Hello and welcome back to the next edition of
The Purpose Brief. In this episode, I'm joined
by Professor Beth Breeze OBE. She's Principal
at Knoxford College, Director of the Centre for
Philanthropy in the University of Kent, and one
of the world's leading experts on why people
give to charity and participate in philanthropy.
Beth's new book, Rich Expectations, with esteemed
colleagues, lifts the lid on how wealthy donors
shape the world through their philanthropy. It
explores what motivates them, how they choose
causes, and what their giving reveals about power,
privilege and purpose. So look, I checked my
privilege on talking to her today. Beth's been
around through my... fundraising career. So it's
a real pleasure while she settles into life in
Oxford to grab some time to have a discussion
with her about this new book. Let's get started.
Beth, hello. It's really, really lovely to see
you today. Thank you for joining us on this next
episode of The Purpose Brief. Good to be here.
Hello. And so I think it's safe to say for all
our listeners that Beth is one of the kind of
leading lights. if not the leading light in the
UK on philanthropy and fundraising. And through
my... time as a fundraiser was a bit of a north
staff to go to around the frameworks and the
thinking around philanthropy back in the in the
90s and the noughties when I was starting out
as a fundraiser and that's how you started out
Beth isn't it and have kind of gone on to different
roles you've just become principal at Harris
Manchester College in Oxford so congratulations
and that gives you sort of a different focus
and different purpose But let's start with that
question and go into the deeper question around
what do you think your purpose is through your
work? Well, thanks for asking that. So I think
that our lives do take coherence, but maybe only
with hindsight. So I look back now and I don't
want to pretend it was all this tied up. from
the beginning. But I look back now and I see
my career in three parts. So really the first
decade or so, I was on the frontline fundraising
and I loved being a fundraiser. I don't come
from a wealthy background. So if I could raise
money, if I could raise a million pounds, that
was the closest I was ever going to get to being
a millionaire. And that felt really good because
you're doing it for causes you believed in. But
during that time of being a fundraiser, it just
became very clear to me that the sector with
which we charge to do some of the most difficult
things and tackle the most intractable problems
that haven't yet been solved by government or
business has got the least support so my friends
from you know school and uni who'd gone into
the business sector could you know do a degree
in business and every university's got business
school they could do an MBA there was loads of
journals on business loads of research loads
of data you know you were existing in a world
with lots of information and then my friends
and peers who went into government or politics
again there was loads of support for that you
chose to go into the third sector or the charity
sector it was like well good luck on you go and
There was nothing. There was no degrees, no higher
education. At that point, very little professional
support. And it just struck me as really odd
that the sector doing this most difficult work
had the least support. So that's what led to
my move from doing fundraising to studying fundraising.
And then the middle bit of my career where I
spent 20 years at the University of Kent, first
of all, getting my PhD. So I had my training
and then being in a position where I could do
that research and set up the kind of courses
that I wish I'd accepted. when I was a fundraiser.
So the master's degree in philanthropy, then
a PhD pathway, but also entry -level courses
that we had an online free course or have still
available called How to Fundraise and the Fundraiser
Apprenticeship. So really just trying to provide
that suite of training programmes. And because
there wasn't really anyone else doing the research,
we were also writing the textbooks and doing
the research that were taught on those courses.
So I loved doing that as well and probably trained
certainly a couple of hundred did the MA and
many others did the other courses. But now this
third act, which is quite nice, in your early
50s to do something else. I've moved on to work
in an institution that is seeped in philanthropy.
So I'm now at Oxford University in Harris Manchester
College, which is the only college for mature
students. I'm teaching the same kind of people
as I taught at Kent. But it's a university that
has benefited a lot over eight centuries of people
leaving money, leaving assets and making it be,
you know, the successful institution that it
is. You know, there's a reason why Oxford is
the best university in the world, because it's...
