WEBVTT 00:00:02.189 --> 00:00:05.610 Hello and welcome back to the next edition of 00:00:05.610 --> 00:00:09.990 The Purpose Brief. In this episode, I'm joined 00:00:09.990 --> 00:00:13.830 by Professor Beth Breeze OBE. She's Principal 00:00:13.830 --> 00:00:16.789 at Knoxford College, Director of the Centre for 00:00:16.789 --> 00:00:19.910 Philanthropy in the University of Kent, and one 00:00:19.910 --> 00:00:22.350 of the world's leading experts on why people 00:00:22.350 --> 00:00:25.089 give to charity and participate in philanthropy. 00:00:26.089 --> 00:00:29.570 Beth's new book, Rich Expectations, with esteemed 00:00:29.570 --> 00:00:32.570 colleagues, lifts the lid on how wealthy donors 00:00:32.570 --> 00:00:35.369 shape the world through their philanthropy. It 00:00:35.369 --> 00:00:38.009 explores what motivates them, how they choose 00:00:38.009 --> 00:00:41.270 causes, and what their giving reveals about power, 00:00:41.390 --> 00:00:46.109 privilege and purpose. So look, I checked my 00:00:46.109 --> 00:00:49.170 privilege on talking to her today. Beth's been 00:00:49.170 --> 00:00:52.759 around through my... fundraising career. So it's 00:00:52.759 --> 00:00:55.859 a real pleasure while she settles into life in 00:00:55.859 --> 00:00:58.820 Oxford to grab some time to have a discussion 00:00:58.820 --> 00:01:01.659 with her about this new book. Let's get started. 00:01:03.520 --> 00:01:06.659 Beth, hello. It's really, really lovely to see 00:01:06.659 --> 00:01:09.299 you today. Thank you for joining us on this next 00:01:09.299 --> 00:01:11.719 episode of The Purpose Brief. Good to be here. 00:01:11.780 --> 00:01:15.599 Hello. And so I think it's safe to say for all 00:01:15.599 --> 00:01:18.260 our listeners that Beth is one of the kind of 00:01:18.260 --> 00:01:21.079 leading lights. if not the leading light in the 00:01:21.079 --> 00:01:23.920 UK on philanthropy and fundraising. And through 00:01:23.920 --> 00:01:28.180 my... time as a fundraiser was a bit of a north 00:01:28.180 --> 00:01:32.239 staff to go to around the frameworks and the 00:01:32.239 --> 00:01:35.159 thinking around philanthropy back in the in the 00:01:35.159 --> 00:01:37.099 90s and the noughties when I was starting out 00:01:37.099 --> 00:01:39.299 as a fundraiser and that's how you started out 00:01:39.299 --> 00:01:41.640 Beth isn't it and have kind of gone on to different 00:01:41.640 --> 00:01:44.840 roles you've just become principal at Harris 00:01:44.840 --> 00:01:46.939 Manchester College in Oxford so congratulations 00:01:46.939 --> 00:01:50.840 and that gives you sort of a different focus 00:01:50.840 --> 00:01:54.219 and different purpose But let's start with that 00:01:54.219 --> 00:01:56.879 question and go into the deeper question around 00:01:56.879 --> 00:01:59.099 what do you think your purpose is through your 00:01:59.099 --> 00:02:01.859 work? Well, thanks for asking that. So I think 00:02:01.859 --> 00:02:04.819 that our lives do take coherence, but maybe only 00:02:04.819 --> 00:02:08.180 with hindsight. So I look back now and I don't 00:02:08.180 --> 00:02:10.949 want to pretend it was all this tied up. from 00:02:10.949 --> 00:02:12.949 the beginning. But I look back now and I see 00:02:12.949 --> 00:02:15.210 my career in three parts. So really the first 00:02:15.210 --> 00:02:18.090 decade or so, I was on the frontline fundraising 00:02:18.090 --> 00:02:20.449 and I loved being a fundraiser. I don't come 00:02:20.449 --> 00:02:22.669 from a wealthy background. So if I could raise 00:02:22.669 --> 00:02:24.650 money, if I could raise a million pounds, that 00:02:24.650 --> 00:02:26.289 was the closest I was ever going to get to being 00:02:26.289 --> 00:02:28.310 a millionaire. And that felt really good because 00:02:28.310 --> 00:02:30.590 you're doing it for causes you believed in. But 00:02:30.590 --> 00:02:32.849 during that time of being a fundraiser, it just 00:02:32.849 --> 00:02:35.229 became very clear to me that the sector with 00:02:35.229 --> 00:02:37.409 which we charge to do some of the most difficult 00:02:37.409 --> 00:02:40.610 things and tackle the most intractable problems 00:02:40.610 --> 00:02:42.310 that haven't yet been solved by government or 00:02:42.310 --> 00:02:45.349 business has got the least support so my friends 00:02:45.349 --> 00:02:47.150 from you know school and uni who'd gone into 00:02:47.150 --> 00:02:49.229 the business sector could you know do a degree 00:02:49.229 --> 00:02:50.969 in business and every university's got business 00:02:50.969 --> 00:02:52.650 school they could do an MBA there was loads of 00:02:52.650 --> 00:02:54.409 journals on business loads of research loads 00:02:54.409 --> 00:02:57.490 of data you know you were existing in a world 00:02:57.490 --> 00:02:59.490 with lots of information and then my friends 00:02:59.490 --> 00:03:01.710 and peers who went into government or politics 00:03:01.710 --> 00:03:04.349 again there was loads of support for that you 00:03:04.349 --> 00:03:06.490 chose to go into the third sector or the charity 00:03:06.490 --> 00:03:09.050 sector it was like well good luck on you go and 00:03:09.159 --> 00:03:11.960 There was nothing. There was no degrees, no higher 00:03:11.960 --> 00:03:14.300 education. At that point, very little professional 00:03:14.300 --> 00:03:17.240 support. And it just struck me as really odd 00:03:17.240 --> 00:03:19.840 that the sector doing this most difficult work 00:03:19.840 --> 00:03:22.259 had the least support. So that's what led to 00:03:22.259 --> 00:03:25.479 my move from doing fundraising to studying fundraising. 00:03:25.960 --> 00:03:28.060 And then the middle bit of my career where I 00:03:28.060 --> 00:03:30.560 spent 20 years at the University of Kent, first 00:03:30.560 --> 00:03:32.599 of all, getting my PhD. So I had my training 00:03:32.599 --> 00:03:34.979 and then being in a position where I could do 00:03:34.979 --> 00:03:37.280 that research and set up the kind of courses 00:03:37.280 --> 00:03:39.639 that I wish I'd accepted. when I was a fundraiser. 00:03:39.759 --> 00:03:41.719 So the master's degree in philanthropy, then 00:03:41.719 --> 00:03:44.520 a PhD pathway, but also entry -level courses 00:03:44.520 --> 00:03:46.900 that we had an online free course or have still 00:03:46.900 --> 00:03:49.400 available called How to Fundraise and the Fundraiser 00:03:49.400 --> 00:03:51.180 Apprenticeship. So really just trying to provide 00:03:51.180 --> 00:03:53.960 that suite of training programmes. And because 00:03:53.960 --> 00:03:55.520 there wasn't really anyone else doing the research, 00:03:55.620 --> 00:03:57.419 we were also writing the textbooks and doing 00:03:57.419 --> 00:03:58.900 the research that were taught on those courses. 00:03:59.000 --> 00:04:01.639 So I loved doing that as well and probably trained 00:04:01.639 --> 00:04:03.539 certainly a couple of hundred did the MA and 00:04:03.539 --> 00:04:06.000 many others did the other courses. But now this 00:04:06.000 --> 00:04:08.379 third act, which is quite nice, in your early 00:04:08.379 --> 00:04:12.120 50s to do something else. I've moved on to work 00:04:12.120 --> 00:04:14.280 in an institution that is seeped in philanthropy. 