very many alternatives to that search engine giant. And let's face it, Google may not be around for ever. Or rather, it may not be the best search engine forever. After all, it was only a few short years ago - well, the late 1990s I guess - that Google was the young pretender and Yahoo, Hotbot, AltaVista and so on were the major players. How quickly things change.

But just who will replace Google? AltSearchEngines has a go at picking a few contenders.

Feedback from the ThirdSector Major Donor Conference (13th May 2008)

I meant to write this up a week ago but various things, work and illness, got in the way, so...here is a shortened version of what I was going to write because, quite frankly, I can't be arsed to write a long version.

In fact, here is an ultra short version:

No matter how much you know (or think you know), go to conferences! You never know what useful information you may pick up.

And boy did I pick up some useful information.

For example, I learned from one speaker that Patrons to their appeal have all given the charity at least £100,000.* And a quick check the next day showed me that Patrons to their appeal are listed on their annual report. The upshot of this is that I now have a list of almost 100 prospects each of whom I know is capable of a donation in excess of £100,000. Cool.

So, to keep this short and sweet, the conference theme was Identify and Cultivate Major Donors, although the bulk of the day was about cultivation rather than research.

In fact Bugger, used that phrase already And I have to say, those parts that were about research were rather weak. For example, the title of the first talk began with "Implement the Latest Techniques to Successfully Identify your Potential Prospects..." and what was said, whilst being interesting (and informative to those new to prospect identification), most certainly did not include the "latest techniques" in prospect research.

And although some of the other speakers touched upon research, they just spouted the usual ignorant guff. E.g. "Find out about your prospects through Who's Who and Lexis Nexis" (and what else??? These are not the only biographhical or news sources!!!) Or, "Get your database screened" (but none of them pointed out that data screening companies have substantially different data sets and so you need to get your data screened by more than one company to  maximise your chances of identifying prospects. I made my concerns known in the feedback sheet, so perhaps the next conference major donor conference will be different. Or perhaps they should have a conference devoted to prospect research (is that a pig I see flying overhead?)

I must add, though, that there were some very good speakers: Ben Morrison of Jewish Care, Rob Aldous of Moorfields Eye Hospital and the very entertaining Mide Akerewusi, lately of SCOPE, but now heading off to Canada. Although with Mide, I did get the slight feeling that there was more style than substance to his talk. But what style!

There was also an informative talk from Sophie Hackford of New Philanthropy Capital, who is coming to speak at the forthcoming Researchers in Fundraising conference.

OK, now I've got the plug in, I tire of this post. Laters...

* EDIT (22/05/08): I originally said the figure was £12,500, but that was for something else - doh!

The Jewish Chronicle has just published its second annual list of those Jews and non-Jews who wield the greatest influence on British Jewry.

The JC Power 100 lists, as the name suggests, the top 100 movers and shakers as chosen by JC readers and an expert independent panel representing all strands of Jewish life.

Unsurprisingly, it includes a fair number of philanthropists and others of interest to fundraisers and researchers, but equally surprisingly, it does not include Sir Alan Sugar. I know, cor blimey! Or rather, Oi Vei! *

* Oh come on, surely you don't expect me to write a post about the JC Power 100 without at least one hackneyed, stereotypical Jewish phrase. I think that I was very restrained. But then again it is Monday; I'm just warming up.

This is a question for those of you who get this blog by RSS.

On the front page of my site I have the following information:

Or, how to save the weeble!

This week's tip is courtesy of Melanie Matthews of TB alert (her second tip on The Prospect Research Toolkit – you can read the first one here).

How often do we see the following question on the Trust & Statutory Discussion Group?

I'm looking for a trust that will fund a new database/internet site/minibus/rainforest/my breast enlargement*

* Delete as appropriate

I.e. the person thinks that to fund an unusual item, such as funding for a new website, you need to find a trust that specifically funds new websites.

You do not.

Here are some of the options you should consider.

1.Your overall fundraising strategy. 

Are you relying simply on trusts for your income?  If so – eggs and baskets come to mind.  Other types of income are non-restricted and could be used for these things (events, appeals and many more) if you don't do them then maybe your fundraising department should think about its long term strategy of getting core unrestricted funds and start to include ways of fundraising other than trusts. One small sponsored event could raise enough for your needs.

2. Not all trusts insist on giving restricted funds. 

So raise more unrestricted money from trusts and use it for any of these items.  These trusts want to know examples of your work and why you are a good charity and benefiting people in a way that is really positive – then you can spend the money however you want.  If you don’t know who they are ask if they need a specific project or not before you make the application.

3. Fundraising for a specific item. E.g. you work for a charity that studies infant deaths and you need a new website. 

Change your thinking. You do not need a website. You need what? An awareness tool?  An information service/support tool for mothers who have lost an infant? A resource for social workers to be able to access support for those mothers? A resource for healthworkers to share information in order to help increase their knowledge of the study of infant deaths (all of these being, for many charities, direct charitable objectives)

The application should say:

The problem: Not – we need a website and we don't have enough money! The problem is that there are still too many infant deaths, no-one knows why or where to get the right information, and so on.

Your solution: Providing a website which will let people know about this, and provide an awareness tool to make more mothers/doctors aware of what could happen and how they can do their best to prevent it, or an information service/support tool for mothers who have already lost an infant, to help them through the grieving process and help their other children deal with it, or a resource for social workers to be able to access support for those mothers so that mothers are given the support they need, or a resource for healthworkers to share information in order to help increase their knowledge of the study of infant deaths so that the research that is done is more widely known and more effective. And so on.  

What you want:  £XX,XXX

What that money will do – Not pay for a website!  The money will ensure that X number of mothers/doctors are helped with information or X number of social workers get quick access to information they need or X number of researchers have a focal point to look at all the studies that have been done and their results so as to make their research more effective.

Let’s look at it another way…

Imagine that you work for Save the Weeble (the weeble is now sadly endangered by loss of its habitat - oh yes it is) and you need a new database.

The application should not say – we need a new database but we don't have enough money to pay for one.

What it should say is that weebles - cute, wobbly, lovely weebles - are needlessly dying! 

We need to tell the world about this travesty, we need to lobby parliament and governments all over the world, we need to gather together a database of weeble-workers, we need to reach out to the caring British public to give us money – and we know they will. 

But wait!

We cannot do any of that at the moment because we only have one old computer and a home-made database.  The fate of the weeble lies in our hands, as we alone have the knowledge and experience, we alone can save them but we cannot currently do so because we don’t have modern IT equipment!

The solution is a database and server which will ensure that we can let people know about this crisis, provide information for weeble watchers, help us communicate with and lobby decision makers, and most importantly raise hundreds of thousands of pounds from the general public for a weeble sanctuary.

As Melanie says, this formula works for any charity, any need.

Except possibly breast enlargement. I made that one up. Still, you never know...

Once again, the Sunday Times Rich List is upon us.

This Sunday, the 27th April, to be precise.

Ooh, how exciting?!

Well, not very, quite frankly.

Yup, it's a slow day today.

The website o' the week this week is Phil Bradley's website. 

Making search easier for everyone runs the tagline and I would have to agree. Phil's site is a smorgasbord of information on search engines, searching the internet and keeping up to date on internet events, with numerous free articles on internet searching and a regularly updated weblog.

Articles of particular interest to prospect researchers include Which search engine for which query? and a comparsion of UK based search engines.

Remember, there's more to life than Google!

This weeks TOTW is to read the Data Protection Act.

I know what you're thinking, this is a pretty obvious tip, right?

Well, maybe, and yet I get the feeling that there are a fair number of fundraisers and researchers out there who have not read the act. But to be perfectly frank, because I'm tired of being Mathew, you must read it. There are no excuses not to.

Well, there is one, I guess, which is that the act is very, very boring to read. But that's not really much of an excuse, is it? The act is not very long, not very difficult to read or understand, and, for the most part, not very difficult to interpret.

I say 'for the most part' as there are sections of it that are a little ambigious when applied to prospect research. Hah, to say the least.

But you can help your interpretation of it by checking out Adrian Beney's site, and also by reading the Researchers in Fundraising Guidelines on interpreting the Data Protection Act.

The Institute of Fundraising has also produced a Code of Fundraising Practise concerning Data Protection which "aims to draw attention to those areas of the act that apply to fundraising activities" and which is worth reading.

So, all in all, exciting stuff, expecially for a Friday afternoon!

Ciao.

OK, this has nothing to do with prospect research, but then it is Friday.

For those of you who enjoyed my recent presentation on the Monkeysphere, and in particular all the lovely pictures of chimps, gorillas and orangs, I urge you to go to this site - Manifesto for Apes - and sign their manifesto to try to help safeguard the future of these wonderful animals in their natural environment.

I've signed it, as you will see if you check out the signatories. I am signatory 4030. Cool.

This week's WOTW is the news & current affairs site Newsbiscuit.

Divided into various categories, including Arts/Entertainment, Business & Celebrity, as well as UK News and World News, it contains many articles of interest to prospect researchers.