It's got a lot more resources and a lot more
friends and a lot more support. So here I am
running one of the colleges. So that's my sort
of story. And I suppose running all through that
is that belief that there's more to the world
than just business and states. You know, people
see it as two sectors. If you've got a problem,
can you sell me a solution or can I demand that
government provide it? And sometimes those two
solutions do work, but actually... Very often,
it's the third sector that's there first tackling
these issues or working alongside government
or working alongside business and drawing attention
to needs and meeting them more quickly, more
innovatively. And so my purpose really is to
draw attention to the importance of that sector,
which is often hidden in plain sight. We just
don't see. I used to set my students a challenge.
Can you get through a day without benefiting
in some way from philanthropy? And I don't personally
believe you can because, you know, the clean
air around you, the health. the benefits your
kids in a nursery your elder parents in an elder
institution it's all around us so I want to draw
attention to it to encourage it and to improve
it that's my purpose I think that people forget
that it is all around us and it is a theme that
runs through everything we do and it touches
every story that we certainly been uncovering
through the work that we do, is around a link
back to somebody who just wanted to do good.
They wanted to give back. And universities have
that in droves. But as we know, there's been
a big announcement this week around the Office
for Impact from the government. And do you welcome
that as an initiative to bring all that impact
economy work together and philanthropy is included
in that? I definitely welcome it. I mean, philanthropy
needs friends and the charity sector needs friends.
So if government wants to do more, and they've
always done a lot, we shouldn't underestimate,
you know, even just the tax breaks for giving
and the regulation of charities. You know, there's
plenty of ways in which the state enables the
third sector. So that's a good thing. Would I
call it the impact economy? Probably not. I'm
not sure that's a phrase that many... donors
use, that many fundraisers use, but I'm not someone
who gets tied up too much in terminology. I think
it's basically a euphemism for charity and philanthropy.
And for whatever reason, it was felt that those
words were not very 2025. And we'll get used
to it. It's not an unfair title. I mean, it does
have impact. It ought to have impact and positive
impact. Let's see if it catches on. But no, I
definitely welcome anything that... that enhances
the strength of the relationship between government
and charity. Because nothing important gets done
with small amounts of money or small amounts
of effort. It's always collaboration. So the
more we can develop those strong relationships,
the better. No, I totally agree. Let's just jump
into Rich Expectations, which you've written
with Rod Reid, Davies and Teresa Lloyd. So great
to see that. And always good to reassure ourselves
that as fundraisers, we're looking at the same
kind of motivations when we talk to donors. And
over the years, I've talked to so many different
types of donors about. what motivates them. And
sometimes it's quite simple things. You know,
it's not as complicated as you think. But just
talk to me a little bit about why you think identity
and giving for those donors that you interviewed
has become so closely tied to identity. What
is that link? And do you want to unpack that
a little bit more? Yeah, sure. So, I mean, this
is a study that's now happened three times. It's
three different books. But the basic methodology
and goal of it is the same. We're trying to understand
why rich people give. So the first iteration
was done by Teresa Lloyd by herself in the early
2000s. And the book's just called Why Rich People
Give. And then 10 years later, I worked with
Teresa to revisit half that sample and to interview
and survey a fresh half. And then this last one
is Rodri joining the gang and going back to 44
of the people who were involved in one or both
of the first two editions and then 44 new donors.
And I think it's important to refresh the pool
because things change. There's a lot more women
now whose name is on Flamsby. I think they were
always there. They just didn't always get the
credit. But there's other kinds of wealth. So
it's important to refresh that pool. But it's
also important. to try and track changes over
time so having that consistency over time is
helpful i sometimes describe it as a bit like
the seven up tv program you know you keep going
back to the same kids every seven years well
hopefully this will carry on keeping on going
back to philanthropists every 10 years and we'll
have a really good longitudinal study so one
of the questions we ask them and the questions
are pretty similar each year one of them we ask
them is how important is philanthropy in your
life and has it grown in importance and the good
news is that they answer yes to both it's very
important. And it's even more important now than
the last time you asked me this question. So
I think that that answers the first part of your
question, that it really is part of people's
identity. I'm not just someone who inherited
a lot. I'm not just somebody who made a lot of
money in business or won the lottery or had a
big divorce settlement or whatever it might be.