00:04:14.639 --> 00:04:17.160 So I'm now at Oxford University in Harris Manchester 00:04:17.160 --> 00:04:19.160 College, which is the only college for mature 00:04:19.160 --> 00:04:21.079 students. I'm teaching the same kind of people 00:04:21.079 --> 00:04:23.879 as I taught at Kent. But it's a university that 00:04:23.879 --> 00:04:27.360 has benefited a lot over eight centuries of people 00:04:27.360 --> 00:04:30.620 leaving money, leaving assets and making it be, 00:04:30.680 --> 00:04:33.139 you know, the successful institution that it 00:04:33.139 --> 00:04:34.660 is. You know, there's a reason why Oxford is 00:04:34.660 --> 00:04:36.839 the best university in the world, because it's... 00:04:36.810 --> 00:04:38.649 It's got a lot more resources and a lot more 00:04:38.649 --> 00:04:40.870 friends and a lot more support. So here I am 00:04:40.870 --> 00:04:42.930 running one of the colleges. So that's my sort 00:04:42.930 --> 00:04:45.129 of story. And I suppose running all through that 00:04:45.129 --> 00:04:48.029 is that belief that there's more to the world 00:04:48.029 --> 00:04:49.970 than just business and states. You know, people 00:04:49.970 --> 00:04:52.149 see it as two sectors. If you've got a problem, 00:04:52.310 --> 00:04:55.089 can you sell me a solution or can I demand that 00:04:55.089 --> 00:04:57.350 government provide it? And sometimes those two 00:04:57.350 --> 00:05:00.019 solutions do work, but actually... Very often, 00:05:00.079 --> 00:05:02.980 it's the third sector that's there first tackling 00:05:02.980 --> 00:05:05.459 these issues or working alongside government 00:05:05.459 --> 00:05:08.019 or working alongside business and drawing attention 00:05:08.019 --> 00:05:10.500 to needs and meeting them more quickly, more 00:05:10.500 --> 00:05:13.319 innovatively. And so my purpose really is to 00:05:13.319 --> 00:05:15.240 draw attention to the importance of that sector, 00:05:15.319 --> 00:05:18.439 which is often hidden in plain sight. We just 00:05:18.439 --> 00:05:21.360 don't see. I used to set my students a challenge. 00:05:21.459 --> 00:05:23.120 Can you get through a day without benefiting 00:05:23.120 --> 00:05:25.600 in some way from philanthropy? And I don't personally 00:05:25.600 --> 00:05:27.600 believe you can because, you know, the clean 00:05:27.600 --> 00:05:29.259 air around you, the health. the benefits your 00:05:29.259 --> 00:05:32.300 kids in a nursery your elder parents in an elder 00:05:32.300 --> 00:05:34.879 institution it's all around us so I want to draw 00:05:34.879 --> 00:05:36.699 attention to it to encourage it and to improve 00:05:36.699 --> 00:05:40.160 it that's my purpose I think that people forget 00:05:40.160 --> 00:05:42.620 that it is all around us and it is a theme that 00:05:42.620 --> 00:05:44.759 runs through everything we do and it touches 00:05:44.759 --> 00:05:47.629 every story that we certainly been uncovering 00:05:47.629 --> 00:05:50.529 through the work that we do, is around a link 00:05:50.529 --> 00:05:52.610 back to somebody who just wanted to do good. 00:05:52.730 --> 00:05:55.750 They wanted to give back. And universities have 00:05:55.750 --> 00:05:58.750 that in droves. But as we know, there's been 00:05:58.750 --> 00:06:00.949 a big announcement this week around the Office 00:06:00.949 --> 00:06:04.610 for Impact from the government. And do you welcome 00:06:04.610 --> 00:06:07.410 that as an initiative to bring all that impact 00:06:07.410 --> 00:06:10.649 economy work together and philanthropy is included 00:06:10.649 --> 00:06:13.259 in that? I definitely welcome it. I mean, philanthropy 00:06:13.259 --> 00:06:15.779 needs friends and the charity sector needs friends. 00:06:15.899 --> 00:06:18.160 So if government wants to do more, and they've 00:06:18.160 --> 00:06:19.720 always done a lot, we shouldn't underestimate, 00:06:19.939 --> 00:06:21.920 you know, even just the tax breaks for giving 00:06:21.920 --> 00:06:23.740 and the regulation of charities. You know, there's 00:06:23.740 --> 00:06:26.279 plenty of ways in which the state enables the 00:06:26.279 --> 00:06:28.660 third sector. So that's a good thing. Would I 00:06:28.660 --> 00:06:30.879 call it the impact economy? Probably not. I'm 00:06:30.879 --> 00:06:32.860 not sure that's a phrase that many... donors 00:06:32.860 --> 00:06:34.860 use, that many fundraisers use, but I'm not someone 00:06:34.860 --> 00:06:37.519 who gets tied up too much in terminology. I think 00:06:37.519 --> 00:06:40.019 it's basically a euphemism for charity and philanthropy. 00:06:40.240 --> 00:06:42.019 And for whatever reason, it was felt that those 00:06:42.019 --> 00:06:44.860 words were not very 2025. And we'll get used 00:06:44.860 --> 00:06:48.939 to it. It's not an unfair title. I mean, it does 00:06:48.939 --> 00:06:51.079 have impact. It ought to have impact and positive 00:06:51.079 --> 00:06:54.019 impact. Let's see if it catches on. But no, I 00:06:54.019 --> 00:06:56.709 definitely welcome anything that... that enhances 00:06:56.709 --> 00:06:59.629 the strength of the relationship between government 00:06:59.629 --> 00:07:02.589 and charity. Because nothing important gets done 00:07:02.589 --> 00:07:04.930 with small amounts of money or small amounts 00:07:04.930 --> 00:07:07.230 of effort. It's always collaboration. So the 00:07:07.230 --> 00:07:09.370 more we can develop those strong relationships, 00:07:09.529 --> 00:07:12.959 the better. No, I totally agree. Let's just jump 00:07:12.959 --> 00:07:15.379 into Rich Expectations, which you've written 00:07:15.379 --> 00:07:19.360 with Rod Reid, Davies and Teresa Lloyd. So great 00:07:19.360 --> 00:07:22.300 to see that. And always good to reassure ourselves 00:07:22.300 --> 00:07:24.879 that as fundraisers, we're looking at the same 00:07:24.879 --> 00:07:27.259 kind of motivations when we talk to donors. And 00:07:27.259 --> 00:07:29.339 over the years, I've talked to so many different 00:07:29.339 --> 00:07:32.540 types of donors about. what motivates them. And 00:07:32.540 --> 00:07:35.639 sometimes it's quite simple things. You know, 00:07:35.660 --> 00:07:38.939 it's not as complicated as you think. But just 00:07:38.939 --> 00:07:42.920 talk to me a little bit about why you think identity 00:07:42.920 --> 00:07:45.480 and giving for those donors that you interviewed 00:07:45.480 --> 00:07:49.120 has become so closely tied to identity. What 00:07:49.120 --> 00:07:51.060 is that link? And do you want to unpack that 00:07:51.060 --> 00:07:54.509 a little bit more? Yeah, sure. So, I mean, this 00:07:54.509 --> 00:07:56.850 is a study that's now happened three times. It's 00:07:56.850 --> 00:07:59.370 three different books. But the basic methodology 00:07:59.370 --> 00:08:01.329 and goal of it is the same. We're trying to understand 00:08:01.329 --> 00:08:03.910 why rich people give. So the first iteration 00:08:03.910 --> 00:08:06.089 was done by Teresa Lloyd by herself in the early 00:08:06.089 --> 00:08:08.110 2000s. And the book's just called Why Rich People 00:08:08.110 --> 00:08:10.920 Give. And then 10 years later, I worked with 00:08:10.920 --> 00:08:13.980 Teresa to revisit half that sample and to interview 00:08:13.980 --> 00:08:17.439 and survey a fresh half. And then this last one 00:08:17.439 --> 00:08:20.839 is Rodri joining the gang and going back to 44 00:08:20.839 --> 00:08:22.800 of the people who were involved in one or both 00:08:22.800 --> 00:08:25.040 of the first two editions and then 44 new donors. 