ERNOP: Connecting Philanthropy Academia & Practice #14

WEBVTT
00:00:12.480 --> 00:00:16.960
You're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast with Rodri Davis.
00:00:37.439 --> 00:00:41.039
Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast.
00:00:41.200 --> 00:00:44.320
This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context.
00:00:44.479 --> 00:01:05.040
I'm your host, Rodri Davis, and this is the fourteenth in our partnership series with the European Research Network on Philanthropy, or ERNOP, where I talk to academics from around Europe whose work has been featured in the latest release of Earnop Research Notes, which are their practitioner-focused summaries of academic papers.
00:01:05.599 --> 00:01:09.760
And this month I had uh three more great sets of guests.
00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:24.079
So I spoke to Marlena Valk from the University of Freiburg about her paper Not All Wine and Roses, Nonprofit Consulting as Nonprofit Sector Adjacent Work, which is published with Amanda Stewart and Kerry Quenzi.
00:01:24.560 --> 00:01:34.799
And that's all about it's really interesting looking at the role of non-profit consultants, which is a I feel a kind of growing part of the sector and how we should understand the nature of that kind of work.
00:01:35.200 --> 00:01:44.000
Then I talked to Tina De Bock and Tina Fazer for both from KU Lehren, who, like Marlene Valk, are previous guests on the podcast.
00:01:44.079 --> 00:01:45.120
So it's great to have them back.
00:01:45.200 --> 00:01:52.879
This time talking about a paper they've written called Charity Checkouts, the potential downsides for customers, nonprofits, and businesses involved.
00:01:53.040 --> 00:02:17.280
So as the name suggests, looking at sort of round up to the pound uh initiatives or whatever the rhyming would be for a euro or a dollar, but those things where you go into a shop and in various forms get asked if you would like to make a donation to a charity of some sort or another, looking at some of the potential issues that can be identified in the literature that might mean that these things are not quite the sort of win-win-win uh that they're often presented as.
00:02:17.680 --> 00:02:36.960
And then last but not least, uh I spoke to Silky Burnig from the University of Hamburg and uh Laura Hess from Bauhaus University Weimar uh about a paper that they published called Unpacking the Non-Donor Segment, Reasons for Non-Support and Five Attitudinal Clusters Based on Data from the German Donation Monitor.
00:02:37.120 --> 00:02:43.199
Um and I should say that was co-authored with Amelia Knaus, uh, Carolyn Saltzmann and Tom Neukirchen.
00:02:43.439 --> 00:03:03.840
And this one addresses that really interesting question, I guess, for practitioners, particularly fundraisers, around why it is that people don't donate and whether we can understand some of those motivations and sort of segment people so that we don't see them as a homogenous mass, and that can kind of help understand whether it's worth trying to approach those people, and if so, how we can do it.
00:03:04.080 --> 00:03:11.360
Um, so uh before we get into the uh interviews, I should just say a little bit of housekeeping just so that people know.
00:03:11.520 --> 00:03:15.439
Um this will be the last episode before a little break over the summer.
00:03:15.520 --> 00:03:20.879
I tend to do that with the podcast just so it gives me a bit of time to go on holiday and also kind of recuperate.
00:03:20.960 --> 00:03:27.759
Um, I've got a load of interviews uh either ordered in the can or set up for September, so it's gonna be really exciting, I think.
00:03:27.840 --> 00:03:30.879
Uh, some really great ones that I'm looking forward to sharing with you.
00:03:31.039 --> 00:03:49.360
Um, the other thing that I'm just gonna take the opportunity to say, uh, particularly fitting given that this is uh a research notes episode where I'm speaking to academics, but uh as some of you might have seen on LinkedIn, if you follow me on there, uh one thing that happened in the last week was that I actually successfully defended uh a PhD thesis in a Viva.
00:03:49.840 --> 00:03:56.960
So uh when I do these things in future, once I've made some minor corrections and had them accepted, uh, I will also be able to call myself Dr.
00:03:57.120 --> 00:03:59.280
Davis, although I won't actually do that.
00:03:59.360 --> 00:04:02.319
Um, but that's very exciting, so I thought I would share that with you.
00:04:02.479 --> 00:04:05.120
Right, uh self-aggrandisement over.
00:04:05.199 --> 00:04:11.439
Uh, let's get on with the rest of the episode, and I'll be back at the end for the usual little bit of housekeeping and updates.
00:04:29.199 --> 00:04:29.839
Okay, great.
00:04:30.000 --> 00:04:32.959
Well, I'm here with Marlena Valk from the University of Freiburg.
00:04:33.120 --> 00:04:34.160
Hi there, Marlena.
00:04:34.480 --> 00:04:36.000
Hi, good to see and hear you.
00:04:36.399 --> 00:04:44.480
Yeah, good to have you back on the podcast because obviously you've been on before to talk about some work that you've had featured uh in a previous Earn OP Research Note uh series.
00:04:44.560 --> 00:05:02.639
And this time we're here to talk about a paper that you've co-authored with Amanda Stewart and Kerry Quenzi, um titled Not All Wine and Roses: Nonprofit Consulting as Nonprofit Sector Adjacent Work, um, which I was fascinated when I saw the title, because I'm kind of you know slightly in the work of nonprofit consulting of a kind myself.
00:05:02.720 --> 00:05:06.160
So I was really um kind of interested to see what sort of insights were in there.
00:05:06.240 --> 00:05:13.759
So maybe the best place to start is if you can tell everybody a bit about what the paper's all about, how it came about, and what some of the key findings are.
00:05:14.079 --> 00:05:15.279
Yeah, absolutely.
00:05:15.439 --> 00:05:19.519
Um, so this is, as you said, joint work with uh Mandy and Carrie.
00:05:19.680 --> 00:05:27.920
And so we've been studying for the last like 10, 11 years um why folks um um enter work in the nonprofit context.
00:05:28.079 --> 00:05:30.800
We've mostly done that on nonprofit alumni.
00:05:31.199 --> 00:05:34.480
Those are people who graduate from nonprofit management degrees.
00:05:34.720 --> 00:05:39.360
Um, and then this, you know, sometimes it's serendipitous how research questions come about.
00:05:39.519 --> 00:05:46.079
So this project came about because we were really interested how is a nonprofit management degree perceived by recruiters?
00:05:46.240 --> 00:05:48.319
So it was more like that angle that we took.
00:05:48.480 --> 00:05:54.480
And so that's why we um initially just had a brief survey of um executive recruiters.
00:05:54.639 --> 00:06:01.120
So those are uh part of the nonprofit consulting uh group that are focusing on hiring executive leaders.
00:06:01.279 --> 00:06:03.519
And so we were surveying those.
00:06:03.759 --> 00:06:15.439
And um as part of the result of this survey, we found that 98% of all firms engaged in nonprofit consulting, and in our specific case in recruitment, were actually for-profit firms.
00:06:15.600 --> 00:06:17.199
And that really sparked our interest.
00:06:17.279 --> 00:06:24.560
We're like, what is this group of organizations that has is is you know predominantly for-profit?
00:06:24.720 --> 00:06:26.639
How do they influence our sector?
00:06:26.879 --> 00:06:30.959
And so this is kind of like how we got started with this particular paper.
00:06:31.120 --> 00:06:38.000
So that was a pilot study, and then we engaged in two different um kind of like methods for this particular project.
00:06:38.160 --> 00:06:50.399
So we used job boards um to kind of like map how, and I can dive in a little bit later, but to map how many of the searches that we how many of the job jobs that are posted are actually done by executive recruiters.
00:06:50.560 --> 00:07:01.040
Um, and then we also interviewed a um group of recruiters to kind of learn a little bit about how they are, uh who they are, and then um how they entered this line of work.
00:07:01.279 --> 00:07:06.319
So that's kind of like the overall pitch, and I'm I'm pretty sure you have more questions for me to dive deeper.
