I don’t think I’ve ever looked more smug than I did last Friday.

After a day going back and forth trying to find the right name for one of our new consultancy services I’d finally hit the jackpot.

It had the lot. A smart analogy. Some clever word play. A witty twist on two well-known acronyms.

Staring at it on the page stirred feelings of pride I haven’t felt since the birth of my kids.

There was just one problem.

When I showed it to a group of fundraisers, not one of them had the foggiest idea what the name alluded to or what the service was we were actually offering.

That smug look vanished as I realised what had happened.

I’d been so distracted by “clever” I’d taken my eye off the single most important thing I needed to achieve – to clearly show my target audience why this service was right for them.

I’d fallen victim to the Curse of Clever.

The Curse of Clever is where we become so wedded to an idea because of its novelty or cleverness that we will move heaven and earth to make the idea work, even if it means sacrificing clarity and functionality.

(If you’ve ever have been at a conference where someone has started talking about “The 32 Ps of Corporate Partnerships”, where each P has got more and more tenuous as the speaker desperately tried to find a synonym for what they were actually trying to say, you’ll know what I mean.)

“Clever” ideas can come from a range of places. Linguistic tricks (such as puns, wordplay, alliteration and acronyms that spell a word), quirky design choices, linking to current events or notable people and events from our organisation’s past – all can turn into cursed ideas that distract us from our primary aim if we hold them too tightly.

And this curse doesn’t just affect our copywriting.

“Clever” ideas can influence how we structure appeals, the names we give to different membership schemes and even the amounts we ask for (looking at you, anniversary campaigns that use multiples of the year as the suggested donation amounts, despite them having no connection to the amount you need or your donor’s giving habits).

Don’t get me wrong, there is a place for these techniques and devices. Done well, they can be effective ways of helping you engage and inspire your target audience. But, to do so, they need to remain the humble servant to your message. As soon as your “clever idea” starts calling the shots you’re in trouble.

Because here’s the thing – clever is only clever if it works.

Your goal is to get your message across to your target audience in a way that catches their attention, inspires them and motivates them to act.

So, if you feel yourself becoming the hostage of a “clever idea”, stop and test it against the following questions:

• Does this idea help or hinder us to catch the attention of our target audience?
• Does it help or hinder us to build trust, rapport and connection with our target audience?
• Does it help or hinder us to achieve the desired emotional response in our target audience?
• Does it help or hinder our target audience’s understanding of why our work is needed?
• Does it help or hinder our target audience’s understanding of what we’re asking them to do and why this is right for them?
• Does it help or hinder our target audience to give?
• Does it help or hinder our target audience to remember our message? (NB Acronyms don’t automatically make things easier to remember. They only become more memorable after repeat use. To begin with they’re usually harder to understand as your audience struggles to remember what each letter stands for).

If the idea is helping more than hindering, proceed (but on the understanding you will jettison the idea if it stops being helpful, or if a better one comes along).

But if the idea is holding you back, perhaps it’s not such a clever idea after all.

Last week I went to the launch of Rogare – The Fundraising Think Tank‘s new paper on the ethics of gift acceptance and refusal. The paper is well worth a read, building on Rogare’s extensive research and thought leadership in this area. (You can download it here – https://www.rogare.net/acceptance-refusal)

Reflecting on both the event and the report I can’t shake two seemingly contradictory views:

1) charities don’t give enough thought to their Gift Acceptance Policy

2) the sector focuses too much on Gift Acceptance Policies

Why I think charities don’t give enough thought to their Gift Acceptance Policy

If you attended the event or have engaged with any of Rogare’s previous work on ethics you will likely share my belief that their Director, Ian MacQuillin, has spent more time thinking about this topic than anybody else.

And perhaps that’s the problem.

Rogare’s new paper reinforces just how much thought and effort needs to go in to this process if charities are to come up with a policy that will result in “grounded and consistent decisions” – the yardstick by which the success of the policy should be measured.

Defining the steps and considerations needed to make a decision about when to accept and refuse a gift requires deep discussions about values, risk appetite and making uncomfortable decisions with real-world consequences for beneficiaries, staff and donors – all while attempting to put personal feeling to one side.

Yet, too often, the process is relegated to a box ticking exercise, with responsibility for writing the policy delegated to a single member of staff. (Search for “gift acceptance policy” or “ethical fundraising policy” in any fundraising forum and you’ll see this story played out many times as the appointed author seeks templates or examples on which to base their own document).

If the policy isn’t built on these rigorous discussions it’s unlikely to provide fundraisers, trustees and managers with the tools they need to make consistent decisions.

This lack of consistency is not new. Ask a room full of fundraisers if their organisation would take money from gambling companies and 9 out of 10 (at least) will tell you ‘no’ because gambling is considered unethical. In that same room, 9 out of 10 (at least) will have no problem applying to, and receiving money from, one of the Lottery funding bodies. (This isn’t an exaggeration – I ask this question at the start of every workshop I run on gift acceptance. I can count on one hand the number of people who openly say they would accept money from gambling companies, and the mental gymnastics people will go through to defend Lottery funding having just spent 5 minutes protesting the evils of gambling are something to behold).

While it can be hard to allocate time to these discussions, charities need to be sure their decisions are underpinned by strong foundations. Failing to do so puts the charity at risk.

Why I worry we focus too much on Gift Acceptance Policies

Reason 1) The terms Gift Acceptance Policy and Ethical Fundraising Policy have become largely synonymous. However, the two are not the same. Gift Acceptance Policies help organisations decide whether or not to accept a gift when one is offered. However, that’s not the only ethical consideration we face when we’re fundraising. Decisions such as who we ask, how we tell our story and which fundraising techniques we use have ethical ramifications. If our policy only focuses on gift acceptance we’re not protecting ourselves from these other risks.

Reason 2) All of the guidance on this subject – from the Chartered Institute of Fundraising to the Fundraising Regulator to the Charity Commission – is written from the perspective of what to do when a gift is offered. This frames the issue within a fundraising utopia where donors are queueing up to proactively make donations to charities. However, as we know, the reality is that, in most cases, fundraising contact is initiated by the charity.

On the face of it, this gives us more freedom to make choices based on ethics. For example, while the legal obligations and a charity’s gift acceptance policy might make it difficult for them to refuse a gift from an oil company, there is seemingly little to stop them simply choosing not to approach this type of company on ethical grounds.

While many will see this solely as a positive thing, my concern is that it undermines consistency in decision making. Unlike responding to an offer of a gift (where we have access to information such as the amount being offered, the purpose of donation and the motivation behind it), fundraisers making initial approaches to prospects have to base their decisions on a wide range of hypotheticals.

This can leave fundraisers uncertain on who they can approach – especially if gift acceptance decisions involve balancing possible risk against the size of the donation.

This is especially true if the wider discussions about an organisation’s ethical position have not been had. In this vacuum, fundraisers can find themselves with little guidance on who they can approach, running the risks of starting relationships with donors only to have to refuse a gift at a later point, being too cautious and potentially leaving money on the table, or being overly influenced by personal ethics that results in inconsistent approaches across an organisation.

In a workshop on gift acceptance/ethical fundraising with the governors and senior leadership team of a UK university I noted that their website declared commitments to “a smoke-free campus” and “the protection of the environment”. “With these commitments in mind, could your fundraisers approach tobacco companies, airlines or oil companies for support”, I asked. Neither the fundraisers in the room or the governors could answer.

So, if our aim is “consistent and grounded decisions”, our policies need to reflect the reality of our role in initiating relationships, to give fundraisers the support and guidance they need.