00:08:25.160 --> 00:08:27.220 And I think it's important to refresh the pool 00:08:27.220 --> 00:08:29.139 because things change. There's a lot more women 00:08:29.139 --> 00:08:31.500 now whose name is on Flamsby. I think they were 00:08:31.500 --> 00:08:33.240 always there. They just didn't always get the 00:08:33.240 --> 00:08:35.120 credit. But there's other kinds of wealth. So 00:08:35.120 --> 00:08:37.679 it's important to refresh that pool. But it's 00:08:37.679 --> 00:08:39.580 also important. to try and track changes over 00:08:39.580 --> 00:08:42.419 time so having that consistency over time is 00:08:42.419 --> 00:08:44.259 helpful i sometimes describe it as a bit like 00:08:44.259 --> 00:08:46.340 the seven up tv program you know you keep going 00:08:46.340 --> 00:08:48.279 back to the same kids every seven years well 00:08:48.279 --> 00:08:50.279 hopefully this will carry on keeping on going 00:08:50.279 --> 00:08:52.460 back to philanthropists every 10 years and we'll 00:08:52.460 --> 00:08:55.360 have a really good longitudinal study so one 00:08:55.360 --> 00:08:56.980 of the questions we ask them and the questions 00:08:56.980 --> 00:08:59.580 are pretty similar each year one of them we ask 00:08:59.580 --> 00:09:01.519 them is how important is philanthropy in your 00:09:01.519 --> 00:09:04.799 life and has it grown in importance and the good 00:09:04.799 --> 00:09:07.629 news is that they answer yes to both it's very 00:09:07.629 --> 00:09:09.690 important. And it's even more important now than 00:09:09.690 --> 00:09:11.889 the last time you asked me this question. So 00:09:11.889 --> 00:09:14.350 I think that that answers the first part of your 00:09:14.350 --> 00:09:16.250 question, that it really is part of people's 00:09:16.250 --> 00:09:18.070 identity. I'm not just someone who inherited 00:09:18.070 --> 00:09:20.169 a lot. I'm not just somebody who made a lot of 00:09:20.169 --> 00:09:22.590 money in business or won the lottery or had a 00:09:22.590 --> 00:09:24.769 big divorce settlement or whatever it might be. 00:09:25.149 --> 00:09:28.049 I guess I've accumulated wealth, but I'm also 00:09:28.049 --> 00:09:29.850 distributing wealth. And that really matters 00:09:29.850 --> 00:09:32.169 for their sense of self. And we call the book 00:09:32.169 --> 00:09:34.960 Rich Expectations because what came through really 00:09:34.960 --> 00:09:36.799 loud and clear is that they have an expectation 00:09:36.799 --> 00:09:39.360 of themselves that they will use some of that 00:09:39.360 --> 00:09:41.740 wealth for good. And they actually hold it of 00:09:41.740 --> 00:09:44.320 their friends and colleagues. And sometimes they 00:09:44.320 --> 00:09:46.200 struggle to understand why people of similar 00:09:46.200 --> 00:09:49.399 wealth are not also giving that money away. And 00:09:49.399 --> 00:09:51.159 there's quite a funny combination of sort of 00:09:51.159 --> 00:09:53.899 judgment and pity because they say, well, we 00:09:53.899 --> 00:09:55.580 know how much they've got about the same money 00:09:55.580 --> 00:09:57.899 as us and they're not giving that's wrong but 00:09:57.899 --> 00:09:59.799 also they're missing out they don't know how 00:09:59.799 --> 00:10:02.159 much fun it is they don't know how enriching 00:10:02.159 --> 00:10:04.080 to your life it is what interesting people you 00:10:04.080 --> 00:10:06.299 meet so it's quite and one went so far as to 00:10:06.299 --> 00:10:08.240 say I'm not really friends with the non -giving 00:10:08.240 --> 00:10:10.279 rich because I don't really you know I don't 00:10:10.279 --> 00:10:11.860 relate to them I don't understand where they're 00:10:11.860 --> 00:10:14.519 coming from so it definitely is very very important 00:10:14.519 --> 00:10:17.679 to their identity funnily enough though a lot 00:10:17.679 --> 00:10:20.019 of them don't like the word philanthropy they 00:10:20.019 --> 00:10:22.899 often reject that they think it sounds paternalistic 00:10:23.080 --> 00:10:26.710 Victorian or a bit self -aggrandizing and my 00:10:26.710 --> 00:10:29.389 best explanation for that is you don't tend to 00:10:29.389 --> 00:10:31.110 say you know my name's Beth and I'm really funny 00:10:31.110 --> 00:10:33.049 you know it's for other people to say you're 00:10:33.049 --> 00:10:34.789 funny in the same way you don't say my name's 00:10:34.789 --> 00:10:36.710 Bob and I'm a philanthropist it's for other people 00:10:36.710 --> 00:10:38.750 to say that you're so I don't think they mind 00:10:38.750 --> 00:10:41.590 it so much if other people apply it to them but 00:10:41.590 --> 00:10:43.490 very few of them walk around saying hey I'm a 00:10:43.490 --> 00:10:45.370 philanthropist because it it doesn't sit well 00:10:45.370 --> 00:10:47.110 especially in Britain maybe maybe in America 00:10:47.110 --> 00:10:49.490 somewhere else but the funniest explanation I 00:10:49.490 --> 00:10:51.769 got from one guy who said oh yeah I don't mind 00:10:51.769 --> 00:10:53.809 the word philanthropist because you always get 00:10:53.809 --> 00:10:55.350 mixed opinions you know these are just people 00:10:55.350 --> 00:10:57.730 and they have different opinions so just as some 00:10:57.730 --> 00:11:00.009 don't like it some do and this man said oh yeah 00:11:00.009 --> 00:11:02.870 i have it in my linkedin profile that i'm a philanthropist 00:11:02.870 --> 00:11:04.590 he said it's better than describing myself as 00:11:04.590 --> 00:11:06.450 a hedge funder which i thought was quite funny 00:11:06.450 --> 00:11:09.929 yeah i think it's i've had some really interesting 00:11:09.929 --> 00:11:12.710 conversations with donors over the years who 00:11:12.710 --> 00:11:15.659 i would In the negotiation and the discussion 00:11:15.659 --> 00:11:17.460 about things, we refer to their philanthropy 00:11:17.460 --> 00:11:20.700 or them being a regional philanthropist, particularly 00:11:20.700 --> 00:11:23.659 up north in Yorkshire, and they don't like it. 00:11:23.700 --> 00:11:26.519 It has sort of caveats, like almost calling them 00:11:26.519 --> 00:11:29.940 an influencer or something like that. So we've 00:11:29.940 --> 00:11:32.980 got to be careful. Is there a word that kind 00:11:32.980 --> 00:11:36.460 of lands or a terminology that's landed through 00:11:36.460 --> 00:11:39.080 this study that creates a new terminology around 00:11:39.080 --> 00:11:41.080 this? Yeah, I don't know that they're close to 00:11:41.080 --> 00:11:43.100 damage. Certainly people talk about giving. sharing 00:11:43.100 --> 00:11:47.179 is quite nice and I like sharing because they 00:11:47.179 --> 00:11:49.480 know that the money alone can't do very much. 00:11:49.679 --> 00:11:51.379 You know, you need someone to spend the money. 