00:07:06.639 --> 00:07:07.360
Yeah, absolutely.
00:07:07.439 --> 00:07:18.560
And and I guess, yeah, the the there's a kind of focus within the paper on uh executive search and recruitment um as a particular form of sort of consultancy work, but I think it you know it kind of goes a bit more broadly than that.
00:07:18.800 --> 00:07:28.720
Um I mean, some of the things that kind of occurred to me as I was reading it, you mentioned in the paper that there seems to be a trend towards nonprofits increasingly using the services of consultants.
00:07:28.879 --> 00:07:38.959
Whether you had a sense of what was driving that and why is it that nonprofits are increasingly looking to, as you say, for-profit consultancy firms to provide them with various different functions?
00:07:39.199 --> 00:07:42.800
Yeah, and we see some push and some pull factors.
00:07:42.959 --> 00:07:47.920
And then some of this is also kind of like anecdotal, what we've been hearing after we publish this work.
00:07:48.079 --> 00:07:56.959
But um we do see some funders are requiring nonprofits to actually have recruit uh to have um consultants um to kind of like support capacity building, right?
00:07:57.040 --> 00:08:10.560
So it could be that as a nonprofit, if you apply for third-party funding, part of this funding is actually meant to hire someone who is doing your evaluation or maybe help you with other parts of your organizational development is part of the grant.
00:08:10.720 --> 00:08:12.240
So it's a stipulation.
00:08:12.399 --> 00:08:19.519
Um, we don't have clear numbers, uh, and that's some of the curiosity that we have that we want to, you know, study in the future.
00:08:19.759 --> 00:08:25.759
But a second trend is also that organizations don't have capacity to do everything themselves, right?
00:08:25.839 --> 00:08:27.839
So most of the nonprofits are small.
00:08:28.079 --> 00:08:39.279
And so engaging in a strategic planning process, which you know is one area of consulting work that we see emerging a lot, is nonprofits can't do that by themselves, right?
00:08:39.360 --> 00:08:49.039
So they they hire um consultants to basically help them with a particular work task that they have to do or want to do, um, but they can't do themselves.
00:08:49.200 --> 00:08:53.360
So those are kind of like some of the factors that we've noticed while we engaged in this work.
00:08:53.679 --> 00:09:10.320
And I was wondering as well whether, as you say, with something like strategic planning, it sort of strikes me that there maybe that would always benefit from being positioned as a consultancy function because it it's not the sort of thing many organizations have in-house because you only do it on a kind of relatively kind of infrequent cycle.
00:09:10.480 --> 00:09:22.799
But but are there other aspects of consultancy work within nonprofits where it looks more like uh kind of things that could be done in-house are increasingly being outsourced to consultants?
00:09:22.879 --> 00:09:27.759
And is that sort of reflective of there being skills gaps within the nonprofit sector itself?
00:09:28.080 --> 00:09:48.000
Yeah, so great question, very hard to answer because we've been wrecking our brains in how to study this better, but you know, we've we've tried to kind of like access the 990s to see if there's any indication of how much money is actually spent on consulting work across all the areas you mentioned.
00:09:48.080 --> 00:09:52.399
But it's very hard to pin down because there's no line item that says consulting, right?
00:09:52.480 --> 00:09:55.679
So um, so it I can't really answer your question.
00:09:55.840 --> 00:10:06.639
It's more like anecdotal when we talk to uh both consultants as well as nonprofit leaders that we that we hear, you know, some of those push and pull factors that I mentioned before.
00:10:06.720 --> 00:10:08.720
But unfortunately, we don't have good data.
00:10:08.799 --> 00:10:40.960
And so we are still, you know, that's why, as you said on the paper, we have tiny databases that we try to pull together to just start this line of work because there's not much written about consulting, even though we all know, and I mean you mentioned it earlier, uh, that you're dabbling in this field too, that there is there is um, you know, a huge increase in in folks actually offering their services from like solo practitioners um all the way to big firms who are um specializing in this uh in this field.
00:10:41.120 --> 00:10:50.559
And our interest also got sparked by an article by Jim Rendon, who basically also said, you know, there is an exodus of nonprofit workers into consulting.
00:10:50.720 --> 00:11:00.480
And this is also um what we've seen in our qualitative um data that all of the interviewees that we have actually said they had nonprofit work experience.
00:11:00.720 --> 00:11:08.159
And so there seems to be some lore into this consulting field that's also very interesting for us to learn more about.
00:11:08.320 --> 00:11:16.960
Um, but yeah, as you see me talk, so the issue or the questions that we have, we try to answer, but there's still many more, is on different levels, right?
00:11:17.039 --> 00:11:22.879
So we have some organizational level questions like why do organizations hire consultants, right?
00:11:23.120 --> 00:11:27.600
Well, we do also have some sector level questions like how, like, how big is this industry?
00:11:27.840 --> 00:11:28.799
We don't know, right?
00:11:28.879 --> 00:11:30.480
It's very hard to estimate.
00:11:30.639 --> 00:11:40.080
Uh, and how does that industry impact nonprofits, especially since it's so heavily, you know, for profit in their legal incorporations?
00:11:40.399 --> 00:11:41.039
Yeah, absolutely.
00:11:41.200 --> 00:11:51.919
And as you say, there's also the individual level as well as organizations making use of consultants, the fact that an increasing number of people who've previously worked in nonprofits are becoming consultants.
00:11:52.080 --> 00:11:56.159
And I know in the paper you do touch on what some of the potential drivers for that might be.
00:11:56.240 --> 00:12:03.200
I don't know if you can say a bit about kind of even anecdotally what you found in terms of why it is people might find it appealing to set up as a consultant.
00:12:03.600 --> 00:12:04.799
So it's it's very interesting.
00:12:04.960 --> 00:12:14.000
A few years ago, I did visit my colleague Mandy Stewart at NC State, and um, there was a meeting of local nonprofit organizations, and there were some consultants in the room too.
00:12:14.240 --> 00:12:25.360
And so one person said, and this really sparked this research too, that uh the person said, with with nonprofit consulting, you can still do good while also making money, lots of money.
00:12:25.600 --> 00:12:31.759
And so we are really curious because you know, when we read the and we all dabbled in the literature, right?
00:12:31.840 --> 00:12:37.279
When it that what people motivates to work for nonprofits is really this doing good motive, right?
00:12:37.440 --> 00:12:39.840
Like fulfilling their values, having an impact.
00:12:40.080 --> 00:12:51.360
But here seems to be a group of folks who also want to do this, but but on top of it, there is this very clear um extrinsic focus on making a good living, right?
00:12:51.440 --> 00:12:56.480
And so this was really interesting for us to understand more about this group of uh of people.
00:12:56.559 --> 00:13:01.440
And we do identify certain what we call like pathways into consulting.
00:13:01.519 --> 00:13:12.399
And so there's definitely this group that seeks meaningful work, but not necessarily in what we traditionally understand as nonprofit organizations, right?
00:13:12.480 --> 00:13:24.159
So we had a person who was in banking uh before, or and another person who wasn't in law before, and then said, I wanted to do something good, but I didn't feel fulfilled in my previous line of work.
00:13:24.320 --> 00:13:26.399
That's why I moved into consulting.
00:13:26.480 --> 00:13:34.240
And so this really purposeful engagement with, you know, helping nonprofits to be better was one of the ways.
00:13:34.399 --> 00:13:46.720
And then we had a like a serendipitous path where folks just ended up in this line of work, um, where you know they was, they were asked by folks they worked with, hey, you have the skill sets, do you want to try this out?
00:13:46.879 --> 00:13:48.240
Um, that was really interesting.
00:13:48.320 --> 00:13:55.759
And in one of the interviewees, um, she said, you know, no one goes to college to become a nonprofit consultant.
00:13:55.840 --> 00:14:00.000
So no one, this is not like a profession or a vocation you select into.