You can also get articles sent direct to your inbox. Cool.

TechSoup provides a range of technology services for nonprofits, including news and articles, discussion forums, and discounted and donated technology products.

They have, for example, a comprehensive list of articles about using the internet going back some 8 years.

From the ARNOVA-L discussion list I learn that Google has launched a new resource, Google for non-profits.

The site features tutorials and examples of how non-profits use Google tools to operate more effectively.

This week's TOTW is courtesy of my old mucker, Finbar Cullen, who describes on his blog how you can access and search previous Sunday Times Rich Lists from 2002 to 2007.

Even more useful than a mask in a fart factory.

I've finally finished the notes to the presentation I recently gave to the Trusts and Statutory SIG earlier this month.

Entitled 'Inside the Monkeysphere!' it considers how prospect research can help you in your trust fundraising.

There are two versions, a monkey version and a non-monkey version.

The choice is yours!

EDIT - the first presentation was waaaay too large, so I've put up a smaller one. JPEG monkeys rather than bitmap monkeys. Makes all the difference.

This week's WOTW is Karen Blakeman's Tales from the Terminal Room (tfttr).

tfttr is "a free newsletter for anyone who uses electronic media, and particularly the Internet, for locating information."

The newsletter appears roughly every two months and discusses a variety of search tools, information resources and other items of interest to researchers.  

Karen also has a blog, which is well worth reading.

I wonder, is it very childish of me that I find it rather amusing that the wonderfully named Debra Allcock Tyler, Chief Executive of the Directory of Social Change, has written a book called The Pleasure and the Pain?

Ooh, matron!

From time to time in your researching adventures, you may come across a website intended for Johnny Foreigner. (You know, funny words, some of them written with strange symbols that bear little relation to what you or I would recognise as letters,*  that sort of thing).

This is especially likely to be the case if you are carrying out research into wealthy non-doms or foreign prospects. 

And unless you are a cunning linguist (he he - oh grow up) you are going to be stumped and not know whether you have stumbled upon a goldmine of information concerning your prospect or just another nugget of fools gold.

But help is at hand!

In the first instance you can use Babel Fish, which very kindly translates websites from foreign to English.

Or, if you prefer, you can use the translating abilities of Google. 

Or, better still, use both. Why? Because they can give markedly different translations of the same body of text.

For example, if you translate the following website www.bonsoirclara.be (a Belgian restaurant where I shall be eating in a few weeks - snail ravioli is one of their specialities!) you get the following results (the first translation comes from Babel Fish, the second from Google):

The framework is irresistibly tempting and the fauna of the beginnings gradually made place with more marked customers in her choices and tastes culinary. In other words, one can be a restaurant "tendency" and nevertheless to propose a kitchen of quality. The chart of the wines is of an eclecticism particularly shining.

Interesting, eh? And not a little confusing.

How about if you are one of those lucky people who can understand, or partially understand, another language, but who gets stuck with the odd word or phrase? 

In this case, you need lingro.

Lingro provides a translation for any of the words you don't know, just by clicking on them.

Amazing!

Unless they don't have a translation for the word you pick, then it's just frustrating, but this sort of thing should become more rare, as the site is developed.

* Unless you are foreign, of course, in which case they look just right! But we think they look funny. So there.

Why oh why oh why do certain fucktards insist on calling Bob Geldof, Sir Bob Geldof?

Being Irish and not British (or from the Commonwealth), he was awarded an honorary knighthood and so is not eligible to use the term Sir. 

Do you ever hear people talking about Sir Bill Clinton, Sir Rudy Giuliani or Sir Bill Gates? No. But they too all have an honorary knighthood. So why call Geldof Sir Bob?!

It really gets on my tits that so many people who should know better, can get it so wrong. Especially when we, as researchers, have to be so careful to get our prospects' titles right. But perhaps they do know better, and are just being sycophantic, which is even worse, the fawning twats.

Still, I suppose I should be grateful he hasn't been awarded an honorary peerage, thus prompting fuckwits around the country to call him Lord Bob and, no doubt, style his wit-retardant daughters The Hon Trixie FagAsh, The Hon Lulu Monkeyspank and The Hon Slagwit Drunkentart, or whatever the fuck their real names are.

Oh, just checked Wikipedia, those are their real names. Hmm, lucky guess there.

My website of the week this week is Richard McEachin's Confidential Resource.

His blog offers "valuable information about sources, methods and resources for professional and amateur Investigators and Researchers."

And having just spent some time looking through the archves, I can certainly agree.

Research is a curious business.

How do you measure its effectiveness, its efficiency, or its productivity? How do you spot a good researcher or, more importantly perhaps, a bad one?

In a recent article for fumsi, Evaluating Researchers: Developing a Skills Matrix, Anja Thygesen, research manager with the Danish management consulting company Quartz Strategy Consultants, says:

We probably all have an idea of what a good researcher is capable of doing and what kind of skills that person possesses. We also know when we provide good quality and what kind of skills we use when doing this - or do we?

Thygesen raises what is, I think, a common problem in research; it is one thing to give a general description of what makes a good researcher and quite another to actually define or quantify what good research actually is, so that one is able, in an interview for example, to differentiate between those who are clearly good at researcher from those who merely give the appearance of being good, or so that one is able, for a particular researcher, to identify what their particular strengths and weaknesses are, so that you can help them to continue to develop the former whilst taking appropriate measures to strengthen the latter.

Many moons ago, when I was interviewed for a prospect research position, I was asked what the largest gift was that had arisen from my research. I had never been asked this question before (at least, not in a formal interview) and I have to say that it completely threw me.

The assumption behind it, I presume, is 'the larger the gift, the better the researcher.' But I have to say, having now thought about it at some length, that I do not think it a very good question to ask a researcher, if you wish to evaluate their level of skills and experience.

For one thing, I could simply have lied. I could have given some figure such as £1m and left it at that. They would not know, and Data Protection issues, not to say my own conscience, would not allow me to go into any detail; to divulge who the donor was. Given this point alone, you have to ask, why ask such a question?

But more significant, I think, is the underlying assumption that the higher the gift, the better the researcher – why should this be so?

I may be an excellent researcher, but have poor or inexperienced fundraisers; in which case, how can I be held responsible for their getting gifts of only £10,000 from prospects who may be capable of six or seven figure donations? (Especially if I have made them aware of the giving capacity of the prospects).

It may also be the case that my work experience has only ever been for organisations that have not had any research projects, building projects, etc. that required very large gifts, and so the fact that I have never carried out research that has lead to a six or seven figure donation is nothing to do with my own abilities and everything to do with the level of ask required of the organisation and their major donors.

(Of course, if I really have only worked with inexperienced fundraisers or carried out research for low cost projects, I could mention this in the interview, but how can I do this without coming across as a poor researcher who is making excuses and blaming others for my own deficiencies?)

On the other hand, what if I can truthfully answer that my research has lead to a £1m gift? What does that tell us about my research abilities. Well, not necessarily very much.

Let us suppose that I discover on our fundraising database one of the wealthiest people on the Sunday Times Rich List and pass on this information to my major donor fundraisers in a prospect meeting (before I have carried out any further research). And let us suppose that one of them has cultivated him in a previous job and still has a means of getting in touch with him, which he does, and which leads, over time, to a seven figure donation (without any significant research on my part being required). Whilst I can justifiably argue that it was my research that initially identified the prospect (assuming that searching a database for a few names from the Sunday Times Rich List counts as research), how much responsibility can I take that it was my research that lead to the donation? Not very much, quite frankly.

OK, this is an artificial case; but it is a possible scenario, and it would allow me to give an impressive answer to the interviewer's question. And it would tell them absolutely nothing about my research capabilities. 

Now, I do not wish to deny that in some cases, larger donations do require more work on the part of the researcher. And the greater your experience, the greater the chance that your research will have lead to a very large donation. Given this, I can see why someone could come to the conclusion that one measure of a researcher's skills and experience is the size of the largest donation that their research has lead to. But it should be clear from my arguments above that it is not a good measure of the researcher's skills and experience. (It is probably a better measure of a fundraiser's skills and experience, quite frankly.)

Ask the question, by all means, but just bear in mind that it is far from ideal and that there are better questions to ask. Something like the following, for example:

Please give an example of how your research has lead to a major donation, giving due consideration to the various processes you followed, sources you used, and any difficulties you encountered and how you overcame them.

Depending upon the answer the person gives, you then have the opportunity to ask them about their relationship with their fundraisers, how they identify prospects, their time-management skills, and a whole host of other relevant factors that will let you know whether they are a decent researcher or not.

In her article, Thygesen suggests developing a skills matrix to evaluate researcher; a detailed and comprehensive approach but one which she describes as "a long and time consuming process." But she adds:

But if you take the time and involve your team it can be a useful way of getting a clear picture of your team members' profiles, what to expect from them, and their potential career path. It also communicates to your team their main priorities and what is expected of them. If you develop and implement this skills matrix you will ensure that your team members are aware of the requirements for promotion, and you are able to communicate key deliverables to both customers and management.