00:11:51.440 --> 00:11:53.840 And I think there's so many myths and misunderstandings 00:11:53.840 --> 00:11:56.179 of philanthropy. And one of them is quite how 00:11:56.179 --> 00:11:58.659 much power you have when you have money. Of course, 00:11:58.679 --> 00:12:00.100 you've got some power. No one's going to pretend 00:12:00.100 --> 00:12:01.960 you haven't. But, you know, you can have all 00:12:01.960 --> 00:12:03.340 the money in the world, but if you can't find 00:12:03.340 --> 00:12:05.039 a partner that you trust to spend that money 00:12:05.039 --> 00:12:07.259 well to achieve the thing you care about, it's 00:12:07.259 --> 00:12:09.419 highly unlikely that someone who's got the money 00:12:09.419 --> 00:12:11.259 can also, you know, do the science to find the 00:12:11.259 --> 00:12:13.799 cure to that illness or can run the project to, 00:12:13.899 --> 00:12:16.710 you know, end homelessness in that city. to find 00:12:16.710 --> 00:12:19.029 a partner to work with. And a lot of them do 00:12:19.029 --> 00:12:21.870 use that language of partnership. So I think 00:12:21.870 --> 00:12:24.830 sharing, generosity, caring, just being a good 00:12:24.830 --> 00:12:26.789 person, you know, sort of that's how they would 00:12:26.789 --> 00:12:28.669 see it as well, which again, I think speaks to 00:12:28.669 --> 00:12:31.370 how fundamental they see it. It's not really 00:12:31.370 --> 00:12:34.169 optional. Nobody wants to be a bad person. So 00:12:34.169 --> 00:12:36.389 if being a good person means sharing some of 00:12:36.389 --> 00:12:38.669 your wealth, then you're going to do it. And 00:12:38.669 --> 00:12:41.389 do you think that there's an emerging role for 00:12:41.389 --> 00:12:44.750 philanthropists, let's call them, but people 00:12:44.750 --> 00:12:47.909 who want to donate? they have a more proactive 00:12:47.909 --> 00:12:51.330 role in shaping the solutions to the problems 00:12:51.330 --> 00:12:54.129 so it's not just about giving cash or giving 00:12:54.129 --> 00:12:57.370 a check they want to work as you say in partnership 00:12:57.370 --> 00:13:00.169 to solve the problems through other things that 00:13:00.169 --> 00:13:01.889 they can do through their networks through their 00:13:01.889 --> 00:13:05.250 businesses is it emerging into something more 00:13:05.250 --> 00:13:08.929 embedded in terms of it's not just a transaction 00:13:08.929 --> 00:13:11.789 it's a it's an ethos it's let's work together 00:13:11.789 --> 00:13:13.970 on this Yeah, there's definitely some of that, 00:13:14.029 --> 00:13:16.049 but I think we have to always be careful of false 00:13:16.049 --> 00:13:18.049 binaries in philanthropy. It goes back to that 00:13:18.049 --> 00:13:20.710 thing about the misunderstandings and assumptions. 00:13:21.190 --> 00:13:23.190 One of them is, oh, in the past, people just 00:13:23.190 --> 00:13:24.889 used to sit in their armchair, you know, write 00:13:24.889 --> 00:13:27.450 a check, send it in and want nothing more to 00:13:27.450 --> 00:13:29.490 do with it. And there's really no historical 00:13:29.490 --> 00:13:31.669 evidence for that. You can look at Carnegie, 00:13:31.850 --> 00:13:33.990 who'd go in there and design his libraries, you 00:13:33.990 --> 00:13:35.529 know, decide what kind of motto should be on 00:13:35.529 --> 00:13:37.029 the outside and what kind of stonework it should 00:13:37.029 --> 00:13:39.129 be and what books would be in it. You know, people 00:13:39.129 --> 00:13:40.850 always got very involved because that's half 00:13:40.850 --> 00:13:43.350 the fun of philanthropy is. getting involved 00:13:43.350 --> 00:13:45.549 with the project so I'm not sure that there was 00:13:45.549 --> 00:13:47.750 some sort of mythical armchair checkbooking check 00:13:47.750 --> 00:13:50.190 writing donor in the past but I think it's definitely 00:13:50.190 --> 00:13:52.889 true to say that the forms of engagement are 00:13:52.889 --> 00:13:56.330 getting possibly more um sophisticated or more 00:13:56.330 --> 00:13:58.549 personalized you know a good fundraiser will 00:13:58.549 --> 00:14:00.389 work out well what kind of engagement do they 00:14:00.389 --> 00:14:03.029 want some some want stories you know they want 00:14:03.029 --> 00:14:04.909 to be told about somebody got helped last week 00:14:04.909 --> 00:14:06.610 and how their life was turned around and obviously 00:14:06.610 --> 00:14:08.870 anonymized if the beneficiaries are vulnerable 00:14:08.870 --> 00:14:11.070 but if they're not if it's a you know if it's 00:14:11.070 --> 00:14:13.210 a musician or a scholar then they'd like to meet 00:14:13.210 --> 00:14:15.210 them and have a relationship with them so there's 00:14:15.210 --> 00:14:17.929 that kind of very almost patronage type relationship 00:14:17.929 --> 00:14:20.149 which brings its own problems if both sides are 00:14:20.149 --> 00:14:22.389 not as comfortable meeting but in the ideal scenario 00:14:22.389 --> 00:14:25.299 they are other kinds of engagement might be becoming 00:14:25.299 --> 00:14:28.039 an expert on the topic you know it's there's 00:14:28.039 --> 00:14:30.679 something about getting to live another life 00:14:30.679 --> 00:14:32.620 you know you always fancied being i don't know 00:14:32.620 --> 00:14:35.769 an archaeology expert or a paleontologist But 00:14:35.769 --> 00:14:37.710 you chose to work in the city or you chose to 00:14:37.710 --> 00:14:40.110 work in the family business. But by supporting 00:14:40.110 --> 00:14:43.669 that world, you can get involved and hang out 00:14:43.669 --> 00:14:46.590 with other paleontologists or, you know, harpists 00:14:46.590 --> 00:14:48.549 or whatever that might be. So there's that kind 00:14:48.549 --> 00:14:50.929 of engagement that's almost like having a second 00:14:50.929 --> 00:14:53.090 life at the same time. So it really depends. 00:14:53.230 --> 00:14:55.830 I say good fundraiser works out. Do they want 00:14:55.830 --> 00:14:58.529 to, you know, see all the Excel sheets of the 00:14:58.529 --> 00:15:00.289 data and what have you? Or do they more just 00:15:00.289 --> 00:15:02.529 want to be around the culture of this institution 00:15:02.529 --> 00:15:04.649 and have relationships with the people who are 00:15:04.649 --> 00:15:07.269 involved? So working out what kind of engagement 00:15:07.269 --> 00:15:10.289 is quite crucial to good major donor fundraising. 00:15:10.549 --> 00:15:12.149 Is there something here about the purpose of 00:15:12.149 --> 00:15:15.129 a fundraiser and the role that they play in that? 00:15:15.250 --> 00:15:17.649 And any reflections on that from you as somebody 00:15:17.649 --> 00:15:20.750 who's been a fundraiser in the past, but more 00:15:20.750 --> 00:15:23.429 on an academic side? No, absolutely. I love that 00:15:23.429 --> 00:15:25.470 question because I think it's very easy to forget 00:15:25.470 --> 00:15:28.730 that the fundraiser is so crucial to all of this. 00:15:28.830 --> 00:15:31.990 And I love thinking about fundraisers. Being 00:15:31.990 --> 00:15:33.690 a fundraiser, I sometimes use the word we when 00:15:33.690 --> 00:15:35.649 I'm talking about them anyway, because I think 00:15:35.649 --> 00:15:38.250 it's a fascinating role to basically organise 00:15:38.250 --> 00:15:40.950 and choreograph generosity. You know, most gifts 00:15:40.950 --> 00:15:43.590 are asked for before they're given. You know, 00:15:43.590 --> 00:15:46.289 I challenge people to give me many examples where 00:15:46.289 --> 00:15:48.110 the gift just came completely out of the blue. 00:15:48.370 --> 00:15:50.470 Even if it felt like that, there must have been 00:15:50.470 --> 00:15:52.929 some work done to make the donor aware that this 00:15:52.929 --> 00:15:54.610 charity existed and that would fall under the 00:15:54.610 --> 00:15:57.980 fundraising function. So I'm fascinated by fundraisers 00:15:57.980 --> 00:15:59.759 and what kind of people do this work. And one 00:15:59.759 --> 00:16:01.980 of the findings from research I've done into 00:16:01.980 --> 00:16:04.340 the fundraising profession is actually they share 00:16:04.340 --> 00:16:06.980 many of the same characteristics as the philanthropists, 00:16:06.980 --> 00:16:08.759 the donors that they're working with. They just 00:16:08.759 --> 00:16:10.840 have a smaller bank account. But in all other 00:16:10.840 --> 00:16:13.399 regards, they're very similar. They care passionately 00:16:13.399 --> 00:16:15.539 about the cause. They want to make a difference 00:16:15.539 --> 00:16:17.299 in the world. They're fundamentally optimistic. 