00:14:00.080 --> 00:14:01.200
It's just like happening.
00:14:01.360 --> 00:14:03.679
And so that that was one of the paths.
00:14:03.759 --> 00:14:10.000
And then a really strong one was this need or want to be more flexible and autonomous in your work.
00:14:10.159 --> 00:14:24.559
And we saw this across um older workers who kind of like retired from the nonprofit sector as CEOs or executive directors, who then said, Hey, I want to still use my skills and but don't want to have a full-time role.
00:14:24.720 --> 00:14:30.799
But we also saw this with like working moms who said, you know, I do have school pickups.
00:14:30.879 --> 00:14:40.399
So I need a I need a work arrangement that can actually help me um, you know, be more flexible and combine work with um family life.
00:14:40.480 --> 00:14:43.600
And so um, so that path was very strong too.
00:14:43.759 --> 00:15:07.679
And then, yeah, so the fourth path that was not as pronounced but still there and interesting was what we called a graduating path, where uh basically um folks had the feeling they are ready for this, and so they were prepared by their previous work experience um within the nonprofit sector to now kind of like look at many organ or help many organizations, not just the one they were employed with.
00:15:07.840 --> 00:15:10.559
Um so that's kind of like the the gist of our findings there.
00:15:10.879 --> 00:15:12.320
No, and really and really makes sense.
00:15:12.399 --> 00:15:31.120
And I guess from the point of view of what nonprofits themselves kind of do with some of these findings or the questions they raise, I was sort of interested in, you know, if there is a sense that there's an exodus of talent from the nonprofit sector into consulting or there's a sort of lure of it, is that just something that nonprofits themselves need to accept?
00:15:31.279 --> 00:15:40.080
Or are there things that they can do to address some of those drivers, you know, for instance, paying more or allowing people more flexibility in terms of work patterns?
00:15:40.559 --> 00:15:47.679
Yeah, I mean, you know, for small organizations, I don't I don't think they necessarily know why people leave, right?
00:15:47.840 --> 00:15:53.200
But if you were to find out, like with exit interviews, why does a person want to leave?
00:15:53.279 --> 00:16:06.159
Um, you know, or maybe even before they leave, you know, during like appraisal or like, you know, those yearly meetings where they have with your supervisor, what are goals, what's working well, what what's not working well, where do you want to develop?
00:16:06.240 --> 00:16:12.639
And then that that might give you a better idea of what a person wants from a role within your organization.
00:16:12.879 --> 00:16:18.720
But uh, I think on a on a scale, on a larger scale, we just don't know why people leave, right?
00:16:18.799 --> 00:16:21.519
Because those types of conversations are maybe not having had.
00:16:21.600 --> 00:16:28.480
And if and if if if organizations have those conversations, maybe, you know, obviously we're not part of this, right?
00:16:28.559 --> 00:16:33.440
So it's it's really hard to get a handle on the on kind of like the broad scale evidence here.
00:16:33.679 --> 00:16:49.440
Um, again, with the small sample we have and some of the anecdotal um conversations we've had with we've had with folks, we actually do we are a little concerned, especially since smaller organizations they can't just pay more, right?
00:16:49.519 --> 00:16:57.360
So I mean that'd be awesome if that worked, but uh that's just not the reality of the sector, neither in the US nor in other countries.
00:16:57.519 --> 00:17:03.840
And so um, but I do think a lever maybe the the wish for more flexibility, right, and autonomy.
00:17:03.919 --> 00:17:08.640
And I think that's something organizations can actually do with low costs, right?
00:17:08.799 --> 00:17:18.160
So if if you as a as a you know executive director know of your employees that that's a wish they have, so maybe that's something you can work with.
00:17:18.240 --> 00:17:22.720
Uh, because paying more is obviously harder than making those changes.
00:17:23.519 --> 00:17:36.640
And the other thing I just wanted to ask was um do you did you get any sense or have you kind of had in any conversations a sense that uh what the perception of nonprofits about consulting work that they've engaged is?
00:17:37.039 --> 00:17:48.880
I mean, what what I'm sort of guessing at is like, is it that they feel as though it's just uh a necessity that they've had to pay for it either because that was the only place that they could get that particular service or that's just where the market was?
00:17:49.039 --> 00:17:53.599
Or do they see value in something being delivered on a consultancy basis?
00:17:53.759 --> 00:18:08.720
For instance, you know, I was thinking actually, if you're asking somebody to help you with a strategy review, does the fact that they are independent and perhaps potentially able to offer more challenge, is that itself of value, or is it just that you don't have the capacity internally to do it?
00:18:09.039 --> 00:18:10.799
No, I think it's definitely of value.
00:18:10.960 --> 00:18:30.799
So um that was an unrelated research project, but um findings from a project I was engaged in, they were the organization was actually um writing a call, and consultants could apply to help an organization with a strategic planning project, uh, because it's they've never done it before and it was new to them and they didn't have the capacity nor the skills to do it.
00:18:31.039 --> 00:18:40.720
But then the the result was also, you know, if you have someone that's outside, look at your organization that really can help you find the blind spots, right?
00:18:40.880 --> 00:18:54.400
Because most often, obviously, you won't see them, but if you have someone who's coming from the outside, it may help you with um with you know, like improvement um in areas that you may not be aware of.
00:18:54.640 --> 00:19:00.319
And so generally, I think organizations value um working with consultants.
00:19:00.720 --> 00:19:05.759
Um but that's the only like I will say that was from a different research project.
00:19:05.839 --> 00:19:17.519
But the next thing that Mandy, Carrie, and I want to do is also to survey organizations to learn a bit a little bit more about this aspect because we've, you know, we talk to consultants, we serve with consultants.
00:19:17.680 --> 00:19:24.400
So we've done that, we we know a little bit more about that angle, but we've not really um spoken to nonprofits quite yet.
00:19:24.559 --> 00:19:25.920
So that's next on the list.
00:19:26.079 --> 00:19:27.519
So stay stay tuned.
00:19:27.839 --> 00:19:35.519
Yeah, well, that was good to be my question, was because there's a lot lots of different angles, as you've already said, within this particular piece of research that sort of show avenues for more research.
00:19:35.680 --> 00:19:42.160
If that's one, are there other angles that you want to pick up on as well in terms of some of the questions that that are still open?
00:19:42.480 --> 00:19:43.759
Yeah, no, for sure.
00:19:43.839 --> 00:20:04.319
And what we what we were struck by, and this is something that we may actually not get to study, is like how closed or proprietary the business of consulting is, because we've done the job boards analysis analysis and we found only 10 out of 108 um postings were actually through consulting firms.
00:20:04.480 --> 00:20:14.720
And then we've done some follow-up uh research and actually looked at uh 15 really big consulting firms in the nonprofit space and looked, are they actually listing publicly?
00:20:15.920 --> 00:20:20.160
Only if a small share actually does list jobs publicly.
00:20:20.240 --> 00:20:29.440
So that means you know it's more like the headhunter type research where an organization actually is hiring you to fill the next role, but it's not an open source.
00:20:29.599 --> 00:20:34.559
So lots of those practices, our roles are filled, we don't know quite yet.
00:20:34.640 --> 00:20:38.960
And so that's something that obviously is interesting for for us to study.
00:20:39.200 --> 00:20:41.200
But the question is, will we be able to?
00:20:41.440 --> 00:20:44.960
Because a lot of obviously is proprietary, as I mentioned.
00:20:45.039 --> 00:20:48.000
Um, so that was something that that's that's interesting to us.
00:20:48.240 --> 00:20:56.960
I think something we we could do and we are engaged in is developing some sort of typology to understand what types of consulting firms we have.
00:20:57.039 --> 00:21:01.519
You know, there is obviously they vary in size, but they also they vary in scope.
00:21:01.599 --> 00:21:11.519
And then some of them consult exclusively for nonprofits, and then others have a broader portfolio for public and for-profit organizations as well.