It is a fascinating article, well worth reading and possibly, with due consideration to your own organisation's needs, implementing.

Seems like an age since I last blogged...because it is!

So, that clears that up.

Unfortunately, much as I love blogging, the ol' day job has taken up most of my time recently, as has becoming the Chairman* of Researchers in Fundraising.

And what a busy time we've been having. Exciting things are a foot!

We, as in the committee, are in the process of creating a new website for RiF, preparing the line up for our Spring Conference, and also preparing a survey of RiF members so that we can control your hearts and minds better represent your views and wishes.

I'm particularly excited about the website, which will enable people to see exactly who RiF are (a rogue's gallery of freaks and misfits), what we want to achieve (world domination) and where we are going (down...the pub). It will allow the researcher on the Clapham Omnibus to have a more active participation in the running of RiF which is, of course, completely gay wonderfully democratic and forward thinking. More on this later in the year, when we've got the bugger up and running.

Until then, happy researching.

Yeah, I know. Kind of a lame ending wasn't it? Tough shit.

* Oh yes, Chairman, not Chair. I'm not a piece of furniture. Or PC. "Knickers! Fecking women's knickers!" See, told you.

This week's website of the week is Ian Smith's iBlog.

Canada-based Ian describes his blog as:

"an outlet for individuals who wish to know more about internet research for business and dealing economic development purposes. At times, Ian brings his cynicism to blog posts when he needs to rant or assess a new tool."

Ah, nothing like a good rant, and I do love a bit of cynicism.

Recent articles of particular interest to prospect researchers include a discussion of how to search Facebook and searching the invisible web, and there are further articles of interest in the archives.

The Garfield Weston Foundation has a rather nifty website, but I do wonder at one piece of information that they provide - the website address.

Surely if you already have their website open, the last piece of information you need is...the address for their website?

Most bizarre...

City AM, the free newspaper handed out at various stations in and around the City of London has finally got a decent website.

"About bloody time!", I hear you cry. (Either that, or "City what?")

For those of you not in the know, City AM is a daily, free newspaper with financial news (and a bit of other stuff) and invaluable as a 'what's going on in the City?' resource.

It was through City AM that I learned about the websites Roll on Friday and Here is the City. Both excellent research resources, providing news, information & gossip about City types not found elsewhere.

I read it religiously every day, and now that they have a website - you can too! Cor, how lucky is that?

Well, OK. Not very I admit. Still, better than a smack in the eye with a wet kipper.

There are times when it's nice to present/print/email a document in a more professional manner than a Word document, and at times like that, PDF is an excellent alternative (and is compatible across different computer platforms).

But what if you don't have the necessary software to produce PDF documents? Fear not, for help is at hand.

PrimoPDF is a free software package that allows you to convert documents in over 80 different formats to PDF. Or, if you don't want to download the software (or are unable to), you can use their online conversion service PrimoOnline.

Coolio!

After a lay off of over a year, Finbar Cullen (for it is he) is blogging again. Cor.

The cause of (or perhaps that should be blame for!) the long absence (a world record between blog entries?) can be put down to Howard Lake and the time he has spent overhauling UKFundraising. But the haul is over, and Finbar is blogging again.

This now takes the number of prospect research blogs that I know of to four. Mine, Finbar's, Maryrose Larkin's Northwest Research Blog and Deborah Drucker's Adventures in Prospect Research.

I know, impressive, eh?

Well, not really.

If anyone knows of any others (others who are currently blogging, that is), I'd love to know of them.

# I like blogging, I like blogging, I like blogging and I like to blog!

...except during Christmas and the new year, when I find it all too much effort. Hence the long gap between entries recently. Oh, and a little thing called Researchers in Fundraising, which has been taking up a little of my time.

But that's enough moaning - there's blogging to be done.

This week's WOTW is WatchThatPage.com, which "enables you to automatically collect new information from your favorite pages on the Internet. You select which pages to monitor, and WatchThatPage will find which pages have changed, and collect all the new content for you."

I know, cor blimey!

Oh, and it's free, unless you monitor a large number of pages, then they will contact you for a fee - but we're talking about someone who gets several hundred updates a day - and what prospect researcher has that much free time that they could read them all?

There are few things that annoy me more than unnecessary words with acronyms.

I'm thinking of PIN Number (Personal Identification Number Number) HIV Virus (Human Immunodeficiency Virus Virus) and LCD Display (Liquid Crystal Display Display). There are more lovely examples here.  

And now I have found a new example - of sorts.

After a gap of some five years, I am once again using Lexis Nexis as my news archive, and I've discovered some lovely new features which were not available when last I used it. Most pertinently, there is a new source to search - Web Blogs - as you can see here:

Yup, that's right, Web Blogs. 

Now, given that the word Blog, is a shortening of Weblog, what we have here is in fact Web Weblogs. 

Fucking dumb-arses.

Oh, Happy New Year by the way.

Another day, another wealth report, this time from the Policy Exchange, the centre-right think tank.

The report, Give and let give: Building a culture of philanthropy in the financial services industry, is described by the Policy Exchange as "the most comprehensive report into the state and future of British philanthropy in the City this decade."

I know, cor blimey.

The report is "designed to stimulate high-earning City professionals to embark on a philanthropic journey," which is no bad thing, to say the least. Although how many of these high-earning City professionals will have either the time or the inclination to read through all 132 pages of the report is a moot point, to say the least, particularly at this festive time of year.

Still, with contributions from the likes of Michael Hintze, Nicola Horlick, Shaks Ghosh, Sir Peter Lampl, Sir Tom Hunter, Stanley Fink, Theresa Lloyd, Lord Joffe and Nigel Harris, amongst many others, it certainly deserves to be read.

Well, it's that time of the year when newspapers and magazines fill up all the space left empty by a complete lack of news worthy stories with crap Christmas quizzes.

And who am I to be different? So here it is,

The Prospect Research Toolkit Christmas Quiz!

Which phrase best sums up Xmas for you?

1. Ho! Ho! Ho!

2. Bah humbug!

3. Of course I haven't forgotten your present darling, ha ha ha...ahem.

4. Will you bloody kids BE QUIET!

What is your favourite Christmas film?

1. Holiday Inn. "I'm dreaming of a White Christmas..."

2. Miracle on 34th Street. "We believe"

3. It's a Wonderful Life. "Every time you hear a bell, an angel gets his wings"

4. Father XXXmas. "When Santa empties his sack, everyone has to swallow"

Who is Father Christmas?

1. A timeless and endearing representation of the spirit of Christmas.

2. A sad reflection of the materialism that is the modern Christmas.

3. That fat bloke on TV who advertises Coke.

4. My dad.

What best represents the true sprit of Christmas?

1. Celebrating Christ's birthday with humility and reverence.

2. The warmth of being with one's loved ones.

3. Helping people less fortunate than yourself.

4. Brandy, of course. Whiskey at a pinch.

What do you have for Christmas lunch?

1. Turkey and all the trimmings - it's traditional!

2. Goose - that's really the traditional Christmas food.

3. For fuck's sake, why not just say Woolly Mammoth and be done with it?!

4. Er...archaeopteryx?

What do you wish for most at Christmas?

1. I wish that there could be peace on earth for all men.

2. I wish for LOADS of pressies!

3. I wish that this quiz was funnier.

4. I wish that this quiz would end.

Er...and that's it.

Merry Christmas and Happy Researching in the New Year!

Why, of why, does Google list the number of pages it claims to have found when you search for something [e.g. Results 1-10 of about 345,000 pages] when you can only ever look at the first 1000 pages it finds?

What IS the point? Who cares if it found 3000 or 3,000,000 pages if you can only see the first 1000?

Perhaps they wish to catch out unwary journalists?

For example, a recent article in Wealth-Bulletin discussed the number of results one gets when searching for private banks on Google. This line in particular caught my eye:

"Third on the list is the search term "Julius Baer", which uncovered 660,000 references - and most of those look to be associated with the bank."

Most of those look to be associated with the bank? Most of them? You mean you checked all 660,000 references?

Even if we assume that you can check one page per second (just time for a quick glance to see if it looks like it is associated with the bank and to make a note of this) it would still take someone over a week – counting night and day – to check 660,000 records. Now that's dedication.

Or perhaps just ignorance.

For even if someone did put aside the time to look at all 660,000 pages, they would not actually be able to do so as Google does not list that many pages – it only lists the first 1000 pages of your search. (Something the journalist would have known, had he really tried to look at all 660,000 pages, rather than just pretending to do so or implying that he had.)

So, why does Google list such pointless search results?

Er...I really have no idea.

Unless, of course, it's just some shabby sales gimmick - gasp! Surely not!

What a cracking name for a trust!

Completely frivolous, I know, but then it is almost Christmas.

In other news...