00:16:17.539 --> 00:16:20.019 They think a change can be made. They're often 00:16:20.019 --> 00:16:22.059 quite dynamic and energetic. They're learning 00:16:22.059 --> 00:16:24.539 new stuff. They're happy with every day being 00:16:24.539 --> 00:16:26.600 a bit different. So there's lots of, it's one 00:16:26.600 --> 00:16:28.539 of the reasons that relationships can be so much 00:16:28.539 --> 00:16:30.100 fun because you're actually talking about fairly 00:16:30.100 --> 00:16:32.700 similar people if you think of the caricature 00:16:32.700 --> 00:16:36.080 of a fundraiser. So I think we should never underestimate 00:16:36.080 --> 00:16:38.779 the role and the impact of fundraisers, even 00:16:38.779 --> 00:16:42.340 if they're a bit invisible. There's lots of blue 00:16:42.340 --> 00:16:45.980 plaques and naming of tributes to philanthropists, 00:16:46.000 --> 00:16:47.679 but have you ever seen a blue plaque to a fundraiser? 00:16:47.820 --> 00:16:50.620 I mean, they're not thought of, they're not on 00:16:50.620 --> 00:16:53.500 the radar. But I remember some of the fundraisers 00:16:53.500 --> 00:16:55.379 I interviewed talked about that. quite explicitly 00:16:55.379 --> 00:16:57.870 and this is for research i did for a book called 00:16:57.870 --> 00:17:00.309 the new fundraisers and this particular guy had 00:17:00.309 --> 00:17:02.350 raised a lot of money for a medical research 00:17:02.350 --> 00:17:06.369 charity and he said one day there will be a cure 00:17:06.369 --> 00:17:08.930 for this illness he said and the scientists will 00:17:08.930 --> 00:17:11.349 get the nobel prize but we will sit here in our 00:17:11.349 --> 00:17:13.130 fundraising office in the basement and we will 00:17:13.130 --> 00:17:15.450 toast the success and we'll know the part we 00:17:15.450 --> 00:17:17.609 played in it and i always that always stayed 00:17:17.609 --> 00:17:19.769 with me and he didn't say in any sort of pitying 00:17:19.769 --> 00:17:21.789 way he was just very happy to have played his 00:17:21.789 --> 00:17:23.789 part and he didn't need the public recognition 00:17:23.789 --> 00:17:25.569 and that's one of the reasons i love fundraising 00:17:25.769 --> 00:17:27.230 Yeah, that's a really good point. I think there's 00:17:27.230 --> 00:17:29.769 something there about the... Somebody said to 00:17:29.769 --> 00:17:32.470 me that they recently stepped into a different 00:17:32.470 --> 00:17:34.349 role, but they reflected a lot on their role 00:17:34.349 --> 00:17:37.470 as a fundraiser and how you give a lot of yourself 00:17:37.470 --> 00:17:39.890 over without thinking about it because it's your 00:17:39.890 --> 00:17:43.009 duty as a fundraiser to make this work. That 00:17:43.009 --> 00:17:46.130 amazing academic research matched up with a brilliant 00:17:46.130 --> 00:17:48.630 donor who just gets it. That synergy, if you 00:17:48.630 --> 00:17:52.529 can create it, is so magical. But as a fundraiser, 00:17:52.549 --> 00:17:56.240 you are... you often have to take, stand back 00:17:56.240 --> 00:17:59.119 and take stock about the emotional energy imbued 00:17:59.119 --> 00:18:02.000 in that. But ultimately, I think there's a real 00:18:02.000 --> 00:18:04.420 privilege about being able to navigate those 00:18:04.420 --> 00:18:07.140 different worlds and be at the intersection of 00:18:07.140 --> 00:18:12.039 that space is quite a special thing as a professional. 00:18:13.850 --> 00:18:15.950 Yeah, no, you describe it beautifully. And I 00:18:15.950 --> 00:18:18.710 think the best word I can think of for what is 00:18:18.710 --> 00:18:20.809 it actually fundraisers do is they look for alignment. 00:18:21.049 --> 00:18:23.390 And other people use this word as well. But it's 00:18:23.390 --> 00:18:25.250 not about persuasion. It's not about begging. 00:18:25.369 --> 00:18:26.950 It's not about getting someone to do something 00:18:26.950 --> 00:18:28.609 they don't want to do, because you can't actually 00:18:28.609 --> 00:18:30.910 do that, especially very powerful, very rich 00:18:30.910 --> 00:18:33.230 people. You can't get them to trick them into 00:18:33.230 --> 00:18:36.079 giving you a donation. people who don't understand 00:18:36.079 --> 00:18:38.440 fundraising often imagine is going on. You're 00:18:38.440 --> 00:18:40.660 looking to align somebody who wants to make a 00:18:40.660 --> 00:18:42.160 certain change in the world or who's worried 00:18:42.160 --> 00:18:44.339 about a certain cause or who wants to stop a 00:18:44.339 --> 00:18:46.420 change happening, whatever that might be, with 00:18:46.420 --> 00:18:50.259 an organisation that has the army on the ground, 00:18:50.339 --> 00:18:52.759 the foot power to make that happen. And so you're 00:18:52.759 --> 00:18:54.099 looking for that alignment and it's bringing 00:18:54.099 --> 00:18:55.539 them together. And then, of course, you're building 00:18:55.539 --> 00:18:57.339 trust that actually this money will be spent 00:18:57.339 --> 00:18:59.779 well. And the trust should go both ways. The 00:18:59.779 --> 00:19:01.920 recipient charity needs to trust that this donor 00:19:01.920 --> 00:19:04.180 is going to act respectfully and going to acknowledge 00:19:04.180 --> 00:19:05.660 their expertise. expertise and give them the 00:19:05.660 --> 00:19:07.839 kind of funding they need which is the right 00:19:07.839 --> 00:19:09.599 amount you know don't give us too little and 00:19:09.599 --> 00:19:12.839 then have you know unrealistic expectations but 00:19:12.839 --> 00:19:15.240 also if you can give it unrestricted and give 00:19:15.240 --> 00:19:17.599 it over a longer period of time so again the 00:19:17.599 --> 00:19:19.680 reason we use the word expectations in the title 00:19:19.680 --> 00:19:22.140 of the book rich expectations is because there's 00:19:22.140 --> 00:19:24.319 all these expectations that exist on all sides 00:19:24.319 --> 00:19:26.940 that the donors have of themselves that people 00:19:26.940 --> 00:19:29.299 have about rich people the expectations that 00:19:29.299 --> 00:19:31.180 the donors have about the charities they support 00:19:31.180 --> 00:19:34.259 and vice versa There's expectations that politicians 00:19:34.259 --> 00:19:36.599 and governments have about the role rich people 00:19:36.599 --> 00:19:39.039 will pay and again, vice versa. And most of these 00:19:39.039 --> 00:19:42.519 expectations are unstated, implicit. And I think 00:19:42.519 --> 00:19:45.240 when things go wrong, that's why. It's because 00:19:45.240 --> 00:19:48.279 people have made assumptions about motivation 00:19:48.279 --> 00:19:50.420 or how a charity should act. And I think if we 00:19:50.420 --> 00:19:52.839 could all just be a bit more explicit about what 00:19:52.839 --> 00:19:55.779 we need and hope for, we can perhaps avoid some 00:19:55.779 --> 00:19:58.920 of those things going wrong. Could Brits, for 00:19:58.920 --> 00:20:01.539 instance, be better at asking and better at... 00:20:01.660 --> 00:20:03.839 discussing these issues? Because I think that's 00:20:03.839 --> 00:20:06.279 a really interesting space that we're in as a 00:20:06.279 --> 00:20:08.740 country, as we look at the role of the impact 00:20:08.740 --> 00:20:11.500 economy. Is there something that we can be better 00:20:11.500 --> 00:20:14.099 at in comparison to our friends across the pond? 00:20:14.720 --> 00:20:18.000 Because Americans are much better at this than 00:20:18.000 --> 00:20:20.180 us. Yeah, I mean, we've got a double problem. 