00:21:11.680 --> 00:21:27.039
And so we are currently working on kind of like getting our brains wrapped around what types of organizations in the consulting space we have, and then hoping that from there we can um kind of like dive deeper in some of the differences between between those types.
00:21:27.119 --> 00:21:28.720
Um but that's in the works right now.
00:21:29.039 --> 00:21:37.920
No, it would be really interesting because as you say, it is quite an opaque world, but increasingly I think one that people are aware has an enormous amount of influence.
00:21:38.000 --> 00:21:49.440
Um, certainly as you know, at a kind of higher level, some funders, foundations, and donors are kind of using consultants essentially to do their due diligence and research and some of their grant making functions.
00:21:49.599 --> 00:21:51.519
So um yeah, be really, really interested.
00:21:51.920 --> 00:21:53.759
Great to hear about the the paper, Marlena.
00:21:53.920 --> 00:21:56.000
Thanks ever so much for coming on the podcast to talk about it.
00:21:56.079 --> 00:21:59.839
Um yeah, really look forward to seeing uh where you take the the research next.
00:22:00.079 --> 00:22:00.960
And all the best in the future.
00:22:01.200 --> 00:22:01.440
Yep.
00:22:01.519 --> 00:22:01.839
Thank you.
00:22:02.000 --> 00:22:03.279
Thanks for having me.
00:22:12.319 --> 00:22:13.039
Okay, great.
00:22:13.119 --> 00:22:15.759
Well, I'm here with Tina DeBock and Tina Faser.
00:22:15.920 --> 00:22:16.880
Hi to both of you.
00:22:17.359 --> 00:22:17.680
Hello.
00:22:17.920 --> 00:22:18.240
Hi there.
00:22:18.640 --> 00:22:18.960
Hi there.
00:22:19.119 --> 00:22:19.359
Great.
00:22:19.440 --> 00:22:29.680
Well, good to have you on as returning guests, actually, because you've previously featured on one of these note uh episodes with uh a previous bit of uh work um that was featured in the series.
00:22:29.759 --> 00:22:44.880
Um and this time we're talking about a paper uh entitled Charity Checkouts, uh Potential Downsides for Customers, Nonprofits, and Businesses Involved, which I was really interested when I saw the title, because this is a topic I haven't seen a lot of work on, but it's one that kind of raises a lot of questions in the sector.
00:22:45.039 --> 00:22:52.880
Um so maybe the best place is just for you to explain to people, you know, what charity checkouts are, what the research is all about, and what some of the key findings are.
00:22:53.200 --> 00:22:56.720
Uh thanks a lot, Trodi, for giving us the opportunity to talk about our research.
00:22:56.880 --> 00:23:00.799
Well, maybe it's good to first clarify what we mean with charity checkouts.
00:23:01.039 --> 00:23:05.519
Um, I think we all encountered it at least once in our personal life.
00:23:05.680 --> 00:23:19.759
Uh so imagine you go to a supermarket to do some groceries, and then all of a sudden, let's say just before you want to pay for the groceries, you're being asked whether you want to kind of round up your bill and donate the difference to a charity.
00:23:19.839 --> 00:23:22.160
Well, that's basically what a charity checkout is about.
00:23:22.319 --> 00:23:30.640
So you're being asked whether you want to add a small amount of money to your bill, and that money goes to charity, and that's basically what charity checkouts are about.
00:23:30.720 --> 00:23:34.880
You can also call it checkout charity or point of sale donations.
00:23:35.039 --> 00:23:37.680
So various labels are being used.
00:23:37.839 --> 00:23:40.400
And maybe I can give you one example.
00:23:40.559 --> 00:23:48.880
Um, it's it's for instance, a long-standing partnership between Walmart, it's a big retailer, and uh Children's Miracle Network Hospitals.
00:23:49.039 --> 00:23:57.039
Uh in Walmart, you can make uh you can you can shop, you can do groceries, and just before checking out, you can round up your bill.
00:23:57.119 --> 00:24:02.799
And then the difference is going to, for instance, the pediatric uh medical care of that network.
00:24:02.880 --> 00:24:06.640
So that's that's an example uh that is well known in the US.
00:24:06.880 --> 00:24:07.680
Yeah, absolutely.
00:24:07.759 --> 00:24:11.119
And and in terms of I've got lots of questions um just about sort of what we mean.
00:24:11.200 --> 00:24:18.559
I I guess one before we get into the paper itself is what kinds of different models are there, and how many did you come across for these charity checkouts?
00:24:18.640 --> 00:24:33.039
Because obviously you've explained there what they are, but even within that, the ones that I've seen, there's a difference between those where it's, for instance, a single charity that's in partnership with a company, or one where there is a group of charities, or where they're ones that are voted for by employees or by customers.
00:24:33.119 --> 00:24:35.200
So is there a whole range that we're talking about here?
00:24:35.440 --> 00:24:41.279
Yeah, actually, there is um it's it's being operationalized in in several ways.
00:24:41.599 --> 00:24:51.839
Sometimes the nonprofit organization is mentioned, sometimes some information is provided to customers, but sometimes there is not even a clear name of a nonprofit organization.
00:24:51.920 --> 00:24:56.240
And the question is just would you like to uh donate to a charity?
00:24:56.480 --> 00:25:05.519
Uh, but also the way the money is asked, sometimes it's rounding up the bill, but sometimes a fixed amount is asked, a euro, half a euro or dollar.
00:25:06.079 --> 00:25:09.920
Um, and sometimes people can choose uh what they give.
00:25:10.160 --> 00:25:14.640
Um, also the the who asks uh the the donation.
00:25:14.799 --> 00:25:22.720
Sometimes it's be it's the the the cashier who is asking, so it's an in-person ask, but sometimes it's uh done by technology.
00:25:22.880 --> 00:25:26.880
Also in online shopping, we see it uh more and more.
00:25:27.039 --> 00:25:34.480
Uh so there are indeed very, very, very different ways in which uh charity checkouts are being operationalized.
00:25:34.799 --> 00:25:37.759
I think one other difference might be opt-in or opt-out.
00:25:38.079 --> 00:25:43.039
Sometimes it's like the default option, and you really have to kind of unclick, so to speak.
00:25:43.119 --> 00:25:44.880
Uh, but it can also be opt-in.
00:25:45.039 --> 00:25:49.599
And that, of course, in itself makes it makes a big difference from a consumer point of view.
00:25:49.920 --> 00:25:50.720
Yeah, absolutely.
00:25:50.880 --> 00:25:57.440
It feels like there are there are kind of lots of different variations that might have quite significant impacts on how people respond and how they perceive it.
00:25:57.599 --> 00:26:00.640
And I guess that brings us into the sort of the the pit the bulk of the paper.
00:26:00.799 --> 00:26:04.400
What was it that you were looking at in terms of charity checkouts in this paper?
00:26:04.480 --> 00:26:06.319
And what were you trying to kind of unpick?
00:26:07.279 --> 00:26:18.000
Well, mostly if you read papers on charity checkouts, it's most of the time framed as like the perfect win-win-win, meaning that, like, well, it's an additional source of income for nonprofits.
00:26:18.160 --> 00:26:25.599
Uh, businesses can demonstrate their CSR value, and customers get this easy way of getting that warm glow.
00:26:25.759 --> 00:26:32.960
And what struck us was that despite the growing popularity all around the world, also increasingly concerns are being raised.
00:26:33.039 --> 00:26:36.160
Uh, think about the pressure that you put on customers, for instance.
00:26:36.319 --> 00:26:45.279
But all of these concerns were like scattered across all kinds of articles and professionally oriented sources, and nobody really brought it all together.
00:26:45.440 --> 00:26:58.000
So we wanted to focus on potential downsides because if you want to use charity checkouts as a strategic tool, whether that's for CSR or for fundraising, you need to be aware of the risks involved.