I guess I've accumulated wealth, but I'm also
distributing wealth. And that really matters
for their sense of self. And we call the book
Rich Expectations because what came through really
loud and clear is that they have an expectation
of themselves that they will use some of that
wealth for good. And they actually hold it of
their friends and colleagues. And sometimes they
struggle to understand why people of similar
wealth are not also giving that money away. And
there's quite a funny combination of sort of
judgment and pity because they say, well, we
know how much they've got about the same money
as us and they're not giving that's wrong but
also they're missing out they don't know how
much fun it is they don't know how enriching
to your life it is what interesting people you
meet so it's quite and one went so far as to
say I'm not really friends with the non -giving
rich because I don't really you know I don't
relate to them I don't understand where they're
coming from so it definitely is very very important
to their identity funnily enough though a lot
of them don't like the word philanthropy they
often reject that they think it sounds paternalistic
Victorian or a bit self -aggrandizing and my
best explanation for that is you don't tend to
say you know my name's Beth and I'm really funny
you know it's for other people to say you're
funny in the same way you don't say my name's
Bob and I'm a philanthropist it's for other people
to say that you're so I don't think they mind
it so much if other people apply it to them but
very few of them walk around saying hey I'm a
philanthropist because it it doesn't sit well
especially in Britain maybe maybe in America
somewhere else but the funniest explanation I
got from one guy who said oh yeah I don't mind
the word philanthropist because you always get
mixed opinions you know these are just people
and they have different opinions so just as some
don't like it some do and this man said oh yeah
i have it in my linkedin profile that i'm a philanthropist
he said it's better than describing myself as
a hedge funder which i thought was quite funny
yeah i think it's i've had some really interesting
conversations with donors over the years who
i would In the negotiation and the discussion
about things, we refer to their philanthropy
or them being a regional philanthropist, particularly
up north in Yorkshire, and they don't like it.
It has sort of caveats, like almost calling them
an influencer or something like that. So we've
got to be careful. Is there a word that kind
of lands or a terminology that's landed through
this study that creates a new terminology around
this? Yeah, I don't know that they're close to
damage. Certainly people talk about giving. sharing
is quite nice and I like sharing because they
know that the money alone can't do very much.
You know, you need someone to spend the money.
And I think there's so many myths and misunderstandings
of philanthropy. And one of them is quite how
much power you have when you have money. Of course,
you've got some power. No one's going to pretend
you haven't. But, you know, you can have all
the money in the world, but if you can't find
a partner that you trust to spend that money
well to achieve the thing you care about, it's
highly unlikely that someone who's got the money
can also, you know, do the science to find the
cure to that illness or can run the project to,
you know, end homelessness in that city. to find
a partner to work with. And a lot of them do
use that language of partnership. So I think
sharing, generosity, caring, just being a good
person, you know, sort of that's how they would
see it as well, which again, I think speaks to
how fundamental they see it. It's not really
optional. Nobody wants to be a bad person. So
if being a good person means sharing some of
your wealth, then you're going to do it. And
do you think that there's an emerging role for
philanthropists, let's call them, but people
who want to donate? they have a more proactive
role in shaping the solutions to the problems
so it's not just about giving cash or giving
a check they want to work as you say in partnership
to solve the problems through other things that
they can do through their networks through their
businesses is it emerging into something more
embedded in terms of it's not just a transaction
it's a it's an ethos it's let's work together
on this Yeah, there's definitely some of that,
but I think we have to always be careful of false
binaries in philanthropy. It goes back to that
thing about the misunderstandings and assumptions.
