Why fundraisers have to be hot on the privacy issue
By Ken Burnett
June 21, 2004
Our right to personal privacy is a hot topic just now, up there with asylum seekers and the quagmire in Iraq as staple breakfast fodder for radio pundits. Should we or shouldn't we submit to the intrusion of continental-style identity cards? Shame on the American press for publishing photos of our Princess Di dying (which, thanks to the hypocrisy of the British media, we all had to search the Internet to see). And the scandalous revelation in National Geographic magazine of all places, that there's more covert surveillance in Britain than anywhere else in the world...
These and other concerns all combine to ensure that personal privacy is an issue that won't quickly go away: the digital trail we leave on our computers, which has brought down more than one public figure by exposing his or her private foibles; the paedophile next door who also values his privacy, but where does that leave his neighbours? And the surly airport official's right to know what we have in our suitcases, which has prompted us to reassess our attitudes to inconvenience and, probably, to review what we now take with us when we travel. Not to mention the megamouth on his mobile phone who feels it's all right to discuss loudly his mother's cremation six inches from my left ear as I travel to work.
Privacy is a pertinent issue for fundraisers too, and likely to become more so. Most of the European Union's efforts to introduce restrictive legislation on fundraisers involve issues surrounding privacy and its protection. Much of the arguments favouring the curbing of street fundraisers concerns their intrusions into the invisible shroud of private space that some people imagine surrounds them as they walk along. And the future of fundraising? Well, that seems likely to be closely entwined with issues of privacy and permissions as fundraisers inevitably seek to get ever closer to the people that, they now realise, they need to know a great deal more about: their donors. And donors in turn, perhaps seek to keep us ever more distant.
The current concept of privacy and concern for its loss in these troubled
times may be something of an illusion. Jonathan Franzen in his book How
to be alone describes privacy as the Cheshire cat of values; not much
substance but with a very winning smile. He claims our lives were much less
private in days gone by, when everyone from the local vicar to the corner
shopkeeper knew all your business, when we used not to all have our own bathrooms,
when the Famous Five were snooping about, when walls had ears and Lord Kitchener
was watching us from every billboard.
On the issue of privacy our public is notoriously two-faced. Revealing the
sexual indiscretions of members of our new royal family, the Beckhams, boosts
tabloid circulations by miles. But when asked whether members of the press
have a right to intrude into the private lives of these people, 85% of us
say, very firmly, no. So, who buys the papers?
Much as the public might appear concerned to protect its privacy, the truth
is supermarkets, banks, insurance companies, the government, and even charities
all already hold much more information on us than some might like. But, marketers
claim, there's little sinister intent here. Without their possession and use
of accurate data, these organisations' relationships with us would be a lot
more fraught and unsatisfactory. Collecting (with the customers' permission),
storing and using appropriate data is the only way that junk mail can be obliterated,
that desired, trusted suppliers can ensure that when they communicate with
their customers they only send what's relevant, appropriate and wanted.
Well, that's the theory.
But it's important we fundraisers get our attitudes to privacy right. In this, I believe, fundraisers should be firmly on the side of their donors, tireless champions of donor interests and their right to decide what information they impart, to whom and for what purpose. Equally, fundraisers have to ensure that donors understand why we need information from them and how we will reliably safeguard it and use it, with infinite respect and for their ultimate benefit.
It's important because new databases and communications systems are coming
that, to function at optimum, will require much more information on our donors,
information that we can only acquire and use with their willing consent. The
donor relationship management systems that are just around the corner will
enable supporters to interact with their chosen charities in ways that we
could until recently only dream of. But to benefit at all from these great
new developments we'll have to enjoy our donor's full trust and confidence,
so that they'll happily give us permission to use the data they'll willingly
supply. We should perhaps be concerned to realise that these new systems won't
work at all unless our donors are prepared to see us and the causes we represent
rather differently from the prying press, the snoopy salesmen, and the intrusive
government officials that most of them would prefer to keep at arm's length.
Yes, we might soon have cause to regret that we're not better at this relationship fundraising thing.
Ken Burnett is chairman of the Cascaid Group of marketing and communications
companies in the UK, and author of, among other books, the international bestseller
Relationship Fundraising and its sequel Friends for Life (www.whitelionpress.com).
Details of his seminars, workshops, and archived articles can be found on www.kenburnett.com.
He can be reached by email at ken@kenburnett.com