My hit counter has now passed the magic 5000 - woo hoo! Any excuse to crack open the Champagne, although, of course, one should always take what it says with a pinch of salt.

Digital Look, a "leading financial information and news service" provides a wealth of information about companies, directors and, most wonderfully, their shareholders.

If you register with them, they will send you regular emails of peoples' share dealings (amongst other things). Which could prove very useful for you.

For example, check out this email from November:

Hmmm, Mr Jonathan Howell is not doing too badly is he? That £12 million he's got for his LSE shares must be burning a hole in his pocket.

So why not help him out by looking him up on your database and seeing if he's a supporter of yours? If he is - if he's warm to your cause - then you will have taken the first steps towards relieving him of some of his hard earned cash, and wouldn't that be a nice Christmas present?

Stuck for something to get your favourite millionaire this Christmas?

How about one of the following must-have items...

To start with, at a measely £100,000, the holiday of a lifetime!

A snip at twice the price!

Too cheap? Well OK, I have just the thing. Buy him his very own jet!

I know what you're thinking. Every millionaire worth his salt already has one of those.

True, but how many have one that is Supersonic? And at only £40m it's a bargain! Buy him two!

But even so, planes are soooo last year aren't they? For that special UHNW person in your life, it can only be a luxury submarine. And the best news it that they start at £50m. I know - they're practically giving them away!

But I sense that you and your capitalist pig generous donor have a yearning for the really good things in life. So what you need is obvious. For £145m, you very own Airbus.

And if none of those goodies tickle your millionaire’s fancy, how about suggesting that he spend the night as a prostitute? 

I kid you not. Check the link (work friendly!).

Wealthy people, eh? Fucking weirdos.

Cor, what a full day I had yesterday.

During the day I joined some 120 other researchers for the Researchers in Fundraising Autumn Conference and in the evening it was off to St James’s Palace to rub shoulders with the great and the good at The Stroke Association Royal Lecture on Stroke.

For those of you who couldn't make it to the conference yesterday – where were you?!

The RIF Conference was once again a superb event, quite possibly the best ever, with some excellent speakers and a good turn out of researchers from right across the spectrum of prospect research. It was a fitting end to Robin Jones's tenure as Chairman. His replacement is going to have his work cut out, the poor sap.

Anyhoo, here is a very brief run down of the day, for those who did not attend.

The first presentation, by John Sauvé-Rodd of Datapreneurs, was on Data Screening.

John, a self-confessed data geek, gave some excellent advice for anyone considering getting their database screened, most notably using more than one company to do the screening.

Why?

Because "data screening companies have substantially different data sets." 

A single data screening company will only capture some of your wealthy prospects.

The second presentation, by Adrian Beney of Iain More Associates, was on the Data Protection Act.

In a highly entertaining and informative talk, Adrian described how you should interpret the Data Protection Act as you go about yout prospect research; he included advice he had received from the Information Commissioners Office  specifically concerning prospect research and dispelled some popular myths surrounding the Act.

For example, he made it clear that although you do need to let your prospects know at some point that you are holding data on them for fundraising purposes, you do not need to do this straight away. He used the following analogy: you wouldn't propose to someone on one your first few dates together, and nor should you feel obliged to bring up the Data Protection Act in your initial dealings with a prospect.

As one of the Commissioners put it to him:

"The Act doesn't expect you to do things which are unreasonable."

And he added that you do not need their consent to hold their data if you are not processing sensitive data. Sensitive data, according to the act, is:

- the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject,

- his political opinions,

- his religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature,

- whether he is a member of a trade union,

- his physical or mental health or condition,

- his sexual life,

- the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence, or

- any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings.

Time to drop those opt-out boxes!

The third presentation, by Paul Rollins of the Copyright Licensing Agency, was on copyright and how it affects prospect research.

This was another comprehensive session, in which delegates learned about best practise regarding copyright law and discovered how few of us were complying with it. Or perhaps that was just me?!

The afternoon began with the RIF Annual General Meeting, which was, obviously, the highlight of the day, before we had three sessions about their data screening capabilities from the conference sponsors Brakeley, Factary and Action Planning/Prospecting for Gold.

The day finished with Jane Langley's informative presentation on Prospect tracking and moves management.

And then we went to the pub to binge drink network.

OK, it has become clear from yesterday's conference that some people are having trouble telling the difference between Matt Ide and myself.

So, here is a quick guide to help you distinguish one from t'other.

First, Matt Ide.

Matt is a freelance writer based in Northern Michigan, who is married with four kids...apparently.

Now Mathew Iredale.

Mathew appears to be some sort of giant lobster, and a rather surprised one at that.

So there we are, no need for any more mistakes.

Oh, and I work for The StRoke Association and not the Stoke Association.

An article on the rise of philanthropy amongst the City of London's big-wigs in today's City AM (a free paper which is unfortunately not available online) has lead me to this week's WOTW:

The more you give...the more you get

Founded by Mike Dickson (also co-founder of children's charity, Whizz-Kidz) after he wrote a book of the same name, The More you give... offers advice to philanthropists and corporates looking to donate to charity.

From their website:

Whether your interest is as a company or individual, the principles are the same.

• Research/audit/getting to know you
• Setting the strategy – including introductions to relevant tax specialists, an overview of different guidance and donor organisations.
• The search for suitable causes
• Personal introductions
• Structured pitches
• A planned partnership
• Involvement and reviews

So, rather like a cross between New Philanthropy Capital and The Big Give.

Or perhaps not. Either way, yet another organisation dedicated to parting the wealthy from their excess cash, which can't be bad for us charities.

Oh, and for those of you going to the Researchers in Fundraising Autumn Conference tomorrow - see you there!

The ebusiness website eBizMBA has produced a great list of the top 55 reference websites, based upon "popularity, content depth, uniqueness, accuracy, and ease of use."

Scroll down to the bottom and you can see a whole load of other lists, some of which, such as the 20 Most Popular Celebrity Sites and the 25 Most Popular Business Websites, may also be helpful to your research.

In other news, following the spam email that some little fucker sent out in my name yesterday to the Trusts, Major Donor and Prospect Research discussion lists, not to mention various friends of mine, I am embarking upon a new area of research - exacting my revenge upon the odious fucknut. Watch this space... 

Dear Researchers,

This is a call for volunteers!

Several members of the Researchers in Fundraising committee have recently tended their resignation (after many years of excellent service, it must be said) and so we are looking to recruit some new members.

So, if you are interested in taking a more active role in the future of research in this country, please let me know via email, or speak to one of the committee members at the forthcoming Autumn Conference on Data Management and we will welcome you with open arms. Esp. if you buy us a drink.

We are especially keen to recruit members from outside the big smoke; oop north, daaaarn in the west coontry, and so on. (Yes, yes, I know, a lousy attempt at phonetically representing regional accents.) But be warned that most conferences & meetings take place in London, although this is something that we are looking at.

Cheers

Mathew

This week's site of the week is the Internet Resources Newsletter, a free monthly electronic newsletter, edited by Heriot-Watt University Library staff Roddy MacLeod, Catherine Ure and Marion Kennedy and published by Heriot-Watt University.

The newsletter aims to raise awareness of new sources of information on the Internet, and although the focus is on  engineering, science, and social science resources, it also contains resources of interest to researchers. The latest edition, for example, includes links to the indispensable fResource, the comprehensive Google Guide, and (a new one to me) the newspaper search site, Chipwrapper.

In the last few years there have been an increasing number of reports published into the wealthy and their charitable giving. These really are a must read for any researcher.

Amazingly, the first major British study into giving by the wealthy, Why Rich People Give, was only published in 2004. But since then, numerous reports have been published in the UK.

Here are a few recent examples from the last couple of months:

Researching the Very Wealthy, National Centre for Social Research

The 21st Century Donor, NfpSynergy

The changing face of Philanthropy: today, tomorrow and beyond, Barclays Wealth

Wealth and Philanthropy: the views of those who advise the rich, Philanthropy UK

If you want to keep abreast of the latest reports, you should regularly check Barclays Wealth,  fResource, HM Revenue & Customs, New Philanthropy Capital, NfpSynergy, Philanthropy UK and Third Sector.

As recommended (or not, in one case!) by those lovely peeps on PRSPCT-L, a new search engine!

pipl styles itself as "the most comprehensive people search on the web". Well, you would, wouldn't you?

How can it justify such a bold statement? Unlike other search engines, it claims to be able to search the deep web (aka the invisible web) for information.

I know - cor blimey!

Anyway, as with all such resources, the truth is in the searching, so what are you waiting for? Gordon the Goforit!

From Pam Foster, Editor of VIP:

Next month (November) VIP will publish its annual comparative review of the 'Big Three' - Factiva, LexisNexis and Thomson.

Thomson Business Intelligence's News Research product is being discontinued at the end of 2007 and many users are wondering which service to migrate to. As such, maybe you are currently, or are planning, to carry out your own trials of some or all of the 'Big Three' products. If so, please do get in touch as there may be areas on which we can compare notes.