00:26:58.160 --> 00:27:03.039
And we're not saying that it's a bad tool, but you cannot use it strategically if you don't know the downsides.
00:27:03.119 --> 00:27:06.880
And that's what we wanted to uh get insight uh into.
00:27:07.359 --> 00:27:08.240
Yeah, absolutely.
00:27:08.400 --> 00:27:11.599
And and what did you find in terms of some of the things that you were able to identify?
00:27:11.759 --> 00:27:21.519
Particularly, it sort of strikes me there might be different potential downsides from the perspective of the consumer or the customer from the employees of a company and the company themselves.
00:27:21.680 --> 00:27:25.200
Were there kind of different things you identified in each of those cases?
00:27:25.680 --> 00:27:26.400
Yes, there were.
00:27:26.480 --> 00:27:33.920
So maybe good to know is that uh for this research, we did uh uh a system or a systematic literature review.
00:27:34.079 --> 00:27:38.960
And we did not only look at the academic literature, but also we did a Google search.
00:27:39.039 --> 00:27:44.880
So we also looked at the degree literature to see what is being uh said about charity checkouts.
00:27:45.200 --> 00:27:57.599
And indeed, we found uh quite some uh potential downsides for all three stakeholders, although the customers, the downsides for the customers are most prominent uh in the literature.
00:27:58.079 --> 00:28:07.839
Um now, of course, it wouldn't lead us too far to give all the downsides for all these stakeholders, but let us maybe give you uh some examples.
00:28:08.079 --> 00:28:16.160
Uh for customers, for example, one of the most frequently discussed concerns is actually the feeling of social pressure.
00:28:16.559 --> 00:28:26.160
Customers are often asked to donate in a public setting, uh, for example, why the casher is watching you and other customers are waiting behind you.
00:28:26.400 --> 00:28:32.799
So as a result, some people feel uncomfortable declining such a request to donate.
00:28:33.119 --> 00:28:35.200
They feel judged when they say no.
00:28:35.519 --> 00:28:44.640
And donations may therefore be driven not only by altruism, but actually by a desire to avoid embarrassment or feelings of guilt.
00:28:44.960 --> 00:28:51.519
And related to that is that some customers also feel that charity checkouts catch them off guard.
00:28:52.160 --> 00:28:56.160
They are shopping and they are not necessarily planning to donate at that time.
00:28:56.240 --> 00:29:08.960
And yet suddenly they must decide on the spot, leaving them no room to reflect on the question or to gather information or to evaluate first a nonprofit organization that will receive the donations.
00:29:09.519 --> 00:29:14.640
So, and and sometimes the organization is not even mentioned by name.
00:29:14.799 --> 00:29:20.640
So it's yeah, people have to decide on the spot and there is little time to think about it.
00:29:20.880 --> 00:29:27.039
So that was a very prominent uh downside that we saw emerging in the literature.
00:29:27.519 --> 00:29:34.160
Maybe I can give two other examples for the other stakeholders involved because there is the nonprofit involved, there is the business involved.
00:29:34.319 --> 00:29:41.039
And of course, for nonprofits, uh, what we're looking for in a very competitive environment is to look for long-term relationships with donors.
00:29:41.200 --> 00:29:45.759
But if you want to build this long-term relationship, you need data, you need insights.
00:29:45.920 --> 00:29:51.200
And of course, with charity checkouts, it's not clear like who donated, how can I build a relationship?
00:29:51.279 --> 00:29:55.119
So you're missing that opportunity as a nonprofit organization.
00:29:55.279 --> 00:29:58.640
And of course, also you're giving lots of control to the business.
00:29:58.799 --> 00:30:02.799
They are oftentimes deciding how to implement the charity checkout campaign.
00:30:02.880 --> 00:30:09.279
And that can negatively backlash, that can have a negative impact on your um reputation, for instance.
00:30:09.519 --> 00:30:20.160
But also for the business or for the company, the retailer involved, there might be um downsides because sometimes, because of the charity checkout campaign, people didn't like the shopping experience.
00:30:20.319 --> 00:30:23.599
And so therefore, they are less likely to revisit your store.
00:30:23.759 --> 00:30:33.039
So while it is it has CSR potential, it might also kind of have a drawback uh with respect to uh revisit intentions, for instance.
00:30:33.200 --> 00:30:36.880
Um so these are two other examples for nonprofits and businesses.
00:30:37.119 --> 00:30:53.119
Yeah, maybe maybe uh very relevant uh to conclude is that we did not only find uh separate downsides for all these three stakeholders, but also very relevant to mention is that there is an interconnectedness between these stakeholders.
00:30:53.519 --> 00:31:01.599
Because the downsides that are experienced by one stakeholder at a given moment can also trigger additional challenges for the other stakeholders.
00:31:01.759 --> 00:31:14.319
And that can set off a negative causal chain that undermines sometimes the effectiveness of charity checkouts for all the parties involved, and not only in the short term, but also in the long term.
00:31:14.640 --> 00:31:15.519
Yeah, absolutely.
00:31:15.599 --> 00:31:29.839
And and I guess the sort of bigger question about these things, I'd be interested if it if this kind of came through in the paper, is often when we talk about things like charity checkouts, as you said at the beginning, it's positioned as a kind of win-win-win because it's an easy way of getting additional donations.
00:31:30.000 --> 00:31:40.960
But there are always concerns that if the more that you provide these kind of easy or frictionless opportunities to give, it actually kind of eats into the giving that people might otherwise do.
00:31:41.039 --> 00:31:56.160
Did did you have any sense, certainly from the point of view of customers, that they view any giving they do through charity checkouts as kind of part of the same buckets of money that they might otherwise spend on their own donations and that it has a kind of negative effect on those?
00:31:56.480 --> 00:31:58.960
Yeah, I I think that's a very relevant question.
00:31:59.119 --> 00:32:03.119
We need a lot of empirical evidence on that, and I think it can go several ways.
00:32:03.359 --> 00:32:18.400
Of course, if you if you tap it, if you engage in micro-giving, nanophilanthropy, I think they even call it, well, it can basically stress your pro-social identity and it might license you to no longer give or to turn down other requests.
00:32:18.559 --> 00:32:21.839
That's of course not very interesting for the nonprofit sector as a whole.
00:32:22.079 --> 00:32:23.440
It can also go the other way.
00:32:23.599 --> 00:32:28.720
It can kind of trigger you to do more, to do good more frequently, for instance.
00:32:28.880 --> 00:32:32.240
And I think that that's the academic answer, but it depends.
00:32:32.400 --> 00:32:35.920
I think it depends on the context and the person that you have in front of you.
00:32:36.160 --> 00:32:42.640
But for me, and I think I'm very happy that you raised this point, this is one of the most important questions when it comes to microgaving.
00:32:42.799 --> 00:32:46.000
How is it changing our view on philanthropy?
00:32:46.160 --> 00:32:54.880
Um, as you know, the whole term of selectivism, like you're being activistic in a kind of let's call it easy, uh slow way.
00:32:55.039 --> 00:32:56.640
Well, maybe that's part of it.
00:32:56.880 --> 00:33:00.960
Not sure, question, Mark, but we should definitely do more research on it.
00:33:01.119 --> 00:33:02.160
Super interesting.
00:33:11.039 --> 00:33:17.680
Okay, if we change something in the charity checkout uh operationalization, how do customers uh react?
00:33:18.000 --> 00:33:23.359
But we also need studies on the long-term impacts of uh of this tool.
00:33:23.519 --> 00:33:23.920
Yeah.
00:33:24.240 --> 00:33:26.799
And just picking up on that, I think that's one obvious question.
00:33:26.880 --> 00:33:28.720
I think where there's lots of scope for further research.
00:33:28.880 --> 00:33:37.200
Were there other things that came up in the course of this paper where you think actually there are there are other interesting questions that you would like to kind of take further in in future research?
