ERNOP: Connecting Philanthropy Academia & Practice #14 的完整文字稿

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.