In order to make the comparison as meaningful as possible I'd also like to invite you to suggest possible areas for research – country coverage, foreign-language indexing, cross-file searching, etc – anything that you'd find useful.

Please either share you comments at the VIP Lounge or email me directly. All feedback will, of course, be treated in the strictest confidence.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards, Pam Foster

Last year's report was excellent - very comprehensive (30 pages long!) and lucid. Oh, and it included a contribution from yours truly (woo hoo!), so Pam is being sincere when she asks for people who are currently trialling one of the products to get in touch. Do it!

Oh, and let her have any suggestions for areas of research. Here are some off the top of my head: a comparison of the news alert facilities on a range/combination of search topics that researchers may use (philanthropy, major gift/donor, charitable donation, etc.), a comparison of the information brought up by a search for a specific company (small, medium and large, local, international, etc.) or, a matter dear to our hearts, a comparison of the price reductions on offer to charities, especially smaller charities.

If you can think of some others - email them to Pam.

According to a story in today's Third Sector, a row has broken out between the May Day for Nurses fund and Gareth Southgate, manager of the Premiership football club Middlesbrough, who said that the charity's fundraising methods "bordered on blackmail".

Southgate said he had withdrawn his offer of a donation to the nurses' charity after becoming "disgusted" with the campaign's attempts to persuade players to donate a day’s wages to the fund.

I quite agree. God forbid that those cocaine-snorting, chav-dating, late-night partying, prima donna failures should have to contribute a whole day’s wages to charity.

What are those nurses like eh?!

I mean to say, your average Premiership footballer took home less than £2000 a day last year, and that's barely enough to live on, right? Why should he give this up?

OK, some of you might say that this would still leave your average player with £674,148, which is plenty to be going on with, but come one, that's before tax, and blond slappers and Cristal champagne do not come cheap. Well, the blond slappers probably do, very cheap, but the champagne is quite pricey.

And why are they picking on Middlesbrough? According to the story in Third Sector, none of the Middlesbrough players actually pledged any cash in the first place the tight-fisted fucking cunts, so it's clearly not their fault that only £200,000 has been collected from the £750,000 originally pledged.

Why not pick on those footballers who did pledge some cash, the generous bastards, they're clearly the ones at fault!

Bloody charities, what are they like?!

There was an excellent article in yesterday's Times about the so-called 'new philanthropy'.  

Paul Palmer, Professor of Voluntary Sector Management at Cass Business School and an independent charities consultant to the bank UBS Wealth Management, dispels a few myths surrounding philanthropy; most obviously, that there is anything very new about the way philanthropy is currently carried out compared to how it has been carried out for the last 100 years.  

Here are a couple of pertinent quotes:

In the past year I have been working with the bank, UBS Wealth Management, in the development of its philanthropy service for clients. I have noticed no differences between literature charting the work of past philanthropists and the desire of wealthy people to give today.

Problems, such as how to give - and by that I mean how to give effectively - have been long cited by the original Rockefeller. Grant-making has equally been around for a long time.

I recommend reading the whole article - it's not too long, so do it RIGHT NOW!

Makes a pleasant change from reading the usual guff about philanthropy.

1000 Most Inflential Londoners

In other news, the Evening Standard has now put online their list of London's Most Influential People 2007, published as a 'glossy supplement' with the newspaper yesterday (I've seen glossier, quite frankly, but then again it was free).

According to a story in Third Sector, venture capital group Doughty Hanson has established a venture philanthropy fund that aims to "ensure charitable donations made by wealthy individuals are spent more effectively."

What is it with these venture philanthropists and their erroneous belief that until they came along, donations made by wealthy individuals were not spent effectively?!

Arrogant, ill-informed twats. Makes me mad. However, since I've moaned about this in more detail elsewhere, I shall say nothing more at this time. Grrrr.

Philanthropy website The Big Give has gone live and is now ready to accept projects and promote them to wealthy donors.

To get your projects uploaded, visit: http://www.thebiggive.org.uk/register

and then...

1. Enter your charity details and click "Register"

2. Click on "Add a new project"

3. Add your project details - keep it short and sweet

What are you waiting for - go for it!

And in other news - my site has now received over 4000 visits! Woo hoo, not a bad birthday present methinks.

It's my birthday today!

Oh yes. I am 29 - again.

I've had several nice birthday messages, including one from Everyclick, who say:

"Happy Birthday!

Thank you for using everyclick to support charity."

Which is nice and personal, isn't it? Ahem.

Anyway, given that they "provide a no cost fundraising facility to 276428 charities" I thought I'd give them a quick plug.

But, as it's my birthday, there is not just one but two, count them, TWO websites of the week this week.

The second website is NewsExplorer.

How often have you been asked one or more of the following:

"Can you find me the postcode for this address please?"

"What's the phone number for that company again?"

"Oh, I can never find anything on Google, could you do it for me please?"

Do you get asked these sorts of questions by your department? Pain in the arse, aren't they?

Honestly, how hard is it to check a postcode on the Royal Mail website, find a phone number on BT.com or type a word or two in Google? They're all a piece of piss to use. Let's face it: it's easier to use Google than it is to empty your bladder and most people seem to manage that without any difficulty.

So, here is this week's tip. The next time someone asks you for something that a trained chimp could find, don't just give them the information - show them how they can find it for themselves. Give them a list of 5 or so websites that you regularly use to find piss-easy information of the sort described above.

Here's a few that I use:

"What's the phone number for that company/person?"

British Telecom  

"What's the postcode for this address?"

Royal Mail

"What do the letters PhD stand for?"

Acronym Finder

"How do you spell Chrysanthemum/what's another word for lazy?"

Your Dictionary 

"Is Fred Bloggs dead/married/gay?"

Wikipedia

Thepeerage.com  

Internet Movie Database

"What's the correct title for Lord Bloggs?"

Times Style Guide

Wikipedia Forms of Address

Is Dylakumara Wickamarachchi in the Sunday Times Rich List?

Sunday Times Rich List

If you have a couple of minutes spare, check out this breaking story: Are America's Rich Falling Behind the Super-Rich?

Thanks to Matt Ide for pointing this one out.

I just came across this review of Debrett's People of Today on www.amazon.co.uk and had to share it; it is brilliant.

It was with some trepidation that I first opened the pages of "Debrett's People of Today"; the book is an impressive tome, consisting of a list of half-famous captains of industry, aging judges and BBC Board Members. Not necessarily the most inspiring of reads, one would naturally assume, however this is the book's devilish ingenuity, as it seemed to me fairly obvious that the work is a satire on conventions of what makes people important. The device of "listing" the names, rather than say, arranging them higgledy-piggledy across the page may seem to hark back to the antiquated, and over-ornate literary conventions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but it is precisely this that makes the work so clever, as in the same way that Joyce interspersed Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake with apparently random-seeming lists, the meaning of which became clear when set against the background of the narrative, Ms. Gullen and Mr. Sefton (the "Editors") have done the same, creating a bizarre, and totally original, stream-of-consciousness type narrative, where instead of words and ideas, the monads used are actual people (or at least descriptions of them). I must say, however, that the deceit began to pall in the middle section, and the close was far too post-modern for my liking. However, the effrontery of the authors in challenging traditional narrative form in such a brazen way surely deserves more praise than the flaws deserve criticism.

Overall, I'm looking forward to the next one, rumours on the internet are that it may become more ribald and coarse than this, rather genteel version, if so, I will be disappointed, Sefton and Gullen have trod the line between satire and burlesque very carefully, and I can only assume that any "dumbing down" of the next edition would be due to commercial pressures to make the book more approachable.

Quite wonderful. Wish I'd written it myself.

Barclays Wealth has published a study on the future of philanthropy entitled The Changing Face of Philanthropy: Today, Tomorrow and Beyond.

It examines the current climate of giving amongst the wealthy, what issues the individuals and the charities face, and how all of this is set to change in the next decade.

Participants in the study included over 500 High Net Worth individuals holding over £100,000 in investable assets who provided quantitative data, 15 Ultra High Net Worth (UHNW) individuals holding over £3million in investable assets who completed in-depth qualitative interviews and a Panel of five expert Thought Leaders, including Peter Beckwith, the multimillionaire philanthropist, Salvatore LaSpada, Chief Executive of the Institute for Philanthropy, Susan Weingarten, a fundraising consultant for Charities, Brian Smouha, trustee for the Institute of Philanthropy and Guy Davies, Head of Charities at Barclays Wealth.

It makes for an interesting read - here are a few choice quotes to whet your appetite (or to save you the trouble of reading it, I suppose, if you're a lazy tosser).  

Our interviews with UHNW individuals revealed there are a multitude of reasons why today's wealthy give to charities; however, at the heart of the matter these reasons are driven by a varying combination of four dynamics: a sense of responsibility; out of compassion; as a way to cleanse their conscience, and through a direct link to the cause.