00:33:37.680 --> 00:33:44.160
What I personally think is interesting is to just get a better better understanding of how these relationships start.
00:33:44.240 --> 00:33:48.079
Like if a non-profit and a for-profit start to collaborate, how is this happening?
00:33:48.240 --> 00:33:49.519
Is this based on gut feeling?
00:33:49.599 --> 00:33:51.279
Is this part of a strategic approach?
00:33:51.359 --> 00:33:52.559
Like what's actually going on?
00:33:52.720 --> 00:34:01.680
And I would like to do more case studies to get a better understanding of the ins and outs of, let's say, the daily practice of charity checkouts.
00:34:01.920 --> 00:34:03.359
Um, how do they come along?
00:34:03.519 --> 00:34:05.119
I think that's really interesting.
00:34:05.279 --> 00:34:13.519
And whether or not there is a kind of imbalance between for-profit and non-profit, um, that would also very much interest me and us, I guess.
00:34:14.320 --> 00:34:31.679
Now, the the focus is mainly on how the customers react uh uh to charity checkouts, but indeed, indeed, as uh Tina already said, um, it's very important to also look at the reactions and the decision making of uh the businesses and the nonprofits involved.
00:34:32.079 --> 00:34:33.039
Yeah, absolutely.
00:34:33.119 --> 00:34:35.760
I think lots of really interesting avenues to take forward.
00:34:35.840 --> 00:34:42.960
Um, and certainly I'll put links in the show notes to places where people can find the original paper, which is really worth reading, and the the UN Up Research Note that's based on it.
00:34:43.119 --> 00:34:46.000
Just remain to say thanks ever so much to both of you for finding the time to come on the podcast.
00:34:46.159 --> 00:34:47.280
Really interesting to hear about this.
00:34:47.360 --> 00:34:52.719
I think it's a really fascinating area and definitely look forward to to seeing kind of what where you take it in the future.
00:34:52.800 --> 00:34:54.239
Um so all the best for that.
00:34:54.639 --> 00:34:55.840
Thank you for inviting us.
00:34:56.159 --> 00:34:57.440
It was our pleasure.
00:34:57.760 --> 00:34:58.639
Thank you.
00:35:08.000 --> 00:35:08.719
Okay, great.
00:35:08.800 --> 00:35:11.679
Well, I'm here with Silkie Bernig and Laura Hess.
00:35:11.920 --> 00:35:12.960
Hi to both of you.
00:35:13.440 --> 00:35:14.320
Hi, hi.
00:35:14.719 --> 00:35:15.280
Hello.
00:35:15.679 --> 00:35:16.159
Hi there.
00:35:16.239 --> 00:35:18.079
Well, it's great to have you on the podcast.
00:35:18.239 --> 00:35:26.559
Um, and we're here to hear about uh a paper that both of you are involved in co-authoring that's been featured in the latest release of Earnot Research Notes.
00:35:26.639 --> 00:35:38.400
And the paper in question is titled Unpacking the Non-Donor Segment: Reasons for Non-Support and Five Attitudinal Clusters based on data from the German Donation Monitor, which I think tells us a lot about what we're going to be hearing about.
00:35:38.480 --> 00:35:49.280
Um, and this one definitely caught my eye, and one of the reasons I picked it was I feel like that question about understanding non-donors is one's that one that you hear so much from people kind of working, particularly on the fundraising side.
00:35:49.360 --> 00:35:52.960
So I was really fascinated to find that you'd kind of dug into this question.
00:35:53.119 --> 00:36:01.840
And so maybe the best place to start, uh Silky, if you could tell us a bit about what the paper's actually about, uh what the background is and what some of the key findings are.
00:36:02.239 --> 00:36:03.440
Yeah, sure.
00:36:03.679 --> 00:36:07.039
Uh first of all, thanks for the invitation.
00:36:07.199 --> 00:36:14.239
So um I think it's also true for us uh researching and teaching about donors a lot.
00:36:14.480 --> 00:36:21.039
And um, when it comes to the term non-donors, that is a term that is often overlooked.
00:36:21.280 --> 00:36:46.480
Though non-donors normally, when you talk to nonprofit organizations in practice, in project, they always tell you, yeah, we have, of course, non-donors, but that is a very diverse group and then homogeneous group, we don't know much, or some say we don't know nothing about uh our non-donnors.
00:36:46.800 --> 00:36:50.159
So we thought that is a really interesting topic.
00:36:50.480 --> 00:37:12.400
And um, in terms of definition, it's not so easy to answer, to be honest, because some authors see or define, use a very strict definition of non-donors and say a non-donor is really a person who has never ever, so to say, donated um money, time, or blood.
00:37:12.480 --> 00:37:14.639
So that is a really strict definition.
00:37:15.199 --> 00:37:28.960
Um, other authors used in behavioral conceptualization and say, okay, we define donors those who are not donated within the last three years or two years or one year.
00:37:29.119 --> 00:37:49.599
So that was not so easy to uh answer or to start with, and we discussed this um question with our cooperation partner, that is the German Fundraising Association, and they finally uh recommended um to use uh the 12-months uh rule.
00:37:49.920 --> 00:38:03.039
So um, but that is more or less for practical reasons because um most of the fundraising organizations in Germany use that term as a non-donor period.
00:38:03.280 --> 00:38:05.760
So uh, but it's discussable.
00:38:05.920 --> 00:38:08.559
Yeah, so the topic is interesting.
00:38:09.199 --> 00:38:15.119
And and Laura, maybe you could tell us a bit about in the paper what it was that you were looking at and some of the things that you found.
00:38:15.840 --> 00:38:16.719
Yeah, sure.
00:38:17.039 --> 00:38:28.960
So uh the questions we asked was basically well, we wanted to know why people don't give, but we also wanted to know if there are like distinct types of non-donors, just as Silke uh explained to us.
00:38:29.199 --> 00:38:39.280
And then as you also mentioned, we had this great opportunity to work with the German Fundraising Association, and they invited us to add questions to their annual German donation monitor.
00:38:39.599 --> 00:38:50.639
So we had the chance to have like a representative survey, and we could, I think we targeted roughly like 2,000 non-donors, so that gave us a good idea about their reasons not to donate.
00:38:51.039 --> 00:38:55.599
And then we asked them like a long list of possible reasons for not giving.
00:38:55.760 --> 00:38:58.320
So I think it was almost 30, I think, Silka.
00:38:58.480 --> 00:39:00.960
Maybe if I'm wrong and you correct me.
00:39:01.280 --> 00:39:06.000
And um, yeah, there they had to rate how much they agree with the single reasons.
00:39:06.320 --> 00:39:12.559
And I think the first surprising result was that it was not affordability at the top of the list.
00:39:13.199 --> 00:39:14.800
I have to say though, it was second.
00:39:15.519 --> 00:39:22.400
But actually the most agreed reason was actually um about the distrust of overhead.
00:39:22.559 --> 00:39:28.960
So, like our respondents had the feeling that too much of their donation goes to administration, and that is why they don't donate.
00:39:29.119 --> 00:39:31.840
I think that's a quite well big problem also.
00:39:32.079 --> 00:39:33.840
Silka also has a paper on that.
00:39:34.639 --> 00:39:35.039
Interesting.
00:39:35.119 --> 00:39:41.519
Yeah, I saw that that was the number one reason, which I I was fascinated and and depressed by the fact that that people have cited that.
00:39:41.840 --> 00:39:52.320
Yeah, and I also um found it very interesting that um some people said they disliked the direct um fundraising appeal.
00:39:52.559 --> 00:40:02.559
So that uh comes together with street fundraising, for example, that the the people dislike uh being asked on the street uh um to donate.
00:40:02.719 --> 00:40:05.519
So that was also uh a top reason.
00:40:05.920 --> 00:40:12.400
Um and one of the things I wanted to ask, I want to dig into sort of how you then went on to segment some of those donors and what kind of practitioners could do.