One of them is, oh, in the past, people just
used to sit in their armchair, you know, write
a check, send it in and want nothing more to
do with it. And there's really no historical
evidence for that. You can look at Carnegie,
who'd go in there and design his libraries, you
know, decide what kind of motto should be on
the outside and what kind of stonework it should
be and what books would be in it. You know, people
always got very involved because that's half
the fun of philanthropy is. getting involved
with the project so I'm not sure that there was
some sort of mythical armchair checkbooking check
writing donor in the past but I think it's definitely
true to say that the forms of engagement are
getting possibly more um sophisticated or more
personalized you know a good fundraiser will
work out well what kind of engagement do they
want some some want stories you know they want
to be told about somebody got helped last week
and how their life was turned around and obviously
anonymized if the beneficiaries are vulnerable
but if they're not if it's a you know if it's
a musician or a scholar then they'd like to meet
them and have a relationship with them so there's
that kind of very almost patronage type relationship
which brings its own problems if both sides are
not as comfortable meeting but in the ideal scenario
they are other kinds of engagement might be becoming
an expert on the topic you know it's there's
something about getting to live another life
you know you always fancied being i don't know
an archaeology expert or a paleontologist But
you chose to work in the city or you chose to
work in the family business. But by supporting
that world, you can get involved and hang out
with other paleontologists or, you know, harpists
or whatever that might be. So there's that kind
of engagement that's almost like having a second
life at the same time. So it really depends.
I say good fundraiser works out. Do they want
to, you know, see all the Excel sheets of the
data and what have you? Or do they more just
want to be around the culture of this institution
and have relationships with the people who are
involved? So working out what kind of engagement
is quite crucial to good major donor fundraising.
Is there something here about the purpose of
a fundraiser and the role that they play in that?
And any reflections on that from you as somebody
who's been a fundraiser in the past, but more
on an academic side? No, absolutely. I love that
question because I think it's very easy to forget
that the fundraiser is so crucial to all of this.
And I love thinking about fundraisers. Being
a fundraiser, I sometimes use the word we when
I'm talking about them anyway, because I think
it's a fascinating role to basically organise
and choreograph generosity. You know, most gifts
are asked for before they're given. You know,
I challenge people to give me many examples where
the gift just came completely out of the blue.
Even if it felt like that, there must have been
some work done to make the donor aware that this
charity existed and that would fall under the
fundraising function. So I'm fascinated by fundraisers
and what kind of people do this work. And one
of the findings from research I've done into
the fundraising profession is actually they share
many of the same characteristics as the philanthropists,
the donors that they're working with. They just
have a smaller bank account. But in all other
regards, they're very similar. They care passionately
about the cause. They want to make a difference
in the world. They're fundamentally optimistic.
They think a change can be made. They're often
quite dynamic and energetic. They're learning
new stuff. They're happy with every day being
a bit different. So there's lots of, it's one
of the reasons that relationships can be so much
fun because you're actually talking about fairly
similar people if you think of the caricature
of a fundraiser. So I think we should never underestimate
the role and the impact of fundraisers, even
if they're a bit invisible. There's lots of blue
plaques and naming of tributes to philanthropists,
but have you ever seen a blue plaque to a fundraiser?
I mean, they're not thought of, they're not on
the radar. But I remember some of the fundraisers
I interviewed talked about that. quite explicitly
and this is for research i did for a book called
the new fundraisers and this particular guy had
raised a lot of money for a medical research
charity and he said one day there will be a cure
for this illness he said and the scientists will
get the nobel prize but we will sit here in our
fundraising office in the basement and we will
toast the success and we'll know the part we
played in it and i always that always stayed
with me and he didn't say in any sort of pitying
way he was just very happy to have played his
part and he didn't need the public recognition
and that's one of the reasons i love fundraising
Yeah, that's a really good point. I think there's
something there about the... Somebody said to
me that they recently stepped into a different
role, but they reflected a lot on their role
as a fundraiser and how you give a lot of yourself
over without thinking about it because it's your
duty as a fundraiser to make this work. That
amazing academic research matched up with a brilliant
donor who just gets it. That synergy, if you
can create it, is so magical. But as a fundraiser,
you are... you often have to take, stand back
and take stock about the emotional energy imbued
in that. But ultimately, I think there's a real
privilege about being able to navigate those
different worlds and be at the intersection of
that space is quite a special thing as a professional.
Yeah, no, you describe it beautifully. And I
think the best word I can think of for what is
it actually fundraisers do is they look for alignment.
And other people use this word as well. But it's
not about persuasion. It's not about begging.