00:20:20.380 --> 00:20:22.440 We don't like talking about money and we don't 00:20:22.440 --> 00:20:24.519 like talking about morals. And philanthropy exists 00:20:24.519 --> 00:20:26.900 at the intersection of those two things. So it's 00:20:26.900 --> 00:20:28.839 really hard to talk about if you're a classic 00:20:28.839 --> 00:20:32.039 Brit. You've got to say not only have I got money 00:20:32.039 --> 00:20:34.420 or I've got views about how money is used, but 00:20:34.420 --> 00:20:36.619 I'm going to talk about the values that lie behind 00:20:36.619 --> 00:20:38.779 how I use this money. You know, I think it matters 00:20:38.779 --> 00:20:41.519 that people are, you know, have enough food or 00:20:41.519 --> 00:20:43.220 I think it matters that people have these kind 00:20:43.220 --> 00:20:45.579 of opportunities in life. So these are not easy 00:20:45.579 --> 00:20:47.579 things to say in a culture that doesn't really 00:20:47.579 --> 00:20:50.539 love sort of Pollyannas and do -gooders and tall 00:20:50.539 --> 00:20:52.180 poppies or whatever else you call them. It's 00:20:52.180 --> 00:20:55.019 actually weirdly easier to be sort of cynical 00:20:55.019 --> 00:20:57.519 and, you know, not do good because you don't 00:20:57.519 --> 00:21:00.529 then set yourself up for sort of... criticism 00:21:00.529 --> 00:21:02.950 and ridicule. So I think that's all tied up in 00:21:02.950 --> 00:21:07.400 why people worry about. On the good news side, 00:21:07.640 --> 00:21:09.680 one of the questions we've asked across time 00:21:09.680 --> 00:21:12.420 in this study is, do you think sort of public 00:21:12.420 --> 00:21:14.619 understanding and the profile of philanthropy 00:21:14.619 --> 00:21:18.299 has increased? And it's slowly there. And people 00:21:18.299 --> 00:21:20.460 say, yeah, you know, certainly people talk about 00:21:20.460 --> 00:21:22.500 it and know about it. And they attribute it to 00:21:22.500 --> 00:21:24.180 things like more philanthropists being willing 00:21:24.180 --> 00:21:27.279 to tell their stories. And it's so simple. But 00:21:27.279 --> 00:21:29.940 if nobody would ever share, you know, I gave 00:21:29.940 --> 00:21:31.839 a million pounds and this is why I did it. And 00:21:31.839 --> 00:21:33.539 this is what went well. And this is why I'm glad 00:21:33.539 --> 00:21:36.089 I did it. If no one ever told those stories, 00:21:36.170 --> 00:21:39.289 then you never get to establish norms. It seems 00:21:39.289 --> 00:21:42.029 very unusual then to do it. But if you've got 00:21:42.029 --> 00:21:44.170 lots of regular stories of people talking about 00:21:44.170 --> 00:21:46.329 their giving, then when somebody has got some 00:21:46.329 --> 00:21:48.309 money to spare, they've got lots of points of 00:21:48.309 --> 00:21:50.890 reference to refer to. And they might have even 00:21:50.890 --> 00:21:52.250 heard of some of those people. They might be 00:21:52.250 --> 00:21:54.349 in their social circle. So that's what people 00:21:54.349 --> 00:21:56.650 like us to do when we've made some money. So 00:21:56.650 --> 00:21:59.089 much as people tend to validate the anonymous 00:21:59.089 --> 00:22:01.809 donor and say it's much better to give anonymously. 00:22:01.849 --> 00:22:03.789 And that's people's choice. In some religions, 00:22:03.910 --> 00:22:05.650 for example, that's the right way to give. But 00:22:05.650 --> 00:22:08.190 we do need a few donors to talk about it and 00:22:08.190 --> 00:22:10.849 to go public. And so it's quite reassuring to 00:22:10.849 --> 00:22:13.130 see that that was definitely having the positive 00:22:13.130 --> 00:22:14.990 effect that we hoped for. No, I agree. I think 00:22:14.990 --> 00:22:17.609 if every organisation who's actively fundraising 00:22:17.609 --> 00:22:20.450 took 10 stories a year and just pumped them out 00:22:20.450 --> 00:22:23.410 through social media and donors were happy to, 00:22:23.450 --> 00:22:26.079 you know... I suppose there's something here 00:22:26.079 --> 00:22:29.740 about leadership for leaders who are philanthropic 00:22:29.740 --> 00:22:32.559 minded. So we want to see more of that. We need 00:22:32.559 --> 00:22:34.500 to see more of it. Switch the lights on on it. 00:22:34.920 --> 00:22:36.740 Is there something here about public trust as 00:22:36.740 --> 00:22:38.819 well? So, you know, we're in that world where 00:22:38.819 --> 00:22:42.339 there's a lot of chatter. There's a lot of negativity 00:22:42.339 --> 00:22:45.359 out there on social media, a lot of division. 00:22:46.019 --> 00:22:50.680 How do we build philanthropy into that space 00:22:50.680 --> 00:22:54.460 around public? Yeah, I think, I mean, this is 00:22:54.460 --> 00:22:56.059 something I think about and worry about quite 00:22:56.059 --> 00:22:58.640 a lot because I think a lot of the criticisms 00:22:58.640 --> 00:23:01.779 of philanthropy are not really about the giving 00:23:01.779 --> 00:23:03.799 rich. They're about just the possession of wealth. 00:23:03.980 --> 00:23:06.960 You know, people worry understandably about the 00:23:06.960 --> 00:23:09.119 grown division between rich and poor, the extreme 00:23:09.119 --> 00:23:11.759 accumulation of wealth, especially in the US, 00:23:11.839 --> 00:23:14.579 but in other countries too. And so all of their 00:23:14.579 --> 00:23:17.380 concerns and worries about that get... targeted 00:23:17.380 --> 00:23:19.259 on philanthropy because they're the only rich 00:23:19.259 --> 00:23:21.240 they've ever heard of and so one of the things 00:23:21.240 --> 00:23:23.099 i've done when i've given talks is shown a picture 00:23:23.099 --> 00:23:24.680 of you know a bunch of billionaires who've all 00:23:24.680 --> 00:23:26.839 got whose surname begins with you know b and 00:23:26.839 --> 00:23:28.640 said which of them do you know and the only one 00:23:28.640 --> 00:23:30.559 they know is richard branson they don't know 00:23:30.559 --> 00:23:32.299 the other bees who are living quietly at home 00:23:32.299 --> 00:23:34.220 with their fleet of vintage cars and their private 00:23:34.220 --> 00:23:37.440 jet and their you know 10 mansions so it's actually 00:23:37.440 --> 00:23:40.819 strategically not a great idea to be philanthropic 00:23:40.819 --> 00:23:42.539 if you care about your public reputation because 00:23:42.539 --> 00:23:45.180 you are setting yourself up for criticism and 00:23:45.180 --> 00:23:47.819 ridicule so And I think we, as a society, we 00:23:47.819 --> 00:23:50.339 need to ask ourselves, is that a sensible strategy 00:23:50.339 --> 00:23:54.019 to critique people who give, even if those critiques 00:23:54.019 --> 00:23:56.500 have got some... kernel of justification in them, 00:23:56.539 --> 00:23:59.039 because what's the end result? If you're a bit 00:23:59.039 --> 00:24:00.640 worried, well, they get to choose this cause 00:24:00.640 --> 00:24:02.039 and not that cause, well, that's fair enough. 