The source of wealth currently influences the quantum* of the wealthy's donation, but it will also influence how they give. The Panel has obseved that younger groups who have come into wealth by selling their company are less inclined to simply donate - they want to see charity like another project in their company. 

Currently, UHNWIs are happy to socially and publicly discuss which charities, events or causes they are associated with, but the how, why and how much of their monetary donations remain much more private. For some this even excludes close family members who may not approve of the charities donated to, or the amounts donated - further evidence of the very private nature of UK philanthropy.

Currently the wealthy in the UK largely donate cash rather than time. However, only 20 per cent of the affluent in our survey think that giving money is better than giving time. The main constraint here is the lack of time that many of the younger, working wealthy have to give.

Much of the time given historically has been associated with generalist skills. In fact, the suggestion of lending their professional or entrepreneurial expertise to a charitable organisation was often met with surprise by individuals, having not considered this before. 

There are numerous reasons behind the wealthy's initial decision to start donating regularly and/or more generously to charities, currently largely driven by a sense of 'proximity' whether that be personal or geographic. However, for most, the increased participation is instigated following an illness, accident, or event involving themselves, their family, a friend, or member of the community: this often gives them insight into the good work done by a particular institution or charity.

For many of today's wealthy, the process of choosing a charity or cause is not yet a formalised process but, as mentioned above, is often ad-hoc and based on emotional feelings. In terms of reviewing donations, most individuals simply rely on their accountant to ask them annually if they wish to continue charity payments. Other than this involvement, individuals prefer their decisions to be personal: the suggestion of receiving any sort of professional advice was met with caution, as they do not wish to be swayed in any particular direction. In addition, they doubt the neutrality and independence of many intermediaries.

Despite the growth of philanthropy, surprisingly our research found that the wealthy rarely had a quantifiable measure of success for any of their donations or work; some preferred qualitative feedback such as visits and receiving letters or photographs.

Looking to tomorrow, the experts believe we will see a shift amongst philanthropists to a more strategic approach to giving which sees philanthropists addressing the root of the problem as opposed to giving directly to the 'end cause'.

Our Panel highlighted the need for a more professional approach to be taken by charities as a whole in the future. This should be focused on, in particular, better customer service. This has gratitude and clear feedback at its core, but can also extend to site visits, presentations and invitations to events. The Panel all mentioned the importance of relationship-building and engaging with donors on an ongoing basis to better build a sense of involvement.

Our survey revealed that 64 per cent of the wealthy believe that the Government could do more to encourage philanthropic giving. There are a number of favourable tax breaks which the Government gives, but many did not know about them or were at first introduced to them via their accountants.

* I think they mean 'size', the illiterate twats.

Following on from my post the other week about the Top Ten Free Resources, I have decided to have a regular new feature - Website of the Week! 

Cue loud fanfare, flashing lights, dancing girls in unnecessarily tight tops and short skirts, various assorted cast members of Casualty, Coronation Street and Eastenders and, of course, Ken Livingstone.

And for this week's website of the week, what else but Matt Ide's excellent fResource.

Although just launched, I've no doubt that it will become an invaluable resource for researchers and fundraisers alike. There's a wealth of information on it already, and this is sure to grow as we contribute to it. And when I say 'we', I don't just mean Matt, myself, Peter, Finbar, etc. but all of you as well.

fResource is designed to be an online community, and to achieve that we need as much participation from fundraisers and researchers as possible. So go on and check out the website and don't be afraid to send us your questions, comments and feedback. Or your money. I'm always amenable to receiving money. Or shares - except in Northern Rock. 

Create your own Hedge Fund

Well why not? It worked for a group of con-artists, according to a recent story in wealth-bulletin: 

nfpSynergy have just published a new report, The 21st Century Donor, which is "the conclusion of several years of work by nfpSynergy researching and understanding donors in a whole variety of guises".

The report as a whole makes for interesting and sometimes surprising reading, but the section on Major Donors (page 30) will be of most relevance to researchers.

Actually, I could have picked more than ten, but ten is such a nice round number, don't you think?

http://www.wealth-bulletin.com/ 

Produce twice daily free email alerts covering wealth and philanthropy news and analysis from around the world.

http://web.researcha.com/iccquery/

Free search facility of UK companies and company directors. OK, it's not DASH, but it is waaaaay cheaper.

http://www.muckety.com/

Founded by journalists who recognized the need for better ways to visualize relationships, Muckety uses Java technology to produce interactive maps showing connections between people, businesses and organizations.

http://www.spotlight.com/

Founded in 1927, this series of directories now contain over 30,000 performers, including actors and actresses, child artists, presenters, stunt artists and dancers. Online search facility.

http://www.northcote.co.uk/

Comprehensive list of links to UK annual reports on the internet. Simple registration required.

http://www.corporateregister.com/

A directory of company issued CSR, Sustainability, and Environment reports from around the world. They offer access to the very latest reports as they are published, and provide an archive of reports for each company featured.

http://www.givingineurope.org/

Comprehensive Information and advice about all aspects of European philanthropy.

http://news.efinancialcareers.co.uk/PAY

Useful articles about salaries & bonuses, covering the banking, accounting, securities & related finance fields.

http://www.findarticles.com/

Provides access to 'millions of articles from thousands of top publications' with archives dating back to 1984 (some of the content is fee-based).

http://www.supportingadvancement.com/research/research.htm

A huge array of research resources on the Supporting Advancement website.

Sell advertising space

There are some ways to make a million that are so brilliantly simple that they make you wonder why they were not tried long before they were.

Consider young Alex Tew. Not wanting to graduate with a huge student debt he came up with the following idea: to try and make $1m by selling 1,000,000 pixels of advertising space for $1 each.

The pixels were available in 100 pixel 'blocks' (each measuring 10x10 pixels) on his website, the aptly titled Million Dollar Homepage.

The website is divided into 10,000 of these 100 pixel blocks (giving 1,000,000 pixels in total). He sold them in 100 pixel blocks because anything smaller would have been too small to display anything meaningful, and therefore useless for advertising.

Potential clients could buy as many pixels as they liked, subject to availability. When they bought their pixels, they were then free to display an image/ad/logo of their choice in the space they purchased. They could also have the image click through to their own website. The one caveat was that no obscene or offensive images were allowed.

Part of the whole idea was that the pixels would be displayed on the website permanently. Using some of the money he makes from the site, Tew guarantees to keep it online for at least 5 years, but hopefully much longer. He wants it to become a kind of internet time capsule. As he says: "You will have a piece of internet history!"

So, did he make a million? Oh yes, even though he was not sure that it would make him any money. This was partly because he planned not to market the site, but to simply allow it to become known by word of mouth.

Within three days, he sold his first 20 x 20 pixel block, to an online music site. From then on, with only a press release in terms of self-promotion, he sold several blocks a day. After two weeks, a number of well-known blogs and UK newspapers (The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Sun) had reported the story and the numbers of orders skyrocketed. A month on from the site's launch, he had made $152,900.

By January 2006, after auctioning the final 1000 pixels on eBay, he had made a gross income of $1,037,100.

Now, at this point you may be thinking, 'Not too bad for the cost of a website and one press release.' But there was more to it than that. Here it is in Alex's own words:

"I had already made over $400,000 when [PR guru] Imal Wagner contacted me in mid-October 2005. She suggested I write a book about my experience, but I declined (I was too busy). However, I made one of the best business decisions I've ever made. I hired Imal to help me maximise the attention my site was receiving and help create even more interest."

So, it was a good idea, and it did make some money with little effort, but to get to that million required extra effort, as well as someone with some good, hard business experience.

Not surprisingly, his site has spawned a whole host of imitators and variations on the basic theme:

http://www.millionhomepage.org/

http://www.milliondollarwordscript.com/

http://www.milliondollarhomepage.net/

But Alex has a warning for those who wish to follow in his footsteps:

"It's sad to see all those pixel-copycat sites sending out badly-written press releases thinking that just sending out a press release will create interest. It won't! Forget copying my idea, no other individual will become rich from a Million Dollar Homepage copycat site. Do something different! And I do not mean a pixel-site-with-a-twist! Do something TOTALLY different! If you do something unique, totally unique, then you will stand out."

Ten signs that your Director is clueless about Prospect Research:

1. When you tell him that you’re getting Lexis Nexis he replies that he drives a Toyota.
2. He thinks that a prospect's liquid assets refer to his wine cellar.
3. He doesn't understand the need for screening because he hasn't seen a mosquito in the office in months.
4. When you tell him that you've got DASH, he replies 'OK, see you tomorrow.'
5. When you talk about a prospect's inclination, he asks why you need to know their sexual orientation.
6. When you tell him that you really like Raiser's Edge he replies that he doesn't know them but thinks his daughter saw them at Glastonbury.
7. When you mention joining APRA, he expresses surprise that she would want to interview you and says she thinks her talk show is overrated.
8. When you tell him that you have some concerns about the Data Protection Act he nods sagely, asks how they compared to the other acts, and then starts reminiscing about the time he went to the Edinburgh Festival.
9. He refers to you as 'our resident stalker.'
10. Despite being incapable of finding his own arse, he still expects you to be able to find the sort of confidential information that would normally require the combined talents of MI5 and MI6.