It's not about getting someone to do something
they don't want to do, because you can't actually
do that, especially very powerful, very rich
people. You can't get them to trick them into
giving you a donation. people who don't understand
fundraising often imagine is going on. You're
looking to align somebody who wants to make a
certain change in the world or who's worried
about a certain cause or who wants to stop a
change happening, whatever that might be, with
an organisation that has the army on the ground,
the foot power to make that happen. And so you're
looking for that alignment and it's bringing
them together. And then, of course, you're building
trust that actually this money will be spent
well. And the trust should go both ways. The
recipient charity needs to trust that this donor
is going to act respectfully and going to acknowledge
their expertise. expertise and give them the
kind of funding they need which is the right
amount you know don't give us too little and
then have you know unrealistic expectations but
also if you can give it unrestricted and give
it over a longer period of time so again the
reason we use the word expectations in the title
of the book rich expectations is because there's
all these expectations that exist on all sides
that the donors have of themselves that people
have about rich people the expectations that
the donors have about the charities they support
and vice versa There's expectations that politicians
and governments have about the role rich people
will pay and again, vice versa. And most of these
expectations are unstated, implicit. And I think
when things go wrong, that's why. It's because
people have made assumptions about motivation
or how a charity should act. And I think if we
could all just be a bit more explicit about what
we need and hope for, we can perhaps avoid some
of those things going wrong. Could Brits, for
instance, be better at asking and better at...
discussing these issues? Because I think that's
a really interesting space that we're in as a
country, as we look at the role of the impact
economy. Is there something that we can be better
at in comparison to our friends across the pond?
Because Americans are much better at this than
us. Yeah, I mean, we've got a double problem.
We don't like talking about money and we don't
like talking about morals. And philanthropy exists
at the intersection of those two things. So it's
really hard to talk about if you're a classic
Brit. You've got to say not only have I got money
or I've got views about how money is used, but
I'm going to talk about the values that lie behind
how I use this money. You know, I think it matters
that people are, you know, have enough food or
I think it matters that people have these kind
of opportunities in life. So these are not easy
things to say in a culture that doesn't really
love sort of Pollyannas and do -gooders and tall
poppies or whatever else you call them. It's
actually weirdly easier to be sort of cynical
and, you know, not do good because you don't
then set yourself up for sort of... criticism
and ridicule. So I think that's all tied up in
why people worry about. On the good news side,
one of the questions we've asked across time
in this study is, do you think sort of public
understanding and the profile of philanthropy
has increased? And it's slowly there. And people
say, yeah, you know, certainly people talk about
it and know about it. And they attribute it to
things like more philanthropists being willing
to tell their stories. And it's so simple. But
if nobody would ever share, you know, I gave
a million pounds and this is why I did it. And
this is what went well. And this is why I'm glad
I did it. If no one ever told those stories,
then you never get to establish norms. It seems
very unusual then to do it. But if you've got
lots of regular stories of people talking about
their giving, then when somebody has got some
money to spare, they've got lots of points of
reference to refer to. And they might have even
heard of some of those people. They might be
in their social circle. So that's what people
like us to do when we've made some money. So
much as people tend to validate the anonymous
donor and say it's much better to give anonymously.
And that's people's choice. In some religions,
for example, that's the right way to give. But
we do need a few donors to talk about it and
to go public. And so it's quite reassuring to
see that that was definitely having the positive
effect that we hoped for. No, I agree. I think
if every organisation who's actively fundraising
took 10 stories a year and just pumped them out
through social media and donors were happy to,
you know... I suppose there's something here
about leadership for leaders who are philanthropic
minded. So we want to see more of that. We need
to see more of it. Switch the lights on on it.
Is there something here about public trust as
well? So, you know, we're in that world where
there's a lot of chatter. There's a lot of negativity
out there on social media, a lot of division.
How do we build philanthropy into that space
around public? Yeah, I think, I mean, this is
something I think about and worry about quite
a lot because I think a lot of the criticisms
of philanthropy are not really about the giving
rich. They're about just the possession of wealth.