00:24:02.440 --> 00:24:05.099 But if you end up encouraging people to think, 00:24:05.160 --> 00:24:06.779 I'll just keep my head down, I'll just keep the 00:24:06.779 --> 00:24:08.380 money in the bank, I'll pass it on to my kids, 00:24:08.440 --> 00:24:10.140 because whatever I give to somebody is going 00:24:10.140 --> 00:24:11.680 to have an opinion that I shouldn't have given 00:24:11.680 --> 00:24:13.240 to that cause, I shouldn't have given that much 00:24:13.240 --> 00:24:15.759 or what have you. So I would much rather we lived 00:24:15.759 --> 00:24:18.740 in a society that best celebrated philanthropy, 00:24:19.039 --> 00:24:21.140 but at the very least didn't criticise it and 00:24:21.140 --> 00:24:23.119 realise that you don't encourage people to do 00:24:23.119 --> 00:24:26.059 things if you pick. pick away at it I think that's 00:24:26.059 --> 00:24:28.599 not helpful and you know I don't think those 00:24:28.599 --> 00:24:31.160 who already give are that affected by it I think 00:24:31.160 --> 00:24:33.200 that they understand they enjoy their philanthropy 00:24:33.200 --> 00:24:34.920 they get to meet interesting people they feel 00:24:34.920 --> 00:24:37.240 their their life is being well lived so if you're 00:24:37.240 --> 00:24:39.420 already a philanthropist I think it's it's probably 00:24:39.420 --> 00:24:41.059 a bit annoying one of them said to me you know 00:24:41.059 --> 00:24:43.319 whatever you do they'll they'll criticize it's 00:24:43.319 --> 00:24:44.839 only when you're dead you get an obituary that 00:24:44.839 --> 00:24:46.680 says you know points out your philanthropy so 00:24:46.680 --> 00:24:48.519 which I thought was quite a quite a sad thing 00:24:48.519 --> 00:24:50.500 to say but you know nonetheless they sort of 00:24:50.500 --> 00:24:52.640 said it with a twinkle in their eye My worry 00:24:52.640 --> 00:24:54.440 is the people who haven't started giving yet, 00:24:54.460 --> 00:24:56.480 who haven't made a fortune in business, who haven't 00:24:56.480 --> 00:24:59.440 inherited, you know, who is just not on the radar. 00:25:00.119 --> 00:25:02.519 at the point at which they have that wealth in 00:25:02.519 --> 00:25:04.640 their possession, would they think, oh, I know, 00:25:04.700 --> 00:25:06.539 I'll be a philanthropist because that goes down 00:25:06.539 --> 00:25:09.039 well, you know, because then people will think 00:25:09.039 --> 00:25:10.940 well of me. And it's not really a joke because 00:25:10.940 --> 00:25:13.339 there are people saying, I just, I don't want 00:25:13.339 --> 00:25:15.380 to risk my kids getting grief. I don't want people 00:25:15.380 --> 00:25:17.400 thinking I'm a tax dodger. I don't want people 00:25:17.400 --> 00:25:19.720 thinking I'm hugely egotistical. I just want 00:25:19.720 --> 00:25:22.640 to do good. But if I'm a philanthropist, I know 00:25:22.640 --> 00:25:25.220 I'm going to attract these comments. So that's 00:25:25.220 --> 00:25:28.599 why I talk a lot about us being, you know, encouraging 00:25:28.599 --> 00:25:30.480 and celebrating. all kinds of giving and maybe 00:25:30.480 --> 00:25:33.000 holding back on some of the criticisms that we 00:25:33.000 --> 00:25:35.519 think we want to make can you be a philanthropist 00:25:35.519 --> 00:25:40.079 but not be wealthy of course oh my goodness i'm 00:25:40.079 --> 00:25:42.200 so glad you asked that because you know the trouble 00:25:42.200 --> 00:25:44.440 is i've studied major donor philanthropy and 00:25:44.440 --> 00:25:47.160 the new book is about rich donors so my kind 00:25:47.160 --> 00:25:50.480 of inclination is to talk about the richer donors 00:25:50.480 --> 00:25:52.599 but no absolutely the word philanthropist just 00:25:52.599 --> 00:25:56.200 means love of humankind so philo love of anthropos 00:25:56.200 --> 00:25:58.960 humankind you can love other people in so many 00:25:58.960 --> 00:26:01.819 ways with a smile by opening a door by being 00:26:01.819 --> 00:26:04.859 good company and by volunteering by you know 00:26:04.859 --> 00:26:08.039 offering expert help and by being giving moral 00:26:08.039 --> 00:26:10.400 support there are so so many ways you can help 00:26:10.400 --> 00:26:13.480 other than giving money Interestingly, these 00:26:13.480 --> 00:26:15.920 things tend to go together. People who volunteer 00:26:15.920 --> 00:26:18.880 tend to also donate. People who give blood tend 00:26:18.880 --> 00:26:22.579 to also be sort of helpful financially. So these 00:26:22.579 --> 00:26:24.700 things do tend to go. Once you realize there's 00:26:24.700 --> 00:26:26.799 a world beyond your door and you've got agency 00:26:26.799 --> 00:26:29.440 to help, people tend to help in multiple ways. 00:26:29.660 --> 00:26:32.279 But no, I don't like the claiming of the word 00:26:32.279 --> 00:26:34.279 philanthropy just for elites. I would like to 00:26:34.279 --> 00:26:35.640 reclaim it for all of us. Yeah, no, I agree. 00:26:35.819 --> 00:26:37.940 And so the takeaways from the book for me are 00:26:37.940 --> 00:26:40.630 that donor profile is changing the demographics 00:26:40.630 --> 00:26:43.029 are changing that's kind of interesting do you 00:26:43.029 --> 00:26:45.849 think about what future philanthropists might 00:26:45.849 --> 00:26:50.170 look like and the sorts of things there are the 00:26:50.170 --> 00:26:52.589 positives there in in the work and the research 00:26:52.589 --> 00:26:54.990 that you've done yeah sure so there's definitely 00:26:54.990 --> 00:26:57.630 the feminization of wealth which has been happening 00:26:57.630 --> 00:26:59.569 for you know a while and is now is affecting 00:26:59.569 --> 00:27:02.490 philanthropy so the first A set of interviewees 00:27:02.490 --> 00:27:05.589 in the early 2000s were predominantly male and 00:27:05.589 --> 00:27:08.730 were getting much closer now to 50 -50. I think 00:27:08.730 --> 00:27:11.369 that's partly women being more willing to stake 00:27:11.369 --> 00:27:13.289 a claim and say, no, actually, this is our money, 00:27:13.349 --> 00:27:15.829 not just his money. So it's not necessarily that 00:27:15.829 --> 00:27:17.529 money is in different places. It's just being 00:27:17.529 --> 00:27:19.910 claimed more. But there's definitely more female 00:27:19.910 --> 00:27:22.730 entrepreneurs. So they're making more money through 00:27:22.730 --> 00:27:25.130 business. There's definitely changes in inheritance 00:27:25.130 --> 00:27:28.069 patterns where daughters are getting similar 00:27:28.069 --> 00:27:30.470 amounts to sons. So that changes some of these 00:27:30.470 --> 00:27:32.160 things. And then there's divorce settlements 00:27:32.160 --> 00:27:33.980 that are taking into account the role of the 00:27:33.980 --> 00:27:36.140 partner who maybe wasn't in the business, but 00:27:36.140 --> 00:27:37.640 certainly played a role in that wealth being 00:27:37.640 --> 00:27:39.839 created with Mackenzie Scott and Jeff Bezos being 00:27:39.839 --> 00:27:43.440 the most obvious example of that. And then Mackenzie 00:27:43.440 --> 00:27:45.380 Scott has gone on to become quite a role model 00:27:45.380 --> 00:27:47.119 for giving in a different way, you know, getting 00:27:47.119 --> 00:27:49.559 the money out fast, giving it without strings 00:27:49.559 --> 00:27:52.240 attached, giving it unrestricted. So it's quite 00:27:52.240 --> 00:27:54.420 interesting to see not just the profiles of the 00:27:54.420 --> 00:27:56.599 donors changing, but how they give. There's a 00:27:56.599 --> 00:27:58.079 lot of talk about trust -based philanthropy, 00:27:58.259 --> 00:28:00.500 about participatory grant making. speaking so 00:28:00.500 --> 00:28:02.660 I think there's a real push towards doing it 00:28:02.660 --> 00:28:05.500 better and I'm definitely delighted to see that 00:28:05.500 --> 00:28:07.720 it's not just about larger and larger sums people 00:28:07.720 --> 00:28:10.160 can get very hung up on well how much was given 00:28:10.160 --> 00:28:12.160 and of course that matters you can do more with 00:28:12.160 --> 00:28:14.920 more money but it also matters how how it's given 00:28:14.920 --> 00:28:17.339 and if it's given more strategically and also 00:28:17.339 --> 00:28:19.140 if it's given more