00:40:12.559 --> 00:40:27.519
But I guess one of the questions always when you are asking people about these things and sort of telling them to explain their own behavior, is that question of how much do we take the reasons that they give at face value and how much do we sort of have to think behind that?
00:40:27.679 --> 00:40:35.599
I suppose, particularly when you're asking people about why you don't do something like donating, which is generally seen as a sort of socially positive thing.
00:40:35.920 --> 00:40:49.760
Do you get the sense, you know, what do you make of those findings and how much of a need is there to sort of know that what we're asking about is people's statements about their own behavior, but there might be something else behind it as well that's the genuine explanation?
00:40:50.079 --> 00:40:52.480
Yeah, so I think that's always a good question.
00:40:52.719 --> 00:41:05.599
And as you mentioned, of course, like people always I mean, they know what the favorable answer would be, but we also found them to be quite honest and were quite honest about like their negative attitudes towards um donating.
00:41:05.679 --> 00:41:08.159
And I think that also like points to the thing that we did.
00:41:08.320 --> 00:41:20.400
We did a cluster analysis, so we looked for patterns, and that also allowed us a bit more for interpretation, not only like the reasons we asked, but also their like sociodemographic backgrounds, how they use social media.
00:41:20.480 --> 00:41:29.760
So we had different things that we could combine and look for patterns in, um, which also then allowed for more like yeah, more interpretation than only the reasons they stated.
00:41:30.159 --> 00:41:32.559
Yeah, I I totally agree.
00:41:32.719 --> 00:41:39.519
So there's always a bias in these questionnaires and surveys, so you can't avoid that.
00:41:39.920 --> 00:41:55.760
However, I think the longer the list of possible reasons you give them, you more you you the closer you come to the maybe underlying perspective perspectives of the persons.
00:41:56.000 --> 00:42:09.119
And for example, for me it was very interesting that we also identified disadvantage or feeling of disadvantages as a reason for non-support.
00:42:09.360 --> 00:42:13.840
For example, some people said, I also don't get support.
00:42:14.400 --> 00:42:28.960
So that that is a is a is is really a strong uh statement, or others state um stated the state and not the individual is responsible um to solve so social problems.
00:42:29.119 --> 00:42:32.000
That is very typical for German for the German sector.
00:42:32.159 --> 00:42:35.440
I I guess also maybe for the UK.
00:42:35.760 --> 00:42:44.559
Um, so that is a different um uh social system, but but people think that that others are responsible.
00:42:44.880 --> 00:42:46.960
And um so yeah.
00:42:47.519 --> 00:42:48.639
Yeah, absolutely.
00:42:48.800 --> 00:42:58.400
And and you you mentioned there that you also looked at some of the kind of wider demographic factors and behavioral factors and use those to kind of uh cluster and segment people.
00:42:58.639 --> 00:43:05.840
What were some of the sort of most important factors that you found in determining whether a person was more likely to be a non-donor?
00:43:05.920 --> 00:43:09.039
Was there a kind of high correlation with any particular factors?
00:43:10.000 --> 00:43:12.159
I mean, I think we have to differentiate here.
00:43:12.239 --> 00:43:23.039
I mean, we didn't like look for higher correlation of who's like a non-donor, but because we really just looked at the non-donors, but of course they were like different in their intention to donate in the future.
00:43:23.360 --> 00:43:25.920
And maybe just to go like one step back.
00:43:26.000 --> 00:43:30.000
So we had like four overarching themes why people don't give.
00:43:30.079 --> 00:43:34.960
So there was their negative attitude toward giving, perceived financial inability, past experience.
00:43:35.199 --> 00:43:39.840
Some are even unconscious of being non-donors and whether they were solicitated or not.
00:43:40.159 --> 00:43:58.079
But then, of course, like you know, coming back to your question, there was of course um sociodemographics like the age and also the income, of course, which are um very important and well, which tell us something about those clusters because we had five different groups of non-donors in the end.
00:43:58.880 --> 00:44:01.119
Yes, I I I thought it was really interesting.
00:44:01.199 --> 00:44:18.480
You essentially, I'm not not to go into all of them, but ones where, for instance, the group where it's kind of people who are just totally against the idea of donating for whatever reason, as opposed to some where it was more about not having had the opportunity or their economic means, that the will being there, but the means to do so not being there.
00:44:18.639 --> 00:44:26.880
Um and I guess that leads on to my my a question I wanted to ask, which is how do non-profits sort of use this kind of segmentation in practice?
00:44:27.039 --> 00:44:32.800
Can it tell them something about where they should focus their efforts if they're trying to engage non-donors?
00:44:33.119 --> 00:44:35.840
Yeah, we hope so that they can use that.
00:44:36.000 --> 00:44:52.880
So um I think at the end of the paper, we um so try to come up with some recommendations of a good strategy and um maybe to summarize our um our statements.
00:44:53.199 --> 00:44:57.679
So we think that um segmentation is key.
00:44:58.000 --> 00:45:24.880
So that um you should really have an idea of what segments, what donor segments, and what non-donor segments um you um are responsible for, so to say, and then to prioritize these segments that you think um that are markable or marketable, uh so to say, that that you can really approach them.
00:45:25.039 --> 00:45:30.960
And for example, we found that um especially two clusters are interesting.
00:45:31.199 --> 00:45:38.400
We called them um cluster five, convincible cluster, and um also cluster three.
00:45:38.960 --> 00:45:41.679
Um can't remember the name.
00:45:41.920 --> 00:45:43.360
Wait a minute.
00:45:44.000 --> 00:45:48.079
Um cluster three, indifferent non-donnors, yeah.
00:45:48.239 --> 00:46:23.199
So, first of all, talking about the indifferent donors, because here it was interesting that they say I can donate, so I'm financially able to donate, but I don't want to, because of the reasons um uh earlier discussed, so that they are um thinking that the state is, for example, uh government should be responsible, or that we should that donating is a totally wrong approach, that we need more social entrepreneurship, for example.
00:46:23.599 --> 00:46:34.880
And here the cluster and sociodemographics are interesting because that are more or less male men, uh 66%.
00:46:35.519 --> 00:46:44.639
Um and um they are in a more middle-age range, so around about 40 to 60 years old.
00:46:44.960 --> 00:46:52.159
In contrast, the um convincible uh cluster uh that is quite younger.
00:46:52.320 --> 00:47:04.719
Um, so younger, well-educated men, very nice um educational background, and I think here we see some strategies already.
00:47:04.960 --> 00:47:36.159
So, of course, you can try to segment the younger uh individuals, trying to um yeah um to have them in a journey in a fundraising journey, um try to approach them over a longer period of time, and perhaps then you can build up a relationship with them and um uh finally um you are able to recruit them as first-time donors.
00:47:36.719 --> 00:47:40.639
Um for yeah, so I stop here.
00:47:40.880 --> 00:47:41.199
Yeah.
00:47:41.440 --> 00:47:42.960
Yeah, it's really interesting.
00:47:43.039 --> 00:47:54.159
Um, and I just wanted to zoom out as well, because you mentioned that on this piece of research you work with the German Fundraising Association, and obviously that was kind of key to be having the access and being able to ask the questions and get the data.
00:47:54.400 --> 00:48:10.239
I just wondered what your perspective is on the sort of wider question of how well academia and practice links up when it comes to philanthropy, because obviously the point of this Urna Research Note series is to try and build those bridges even more.
00:48:10.480 --> 00:48:14.559
Has your experience so far been that it's easy to work with practitioners?
00:48:14.719 --> 00:48:20.000
And do you find that they're interested in and receptive to the kinds of findings that you're publishing?
00:48:21.679 --> 00:48:26.400
So, from my perspective, um that yeah, that's true.
00:48:26.639 --> 00:48:32.239
We always try to bridge the two um the two areas.
00:48:32.800 --> 00:48:37.199
Uh, and I think it's very, very easy when you know each other.