You know, people worry understandably about the
grown division between rich and poor, the extreme
accumulation of wealth, especially in the US,
but in other countries too. And so all of their
concerns and worries about that get... targeted
on philanthropy because they're the only rich
they've ever heard of and so one of the things
i've done when i've given talks is shown a picture
of you know a bunch of billionaires who've all
got whose surname begins with you know b and
said which of them do you know and the only one
they know is richard branson they don't know
the other bees who are living quietly at home
with their fleet of vintage cars and their private
jet and their you know 10 mansions so it's actually
strategically not a great idea to be philanthropic
if you care about your public reputation because
you are setting yourself up for criticism and
ridicule so And I think we, as a society, we
need to ask ourselves, is that a sensible strategy
to critique people who give, even if those critiques
have got some... kernel of justification in them,
because what's the end result? If you're a bit
worried, well, they get to choose this cause
and not that cause, well, that's fair enough.
But if you end up encouraging people to think,
I'll just keep my head down, I'll just keep the
money in the bank, I'll pass it on to my kids,
because whatever I give to somebody is going
to have an opinion that I shouldn't have given
to that cause, I shouldn't have given that much
or what have you. So I would much rather we lived
in a society that best celebrated philanthropy,
but at the very least didn't criticise it and
realise that you don't encourage people to do
things if you pick. pick away at it I think that's
not helpful and you know I don't think those
who already give are that affected by it I think
that they understand they enjoy their philanthropy
they get to meet interesting people they feel
their their life is being well lived so if you're
already a philanthropist I think it's it's probably
a bit annoying one of them said to me you know
whatever you do they'll they'll criticize it's
only when you're dead you get an obituary that
says you know points out your philanthropy so
which I thought was quite a quite a sad thing
to say but you know nonetheless they sort of
said it with a twinkle in their eye My worry
is the people who haven't started giving yet,
who haven't made a fortune in business, who haven't
inherited, you know, who is just not on the radar.
at the point at which they have that wealth in
their possession, would they think, oh, I know,
I'll be a philanthropist because that goes down
well, you know, because then people will think
well of me. And it's not really a joke because
there are people saying, I just, I don't want
to risk my kids getting grief. I don't want people
thinking I'm a tax dodger. I don't want people
thinking I'm hugely egotistical. I just want
to do good. But if I'm a philanthropist, I know
I'm going to attract these comments. So that's
why I talk a lot about us being, you know, encouraging
and celebrating. all kinds of giving and maybe
holding back on some of the criticisms that we
think we want to make can you be a philanthropist
but not be wealthy of course oh my goodness i'm
so glad you asked that because you know the trouble
is i've studied major donor philanthropy and
the new book is about rich donors so my kind
of inclination is to talk about the richer donors
but no absolutely the word philanthropist just
means love of humankind so philo love of anthropos
humankind you can love other people in so many
ways with a smile by opening a door by being
good company and by volunteering by you know
offering expert help and by being giving moral
support there are so so many ways you can help
other than giving money Interestingly, these
things tend to go together. People who volunteer
tend to also donate. People who give blood tend
to also be sort of helpful financially. So these
things do tend to go. Once you realize there's
a world beyond your door and you've got agency
to help, people tend to help in multiple ways.
But no, I don't like the claiming of the word
philanthropy just for elites. I would like to
reclaim it for all of us. Yeah, no, I agree.
And so the takeaways from the book for me are
that donor profile is changing the demographics
are changing that's kind of interesting do you
think about what future philanthropists might
look like and the sorts of things there are the
positives there in in the work and the research
that you've done yeah sure so there's definitely
the feminization of wealth which has been happening
for you know a while and is now is affecting
philanthropy so the first A set of interviewees
in the early 2000s were predominantly male and
were getting much closer now to 50 -50. I think
that's partly women being more willing to stake
a claim and say, no, actually, this is our money,
not just his money. So it's not necessarily that
money is in different places. It's just being
claimed more. But there's definitely more female
entrepreneurs. So they're making more money through
business. There's definitely changes in inheritance
patterns where daughters are getting similar
amounts to sons. So that changes some of these
things. And then there's divorce settlements
that are taking into account the role of the
partner who maybe wasn't in the business, but
certainly played a role in that wealth being
created with Mackenzie Scott and Jeff Bezos being
the most obvious example of that. And then Mackenzie
Scott has gone on to become quite a role model
for giving in a different way, you know, getting
the money out fast, giving it without strings
attached, giving it unrestricted. So it's quite
interesting to see not just the profiles of the
donors changing, but how they give. There's a
lot of talk about trust -based philanthropy,
about participatory grant making. speaking so
I think there's a real push towards doing it
better and I'm definitely delighted to see that
it's not just about larger and larger sums people
can get very hung up on well how much was given
and of course that matters you can do more with
more money but it also matters how how it's given
and if it's given more strategically and also
if it's given more thoughtfully you know with
empathy what what what does this charity actually
need how can I be a good funder how can I not
cause them more stress and then that's a good
thing as well and one of the reasons I think
that's happened is the role of advisors and other
kinds of intermediaries. So when we began the
study, very, very few of our interviewees had
had any sort of formal philanthropic advice or
support. It just didn't really exist in the 2000s.