 This list was inspired by (and partly plagiarised from) a list by Armando Zumaya on PRSPCT-L.

A thought provoking article in The Business this week, entitled The great charity rip-off.

The author, Jon Ashworth, argues that charities need to be more accountable, and that may be so, although in my opinion he fails to make his case as he provides little or no actual evidence to support his many claims.

In fact, in the end the article just comes across as a series of wild accusations by a disgruntled ex-donor.

Here are just some of the unsubstantiated claims:

"waste and inefficiency is even greater than these figures would suggest."

"there is a wealth of…anecdotal evidence pointing to the cavalier way in which big charities treat donors funds." 

"Charities place large orders for goods without asking for competitive quotations. Staff on overseas assignments are given generous daily allowances on top of their salaries; invariably they stay in the most expensive hotels."

"Charities conduct their activities behind a veil of secrecy, operating, perhaps, at only 60% efficiency."

A "culture of waste...has set in among big charities."

As if that was not irritating enough, some of his claims are so obviously wrong, you wonder what planet he was on when he wrote the article:

"Charities...have no incentive to streamline operations."

Really? So maximising the amount of money that we spend on our particular cause is not an incentive? Knowing that for every £1 you waste, £1 less will be spent on the cause to which you dedicate your working life is not an incentive?

"There are no external stakeholders to demand improvements."

What about the donors themselves? Anyone who’s ever worked in a charity’s customer services department, as I have done, knows that donors regularly demand improvements to the way in which we operate. No stakeholders, indeed. We have the most committed, concerned stakeholders, as it's their money that fundamentally underpins our work.

(Rather bizarrely, later in the article Ashworth admits that "Charities have many stakeholders, from the public, to companies, to government." So why on Earth does he think that none of these are capable of demanding improvements? It's most odd.)

Anyway, I do recommend that you read the article, despite my criticisms. You may find that you agree with it.

What does your average billionaire do when he tires of his Ferrari, his jet and his yacht and when even a trip into space has become old hat?

He buys a luxury submarine.

You know, I really thought I had seen in all in the world of the wealthy.

Clearly I was wrong.

Given that someone in a £5,000,000 property is more likely to be wealthy than someone in a £50,000 property, one tried and tested way of identifying wealthy prospects is through their property.

One easy way to do this is to look for people who live in large country houses, as they often end in one of the following: Abbey, Castle, Court, Hall, Manor or Park. (E.g. Lacock Abbey, Sudeley Castle, Coughton Court, Norman Hall, Owlpen Manor & Dyrham Park).

So, simply search your database (or to be specific, just the first address field) for Abbey, Castle, Court, Hall, Manor or Park, to bring up as many large country properties as you can.

This will also, of course, bring up a large number of unwanted addresses. I.e. anyone on your database living in Manor Road, Castle Street, Park Hill, and so on, but it will also bring up (if they are on your database!) various large country properties.

After that - it's up to you!

God, I wish I was Angie Cunningham. Not literally of course. I'm very happy being a bloke. Although I do sometimes wonder what it would be like to have breasts....

Where was I? Oh yes, my point is, it would be nice to BE one of the wealthy, rather than just reading about them all the time. I wouldn't even need £35m. £4 or £5 million would do me nicely, thankyouverymuch.

So, in the interestes of encouraging even more wealth creation, and to try to inject some fun into a grey Wednesday morning, I've decided to start a new series of entries, alongside the Tip of the Week and the gratuitous pictures of animals which have the same name as rude body parts (more of which later in the week!)

The series is – How to Become a Millionaire!  Oh yes, capitals and bold!

1. Move abroad.

Why 'speculate to accumulate' when you can 'travel to accumulate'?

OK, so you want to become a millionaire but you don't want to have to go through the process of finding a job, working hard, investing soundly and all that rigmarole that generally goes with becoming a millionaire.

Well fear not, for Number 1 on my list of How to Become a Millionaire does not require any of that hard work stuff. In fact, all it requires is that you can afford to travel abroad.

Travel to India, for example, with a mere £11,365 ($21,542) and you can exchange it for 1m Rupees. Too much money for you? Then why not pop a little further over to Japan, where a modest £4,537 ($8,597) will make you a Yen millionaire.

Still too costly? Then how about a trip to South America. Only £975 ($1,847) will make you a millionaire in Chilean Pesos. Or you can pop on up the coast to Columbia, where a mere £222 ($420) will allow you to experience that millionaire lifestyle – Columbian Pesos millionaire lifestyle, that is!

Still too steep? Boy, you're hard to please, but I think that we can still help you. Just head on down to Indonesia with a paltry £58 ($110) in your pocket and you can exchange it for 1m Indonesian Rupiahs. Or if you like to drive a hard bargain, for just £1 less, you can head to Iran, where this Princely sum will make you a millionaire in Iranian Rials.

Ok, I can see that you are a person who settles for nothing but the best, you f-king cheapskate, so here is my final offer. Book a flight to Vietnam, and you will only need the ridiculously miniscule sum of £33 ($62) in your pocket and you can become a millionaire in Vietnamese Dong.

£33 for goodness sakes!! And you'd be a millionaire! Go on, you know it makes sense.

For more ways to become a millionaire – watch this space!

There's an interesting article in Time about the future of information gathering on the web: Online Snooping Gets Creepy

(Thanks to Jeff Walker of the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin for posting the link on PRSPCT-L).

I am now off work until the 13th August, so until then, happy researching!

According to a recent piece in Wealth-Bulletin.com philanthropists who donate their priceless artifacts to the UK's museums when they die, "deserve tax breaks in return throughout their lifetimes":

"The UK government faces a call to extend a scheme that allows ultra-wealthy philanthropists who promise treasures to the nation’s museums after their death, to receive tax concessions during their lifetimes.

Last year museums in Britain received precious objects worth more than £25.3 million ($51 million), including a diamond tiara, paintings and vintage steamboats, in lieu of inheritance tax.

The Acceptance in Lieu panel, which is lobbying the government to extend the scheme, said the generosity of those ultra-HNW donors needs to be stimulated by tax concessions if they are to fill the funding gap on behalf of national institutions."

Am I missing something here?

Philanthropists can already donate treasures to the nation "in lieu of inheritance tax," so they are already getting a pretty hefty tax break, given how crippling inheritance tax can be. Do they really need, or rather, deserve, further tax incentives?

I don't see why.

Incidentally, Wealth-Bulletin.com produce a Philanthropist of the Week, which is well worth monitoring, as is their richmonitor service. Thanks to Finbar Cullen for pointing this one out.

Yup, I have sold my soul to Satan.

And by Satan, I mean, of course, Google's AdSense.

That's right, from now on, until I get bored with them, or make absolutely no money from them, there will be adverts on the site.

Why? Well, a desperate attempt to help pay for the upkeep of the site (as the annual payment is now due and it costs money to keep the site going).

Don't think it will make too much of a difference to the site, but we shall see.

God (or, in this case, me) giveth and God taketh away the ads, if I decide to.

In other news, our dept has just had a wacking great donation (and I'll give no more details than that, as I'm sure you can appreciate) and the lovely Stroke Association has been shortlisted for an award (details to follow when it becomes public knowledge).

And that's all for today! Unless I get bored.

Social networking sites allow users to create a profile of themselves and then get in contact with other people who have also created a profile, usually friends, work colleagues and family, but also complete strangers.

You can search for people on these sites and, depending upon the site and the level of content that the person makes publicly available, find out about them, their work, their friends, and so on. A bit hit and miss, but can sometimes be useful. And, as Bryan Miller has recently blogged, the average MySpace and Facebook user is now in their mid-thirties, so these sites will I'm sure become an increasingly useful resource for researchers.

Here are a few of the more well known networking sites:

Friends Reunited

Popular British site which has a search facility which allows you to search for people's profiles. Also has sites in other countries which are listed on www.friendsreunited.com/

Myspace

Another well known site that also has a search facility which allows you to search for people's profiles.

Bebo

Popular with schoolchildren especially, although it is trying to expand to encourage adults to join. Does not have a search facility, but you can search the site using Google.

I.e. [ search term site:www.bebo.com ]

Facebook

A very fast growing site. Does not have a search facility, but again you can search the site using Google.

I.e. [ search term site:www.facebook.com ]

LinkedIn

A much more business oriented networking site than the others, which allows you to search for people's profiles on the site. May become a very useful research tool in the future, if more people are persuaded to use it.

A list of social networking sites can be found on Wikipedia.

Could this be the end of traditional Major Donor fundraising as we know it?

OK, probably not, but an interesting story all the same (from today's ThirdSector):

Website will help richest to donate

The Reed Foundation is to launch a website that allows wealthy philanthropists wanting to donate between £100,000 and £10m to search for charitable projects.