thoughtfully you know with 00:28:19.140 --> 00:28:21.460 empathy what what what does this charity actually 00:28:21.460 --> 00:28:24.240 need how can I be a good funder how can I not 00:28:24.240 --> 00:28:27.039 cause them more stress and then that's a good 00:28:27.039 --> 00:28:28.779 thing as well and one of the reasons I think 00:28:28.779 --> 00:28:32.000 that's happened is the role of advisors and other 00:28:32.000 --> 00:28:34.400 kinds of intermediaries. So when we began the 00:28:34.400 --> 00:28:37.420 study, very, very few of our interviewees had 00:28:37.420 --> 00:28:40.279 had any sort of formal philanthropic advice or 00:28:40.279 --> 00:28:42.660 support. It just didn't really exist in the 2000s. 00:28:42.700 --> 00:28:45.579 By the 2010s, people were getting advice from 00:28:45.579 --> 00:28:47.480 their banks. So Coots Bank were the first to 00:28:47.480 --> 00:28:48.980 offer philanthropy advice, and then all the other 00:28:48.980 --> 00:28:51.500 banks followed quite soon after. But in this 00:28:51.500 --> 00:28:55.319 latest iteration, 53 % had either taken philanthropy 00:28:55.319 --> 00:28:57.759 advice or were about to do so. That's about 10 00:28:57.759 --> 00:29:00.269 % were about to. do so so it's now normal it's 00:29:00.269 --> 00:29:02.250 now normal to get advice whether that's from 00:29:02.250 --> 00:29:04.549 a non -profit provider like a community foundation 00:29:04.549 --> 00:29:07.190 or the Charities Aid Foundation or paying for 00:29:07.190 --> 00:29:09.069 it from an independent philanthropy advisor and 00:29:09.069 --> 00:29:10.470 of course if you pay for something you value 00:29:10.470 --> 00:29:12.869 it more so we found that of those who did take 00:29:12.869 --> 00:29:14.970 advice two -thirds said it had affected their 00:29:14.970 --> 00:29:18.170 giving and the way it affected it was either 00:29:18.170 --> 00:29:20.690 more strategic or more sort of thoughtful and 00:29:20.690 --> 00:29:23.029 empathic so these are all real positives that 00:29:23.029 --> 00:29:24.529 happen in the world of philanthropy so I think 00:29:24.529 --> 00:29:27.160 we can hopefully all feel good about those. No, 00:29:27.180 --> 00:29:29.559 absolutely. And I think it's really great to 00:29:29.559 --> 00:29:31.660 be able to get into the detail of that and into 00:29:31.660 --> 00:29:34.319 the kind of weeds, if you must use that term, 00:29:34.380 --> 00:29:37.880 around the motivations. Because often we don't, 00:29:37.880 --> 00:29:41.039 as you say, we don't talk about it enough. And 00:29:41.039 --> 00:29:43.640 it's always a very personal thing. We need to 00:29:43.640 --> 00:29:47.339 be able to share and talk about why giving is 00:29:47.339 --> 00:29:50.720 such an important part of our lives. whoever 00:29:50.720 --> 00:29:53.039 we are, whatever our background? Well, I hope 00:29:53.039 --> 00:29:55.700 that the study continues. I may or may not be 00:29:55.700 --> 00:29:58.319 involved in 10 years time. So, but I hope that 00:29:58.319 --> 00:30:01.400 somebody goes back and continues the study. I'd 00:30:01.400 --> 00:30:03.579 say the book ends with two chapters that are 00:30:03.579 --> 00:30:05.720 the kind of the so what chapters. So we've got, 00:30:05.740 --> 00:30:09.220 it begins with a very nice chapter written largely 00:30:09.220 --> 00:30:12.440 by Rodri about developments in the world of philanthropy 00:30:12.440 --> 00:30:14.240 in the broader context. That's really nice scene 00:30:14.240 --> 00:30:16.039 setting for all of us to bear in mind. I mean, 00:30:16.039 --> 00:30:17.819 a lot happened in the last 10 years, whether 00:30:17.819 --> 00:30:20.200 it was COVID lockdowns or political change or 00:30:20.200 --> 00:30:21.940 you know a lot's happened and philanthropy is 00:30:21.940 --> 00:30:23.539 always a product of its time so that's a really 00:30:23.539 --> 00:30:25.759 useful kind of recap then there's all the data 00:30:25.759 --> 00:30:28.279 presentation you know how why do people give 00:30:28.279 --> 00:30:30.019 how do they give whose thoughts they're giving 00:30:30.019 --> 00:30:32.079 but I think I'd probably end by drawing attention 00:30:32.079 --> 00:30:34.119 to the last two chapters and the first of those 00:30:34.119 --> 00:30:36.480 was written mostly by Teresa Lloyd and that's 00:30:36.480 --> 00:30:39.059 the takeaways for fundraisers and charities you 00:30:39.059 --> 00:30:41.180 know what does all this mean how can you apply 00:30:41.180 --> 00:30:44.400 it in your in your efforts to you know recruit 00:30:44.400 --> 00:30:47.380 and retain donors and that's chapter nine and 00:30:47.380 --> 00:30:49.279 then chapter 10 is actually not written by any 00:30:49.279 --> 00:30:51.440 of us you may be surprised to hear it's written 00:30:51.440 --> 00:30:54.259 by a coalition of people who've drafted the national 00:30:54.259 --> 00:30:57.539 draft national strategy on policy on philanthropy 00:30:57.539 --> 00:30:59.880 and really what we tried to what they've tried 00:30:59.880 --> 00:31:02.140 to do is pull together all the ideas all the 00:31:02.140 --> 00:31:03.660 different bodies have got about how you could 00:31:03.660 --> 00:31:05.960 strengthen philanthropy in the UK and instead 00:31:05.960 --> 00:31:08.079 of everybody having their own list that they're 00:31:08.079 --> 00:31:09.660 lobbying government for or that they're trying 00:31:09.660 --> 00:31:11.599 to persuade the public to do or that they're 00:31:11.599 --> 00:31:13.839 trying to get journalists to care about if you 00:31:13.839 --> 00:31:16.200 have 10 different voices you're always weaker 00:31:16.200 --> 00:31:19.150 so what's been wonderful the Charities Aid Foundation 00:31:19.150 --> 00:31:21.190 and Beacon Collaborative and a couple of others 00:31:21.190 --> 00:31:22.609 have said, let's just pull it together and have 00:31:22.609 --> 00:31:25.750 one set of recommendations, one plan for philanthropy. 00:31:26.109 --> 00:31:28.589 And so we gave chapter 10 over to that document 00:31:28.589 --> 00:31:31.430 and said, here's what that collective group says. 00:31:31.589 --> 00:31:33.809 And one of the recommendations in that is to 00:31:33.809 --> 00:31:36.049 have a champion in government. So it looks like 00:31:36.049 --> 00:31:39.890 that strategy is working, having a shared approach 00:31:39.890 --> 00:31:43.470 to asking for a better, a more conducive environment 00:31:43.470 --> 00:31:46.210 for philanthropy. So I think the book contains 00:31:46.210 --> 00:31:48.890 an awful lot. within its two covers and I hope 00:31:48.890 --> 00:31:50.839 people find it useful and interesting. Thank 00:31:50.839 --> 00:31:53.759 you very much, Beth. It's wonderful to see you 00:31:53.759 --> 00:31:56.680 again. Congratulations on the new role. The book 00:31:56.680 --> 00:31:58.839 is available through the Directory for Social 00:31:58.839 --> 00:32:02.019 Change, I think. Correct. That's right. Great 00:32:02.019 --> 00:32:04.259 publisher, DSC. They publish all kinds of other 00:32:04.259 --> 00:32:06.299 books as well. And they're a non -profit publisher. 00:32:06.400 --> 00:32:07.980 That was very important to us to publish with 00:32:07.980 --> 00:32:09.740 them. So do take a look at their website. Thank 00:32:09.740 --> 00:32:11.480 you. That's a call out for the readers and the 00:32:11.480 --> 00:32:13.920 listeners. Thank you very much, Beth. We'll catch 00:32:13.920 --> 00:32:16.000 up soon. Lovely. Good luck to everybody. Bye 00:32:16.000 --> 00:32:16.160 -bye.