By the 2010s, people were getting advice from
their banks. So Coots Bank were the first to
offer philanthropy advice, and then all the other
banks followed quite soon after. But in this
latest iteration, 53 % had either taken philanthropy
advice or were about to do so. That's about 10
% were about to. do so so it's now normal it's
now normal to get advice whether that's from
a non -profit provider like a community foundation
or the Charities Aid Foundation or paying for
it from an independent philanthropy advisor and
of course if you pay for something you value
it more so we found that of those who did take
advice two -thirds said it had affected their
giving and the way it affected it was either
more strategic or more sort of thoughtful and
empathic so these are all real positives that
happen in the world of philanthropy so I think
we can hopefully all feel good about those. No,
absolutely. And I think it's really great to
be able to get into the detail of that and into
the kind of weeds, if you must use that term,
around the motivations. Because often we don't,
as you say, we don't talk about it enough. And
it's always a very personal thing. We need to
be able to share and talk about why giving is
such an important part of our lives. whoever
we are, whatever our background? Well, I hope
that the study continues. I may or may not be
involved in 10 years time. So, but I hope that
somebody goes back and continues the study. I'd
say the book ends with two chapters that are
the kind of the so what chapters. So we've got,
it begins with a very nice chapter written largely
by Rodri about developments in the world of philanthropy
in the broader context. That's really nice scene
setting for all of us to bear in mind. I mean,
a lot happened in the last 10 years, whether
it was COVID lockdowns or political change or
you know a lot's happened and philanthropy is
always a product of its time so that's a really
useful kind of recap then there's all the data
presentation you know how why do people give
how do they give whose thoughts they're giving
but I think I'd probably end by drawing attention
to the last two chapters and the first of those
was written mostly by Teresa Lloyd and that's
the takeaways for fundraisers and charities you
know what does all this mean how can you apply
it in your in your efforts to you know recruit
and retain donors and that's chapter nine and
then chapter 10 is actually not written by any
of us you may be surprised to hear it's written
by a coalition of people who've drafted the national
draft national strategy on policy on philanthropy
and really what we tried to what they've tried
to do is pull together all the ideas all the
different bodies have got about how you could
strengthen philanthropy in the UK and instead
of everybody having their own list that they're
lobbying government for or that they're trying
to persuade the public to do or that they're
trying to get journalists to care about if you
have 10 different voices you're always weaker
so what's been wonderful the Charities Aid Foundation
and Beacon Collaborative and a couple of others
have said, let's just pull it together and have
one set of recommendations, one plan for philanthropy.
And so we gave chapter 10 over to that document
and said, here's what that collective group says.
And one of the recommendations in that is to
have a champion in government. So it looks like
that strategy is working, having a shared approach
to asking for a better, a more conducive environment
for philanthropy. So I think the book contains
an awful lot. within its two covers and I hope
people find it useful and interesting. Thank
you very much, Beth. It's wonderful to see you
again. Congratulations on the new role. The book
is available through the Directory for Social
Change, I think. Correct. That's right. Great
publisher, DSC. They publish all kinds of other
books as well. And they're a non -profit publisher.
That was very important to us to publish with
them. So do take a look at their website. Thank
you. That's a call out for the readers and the
listeners. Thank you very much, Beth. We'll catch
up soon. Lovely. Good luck to everybody. Bye
-bye.