00:48:37.440 --> 00:48:59.840
So, and therefore, here comes Urnup or other players um into the game because um, you know, sometimes you don't know the names, you don't know that there is an academic around that he or she is uh focusing on donor uh let's say um related aspects or fundraising aspects.
00:49:00.000 --> 00:49:18.000
So um it is important to be readable uh and and um that therefore um podcasts like this or ANUP research notes um and talks are so important so that uh both worlds can learn from each other.
00:49:18.239 --> 00:49:28.320
But now it's it's very easy from my perspective to get in contact with them, and then they really love to cooperate with uh academia.
00:49:29.360 --> 00:49:41.840
And maybe to add, I think I mean that topic was also very good for for this because academically speaking, it was also a very straightforward question that we ask and a question that resonates with the practitioners right away.
00:49:42.239 --> 00:49:50.400
But I think sometimes in other projects it's always also hard to translate like the academic theoretical question to the actual practical problem.
00:49:50.719 --> 00:50:04.079
But I would say, especially like in the cooperations with Circa, we focus very much on real-world problems and then starting building the research around, and that makes it, I think, easier to cooperate than maybe in other projects.
00:50:04.159 --> 00:50:12.800
I also participated with practitioners where you had to do more translation work until you really knew what like the other party is interested in.
00:50:13.119 --> 00:50:23.119
Yes, yeah, and I've heard that from many people that there's often there is a shared interest, but you have to kind of frame it in the right way so that everybody gets that they're they're talking about the same thing.
00:50:23.360 --> 00:50:33.840
Um, I suppose the other thing I just wanted to ask finally, because obviously a lot of this work, given the nature of academic publishing, is actually the research has been done a while ago and the publications are often a few years ago.
00:50:34.000 --> 00:50:44.400
Just to ask what both of you are working on now, whether there are other areas of research that build on this work or whether you've kind of taken your work in other directions, I would just be really interested to hear.
00:50:44.719 --> 00:51:07.920
Yeah, so before we share um new research ideas, so um the German uh fundraising association just last week came um with an email asking if we um can of course repeat the another wave of a non-donor study, so and and the German monitor.
00:51:08.320 --> 00:51:12.719
Um so that is uh uh I think also a good sign.
00:51:13.360 --> 00:51:25.440
And um, at the moment we are um a little bit on different topics, so maybe Laura will talk a little bit about our uh ongoing top or joint ongoing topic.
00:51:25.519 --> 00:51:25.760
Yeah.
00:51:26.239 --> 00:51:37.599
Maybe as uh as a little background, because I also finished like my PhD like one and a half years, two years ago now, and then I had to take like a different position at a different university.
00:51:37.679 --> 00:51:45.119
So my main topic is not as much nonprofit anymore as it was before, but still, of course, uh those topics interest me very much.
00:51:45.280 --> 00:51:53.199
So we're still doing research well more in the broader field of transformative service research now and on vulnerable groups basically.
00:51:53.360 --> 00:52:07.199
And um, like one recent research project is about like how large language models react when they like perceive like their users as uh vulnerable and how they adapt their service offering to that.
00:52:07.440 --> 00:52:09.679
So that's uh one of the newer researches.
00:52:09.840 --> 00:52:14.639
But Silka, of course, is still doing a lot of uh fundraising research at Art Share.
00:52:15.119 --> 00:52:26.079
Another project we are both uh involved in is on how to integrate um uh females with a refugee background in the labor market.
00:52:26.400 --> 00:52:28.880
So that is also very interesting.
00:52:29.199 --> 00:52:29.679
Yeah.
00:52:29.840 --> 00:52:34.239
Um sounds like an amazing range of topics and really fascinating.
00:52:34.320 --> 00:52:36.000
So I will definitely keep an eye out for those.
00:52:36.079 --> 00:52:43.679
Um and certainly if you end up doing another iteration of of this research, I think it'll be really interesting once you start having that time series as well.
00:52:43.840 --> 00:52:47.519
Um, just remains to say thanks ever so much to both of you for coming on the podcast.
00:52:47.679 --> 00:52:49.840
Really great to hear about uh the research.
00:52:49.920 --> 00:52:57.519
I'll put links in the show notes to places where people can find the paper and the Earn Up research notes uh that's based on it, and just wish you all the best for the future.
00:52:57.920 --> 00:52:58.960
Thanks a lot.
00:52:59.360 --> 00:53:00.000
Great.
00:53:09.039 --> 00:53:09.760
Okay, great.
00:53:09.920 --> 00:53:17.039
Well, my thanks again to all my guests, uh to Marlena, to Tina, to Tina, uh to Silke, and to Laura.
00:53:17.119 --> 00:53:25.760
Uh I will put links in the show notes to places where you can find all of those papers that we were talking about, as well as the earn-up research notes uh that were based on them.
00:53:25.920 --> 00:53:27.599
So please do check those out.
00:53:27.760 --> 00:53:34.639
Uh, if you're interested in issues around uh philanthropy and civil society more broadly, check out the website at whyphilanthropymatters.com.
00:53:34.719 --> 00:53:42.000
There's all kinds of interesting bits and pieces on there to get your teeth stuck into over the summer while I'm not putting out any more stuff.
00:53:42.159 --> 00:53:48.400
Uh, if you've got ideas for people that I could talk to on the podcast or topics you'd like to see us cover, do get in touch.
00:53:48.480 --> 00:53:51.840
You can find my contact details at the Y Philanthropy Matters website.
00:53:51.920 --> 00:53:53.920
Uh, always looking for suggestions.
00:53:54.000 --> 00:53:59.360
Uh, if you've got in touch with me and I haven't got back to you, uh, I do promise that I'd do my best to do that.
00:53:59.440 --> 00:54:04.559
Um, but I get an increasing number uh of approaches about the podcast, which is a very nice problem to have.
00:54:04.639 --> 00:54:14.800
And also, as previously discussed, um, I have too much on my plate, including until relatively recently trying to do a pod uh PhD alongside two jobs and possibly three jobs.
00:54:14.880 --> 00:54:19.920
Uh, so it's not that I am ignoring you, it's just that I'm a little bit overwhelmed at times.
00:54:20.000 --> 00:54:22.239
Uh, but do keep on getting in touch, please.
00:54:22.320 --> 00:54:23.519
Um, that being said.
00:54:23.840 --> 00:54:25.840
You can also follow me on social media.
00:54:26.000 --> 00:54:33.360
Best place these days is LinkedIn, or you can check me out on Blue Sky if you want to hear largely silence, punctuated by the occasional message.
00:54:33.519 --> 00:54:35.679
But on LinkedIn I'm relatively active.
00:54:35.840 --> 00:54:41.760
Uh, also, you can sign up for the uh newsletter through the Why Philanthropy Matters uh website.
00:54:41.840 --> 00:54:50.000
That's a kind of monthly update with some views and insight about all kinds of interesting things that are going on across the world of philanthropy and civil society.
00:54:50.239 --> 00:54:53.360
Other than that, it just remains to say thanks ever so much for listening.
00:54:53.599 --> 00:54:57.119
If you like the podcast, please do leave us a nice review wherever you get your podcast.
00:54:57.199 --> 00:54:58.639
That would be very pleasant.
00:54:58.800 --> 00:55:06.079
Uh, if you think that there are people who might benefit from listening or even actively enjoy it, please do uh tell them and spread the good word.
00:55:06.159 --> 00:55:08.639
Um, I think personal recommendation always helps.
00:55:08.880 --> 00:55:11.360
But yeah, in the meantime, have a good summer.
00:55:11.440 --> 00:55:19.280
I will be back in September with lots more great interviews and possibly hopefully also some deep dives because I'd like to get back to doing a few of those.
00:55:19.360 --> 00:55:21.119
Uh, and I will see you next time.
00:55:21.440 --> 00:55:22.079
Bye.