Oxfam, the Red Cross and the NSPCC are among the charities that are interested in uploading projects to TheBigGive.org.uk when it launches in September.

Wealthy donors will be able to view projects that are looking for funding and search by the amount of funding needed, sector, location and type of beneficiary.

Once they have chosen a project, they will be provided with the appropriate contact number at the charity - for example, the chief executive's number if they want to make a donation of £10m. They will then be able to make phased payments over five years.

The foundation, which was set up by recruitment company Reed, is planning a £100,000 launch to the voluntary sector, which will include a direct-mail initiative to the top 20,000 charities.

Direct mailings to wealthy potential donors and events in the City are also planned for this year. UK-registered charities can upload for free details of projects that require funding.

Alec Reed, founder of the Reed recruitment company, will participate personally and distribute £1m in the first year.

The project will form partnerships with companies including private banking firm Coutts, to engage wealthy prospective donors. Thirty per cent of the UK's high-wealth customers bank with Coutts, according to a Reed Foundation spokesman.

This is not much related to research or major donor work, but what the hell. My blog, my rules.

I have a question.

Why are there so many breast cancer charities?  Why, oh why? 

OK, I can understand why there is a need for more than one. Different charities perform different functions.

For example, The Genesis Appeal is "the only UK charity entirely dedicated to preventing breast cancer", Breast Cancer Care is "The UK's leading charity for breast cancer support and information" and Breakthrough Breast Cancer is "the UK's leading charity committed to fighting breast cancer through research, campaigning and education."

Why not have different charities tackling prevention, support, research, and so on? Makes sense to me.

But what about some of the others?

Breast Cancer Haven, for example, is a UK charity "supporting the physical and emotional needs of anyone affected by breast cancer."

It was founded in 1997 by Sara Davenport, after the experience of her children's nanny, Wendy Ricketts, who was diagnosed with the illness. Sara was concerned by the lack of emotional support and information available to people with breast cancer.

Had she not never heard of Breast Cancer Care, who were "founded in 1973 for the purpose of offering information and support to those affected by breast cancer."? Perhaps they weren't very good in 1997 and Sara Davenport thought she could do better (although after almost 25 years experience you would expect them to know their stuff).

Or how about the following charities? Looking at their websites, one learns that the Breast Cancer Research Trust (founded in 1976) is "the only Charity specifically promoting research into breast cancer", that Breast Cancer Campaign (1995) is "the only charity that specialises in funding independent breast cancer research throughout the UK" and that Against Breast Cancer (1993) funds "an innovative and unique breast cancer research programme, focusing particularly on metastases and survival after breast cancer."

Hmmm. Are they all necessary? Especially when one considers that Cancer Research UK also spends millions of pounds each year on breast cancer research.

A charity since 2001, Breast Cancer UK aims to "identify and influence the research agenda in the areas of causes, prevention, and treatment of breast cancer, with particular emphasis on the involvement of those with breast cancer in the research process." Very worthwhile, obviously, but surely those areas were already covered by Breast Cancer Care (founded 1973), Breakthrough Breast Cancer (1991) and The Genesis Appeal (1996)? 

And as recently as 2005, a new breast cancer charity was founded. Breast Cancer Hope is "dedicated to improving the quantity and quality of life in women diagnosed with breast cancer, through funding high quality research in the fields of basic science, prevention, early detection and the treatment of breast cancer." But these are all areas that are covered by one or more of the previously mentioned charities.

According to the Pink Ribbon Foundation: "There are a large number of [breast cancer] charities in the UK."

They've got that right, and they should know, given that they are "a grant making trust with a mission to fund projects and provide financial support to UK [breast cancer] charities." 

Yup, that's right. Not only are there numerous breast cancer charities, but there is a breast cancer charity dedicated to providing support to those numerous breast cancer charities.

Now, I know that there is a Breast Cancer Forum which has representatives from the main cancer charities, who meet regularly to discuss areas of common ground, but even so, one can still legitimately ask, do we really need so many breast cancer charities? I'm not convinced that we do. 

There's an interesting article in today's Independent: The Big Question: Why do wealthy Americans donate so much to charity and rich Britons so little?

It's not exactly ground-breaking, but worth reading all the same.

No matter how detailed your research, there is always the nagging doubt, when you complete/present a prospect's profile to your colleagues: have I missed something? (Or, more to the point, have I missed something bloody obvious? To err is human after all, especially if you are as busy as most of us researchers are.)

And, of course, there is no easy way to find out. Unless, that is, you show the profile to the prospect him/herself and ask them to comment. And this is what I have recently done, and it is something that I cannot recommend too highly.

OK, I didn't actually show a profile to a prospect - bit of a cheat there. What I did do was prepare a profile for an acquaintance of mine as if she was a prospect, and then ask her to comment on it.

I was hoping, I must admit, to wow her with my expertise and guile (as she is by no means hugely visible) and she was impressed (of course!) but my main motivation was to find out what I had missed. Either because it was not possible to find it, or through my own doziness. And I was not disappointed (I am all too human, it would seem). One piece of information I had missed in particular was pretty obvious and I should have picked it up through a Google search (as she did, when she showed me what it was). But there were some other more subtle pieces of information I should have at least considered, but didn't.

For example, she pointed out that her husband was one of the governors of a local school and that several of her neighbours (i.e. they live in the same village) were wealthy and/or well connected, including a senior board member of a national supermarket. Now, how much of this I would have been able to find out on my own I don't know (and I have yet to find the time to do so), but the point is it didn't even occur to me to try to look into this, dullard that I am.

And yet it should have done.

I should have seen from her address that she lived in a small village and that she (or her husband) would therefore be far more likely to be involved in the local school and to know who her neighbours and fellow villagers are, than those of us who live in larger towns and cities (or, if she did not know them, to have a far greater opportunity - in the local pub, at the village fete, etc. - to get to know them if I had pointed out to her who they were and where they lived).

So, the lesson to learn here is, not just to look out for those prospects who live in villages, but rather, to consider what you may take for granted or ignore in your profiling that you should not.

And how better to find this out than to write a profile for a suitably cooperative friend or acquaintance and ask for their feedback. Unless you are a far better person than I, there is sure to be something you have missed, perhaps not immediately obvious, which should have occurred to you to consider. And your future research can only be the better for it.  

Interesting article by Charles Moore in Saturday's Telegraph about the moral responsibility of the super rich to help the less fortunate.

As I made clear in my last post, I disagree when he says "It is not immoral of people to try legally to avoid tax." but there is much else in his article that I can find agreement with, for example:

According to a story in yesterday's Evening Standard some 85% of Britain's super-rich do not pay any income tax.

Surprised? I am. In fact, I'd say I'm flabbergasted, shocked, disgusted, and, quite frankly, a little bit pissed off.

According to information obtained by the Evening Standard under the Freedom of Information Act, of the 400 or so people thought to earn £10m or more, just 65 declared taxable earnings. 65!

Analysts say this means as much as £2bn a year is lost to Treasury coffers.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those "let's raise higher rate income tax to 90%, nationalise everything & trash McDonalds, Starbucks and all those other representatives of corporate globalisation" leftie types. Oh no. Far from it in fact.

But I do believe in responsibility. And it is pretty clear that many of the super rich are shirking theirs under the cloak of legality.

By this phrase, I mean that as they are avoiding paying income tax through perfectly legal means, they think that it is a perfectly acceptable course of action.

And let's be clear on this; despite the Standard's use of such inflammatory phrases as 'sophisticated tax dodges' and 'legal loopholes' they are all employing perfectly legitimate (and in some cases, quite obvious) means to minimise the tax that they pay.

But just because a course of action is legally acceptable it does not follow that it is morally acceptable. 

According to a story in the latest ThirdSector, the Fundraising Standards Board has been obliged to alter its logo after objections from the Federation of Small Businesses.

To avoid confusion, it is changing its logo to FRSB instead of FSB. I.e. the letter 'r' in 'fundraising' has been turned into a capital on the logo. You can see the result below (with the Federation of Small Businesses logo):

Now, I know that there may be people out there who think that you would have to be a complete dingbat to confuse the FSB and the FSB, but I disagree, and I think that this is just the beginning of a necessary and long overdue trend.

For example, I am always getting confused between the IOF, the IOF and the IOF. I think that it's high time the IOF followed the lead of the FSB/FSRB and changed its name to the IOFR. We could then start calling them Ifor, which is sure to get on their tits. I know it would irritate me if I worked for the IOF. Sorry, I mean the IOFR. Whatever.

And while we're on the subject, how about doing something about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Independent Police Complaints Commission?

I got very confused recently when I read the headline IPCC to investigate man's death. What, I asked myself, had caused the IPCC to get involved; was the man crushed by an extra large carbon footprint or something?

And spare a thought for the poor old IPCC, who are "celebrating 25 years of Bog Conservation Action" (and there's not many that can make that claim!) they must be rueing the day the IPCC was founded.*