Reflections In Motion

Tag: Beyond the Pitch

  • When Shopping Malls Close Their Doors to Fundraising

    When Shopping Malls Close Their Doors to Fundraising

    Are shopping centres protecting the customer experience, or unintentionally making charitable fundraising more difficult?

    Shopping malls have become important spaces for face-to-face fundraising. They bring together people from different backgrounds, creating opportunities for nonprofit organisations to introduce their causes, raise awareness and invite members of the public to contribute.

    But for some organisations, securing a space inside a shopping centre is becoming increasingly difficult.

    Some malls decline fundraising requests altogether. Others offer exhibition spaces under strict conditions, limiting how fundraisers may interact with shoppers.

    Fundraisers may be required to remain behind their stands, avoid greeting passers-by or wait for shoppers to approach them. These restrictions are often intended to protect the shopping experience and prevent unwanted solicitation.

    The intention is understandable. But it raises an important question.

    Can face-to-face fundraising remain effective when fundraisers are prevented from initiating conversations?

    The Difference Between Engagement and Harassment

    Face-to-face fundraising begins with a conversation. A fundraiser approaches a potential donor, introduces a cause and invites the person to learn more.

    Sometimes the person stops. Sometimes they decline. And sometimes they simply continue walking.

    A respectful fundraiser understands that every individual has the right to decide whether to engage.

    A polite greeting or invitation to hear about a cause is not, by itself, the same as harassment. The distinction lies in how the interaction unfolds.

    Following someone who has declined, repeatedly pressuring them, blocking their path or refusing to accept a clear rejection crosses an important boundary.

    Shopping centres have legitimate reasons to protect their visitors from such behaviour. But preventing every form of proactive engagement risks treating respectful fundraising and inappropriate solicitation as though they are the same thing.

    The challenge should be to establish clear boundaries for engagement, rather than eliminate engagement altogether.

    When the Space Doesn’t Support the Purpose

    For nonprofit organisations, access to shopping centres can involve significant costs. Exhibition fees, staffing and operational expenses all form part of the investment.

    Yet the value of a fundraising location depends on more than simply being inside a mall.

    Foot traffic matters. Visibility matters. And so does the ability to engage people who may not already know about the cause.

    A fundraising stand positioned away from busy pedestrian routes may struggle to attract attention. If fundraisers are also prohibited from greeting or approaching shoppers, the opportunity becomes even more limited.

    Unlike a retail outlet selling a product someone has already decided to purchase, a fundraising stand often introduces people to a cause they were not actively seeking.

    A potential donor may have no intention of approaching the stand until someone starts a conversation.

    This creates a difficult commercial reality. An NGO may pay for access to a space without receiving a meaningful opportunity to engage the public.

    And when the fundraising income does not justify the expenditure, resources intended to support charitable work may instead be absorbed by operational costs.

    Offering a fundraising space is not necessarily the same as creating an environment in which fundraising can succeed.

    Two Responsibilities, One Shared Space

    Shopping centres are commercial environments. Management must consider tenant interests, pedestrian movement, safety, customer complaints and the overall shopping experience.

    These responsibilities cannot simply be dismissed.

    But nonprofit organisations also have legitimate objectives. They depend on public engagement to raise awareness, attract support and secure resources for their work.

    The interests of malls and NGOs need not be mutually exclusive.

    Shopping centres are also part of the communities they serve. They provide spaces where people gather, interact and encounter organisations working on social challenges.

    That creates opportunities for meaningful collaboration.

    Some malls support charitable initiatives through donated space, reduced exhibition fees or promotional assistance. Such partnerships are valuable.

    However, access alone does not resolve every challenge.

    A well-positioned stand may still struggle if the rules prevent fundraisers from engaging people appropriately. Equally, allowing unrestricted approaches without clear professional standards could create problems for shoppers and mall management.

    The answer may lie in a more considered partnership.

    A Conversation Worth Having

    Perhaps shopping centre management and nonprofit organisations need more opportunities to understand one another’s operating realities.

    Malls need assurance that fundraisers will respect shoppers, follow agreed procedures and represent their causes professionally. NGOs need spaces and conditions that make meaningful donor engagement possible.

    This requires more than negotiating exhibition fees. It requires conversations about suitable locations, acceptable approaches, boundaries, complaints and shared expectations.

    Fundraising organisations also have a responsibility to train their representatives properly.

    Fundraisers should understand the difference between inviting someone into a conversation and pressuring them to participate. A person who declines must be free to walk away without being followed, challenged or made uncomfortable.

    But a respectful invitation to learn about a charitable cause should not automatically be treated as inappropriate behaviour.

    Where concerns arise, constructive engagement between mall management and NGOs may produce better outcomes than blanket restrictions.

    Public education could also play a role in helping shoppers understand how legitimate face-to-face fundraising works, what they can expect from fundraisers and their right to decline an invitation.

    The goal should not be to choose between protecting shoppers and supporting charitable fundraising. It should be to find responsible ways of doing both.

    Beyond the Pitch

    Face-to-face fundraising relies on something simple but powerful: human connection.

    A person who has never heard of an organisation may become interested because someone took a moment to introduce its work. That conversation may lead to a donation, a lasting relationship or greater awareness of a cause.

    But the conversation must first be allowed to happen.

    Shopping centres have every reason to insist on respectful conduct and a positive visitor experience. Nonprofit organisations have an equally important responsibility to ensure that their fundraisers operate professionally.

    Between those responsibilities lies an opportunity for cooperation.

    Perhaps the future of face-to-face fundraising in shopping malls should not be defined by increasingly restrictive rules or unrestricted access. It should be shaped by partnerships that recognise both the rights of shoppers and the importance of charitable engagement.

    Protecting the shopping experience and creating space for meaningful fundraising should not have to be opposing goals.

    Continue the Conversation

    Should shopping malls allow fundraisers to approach shoppers respectfully, or should engagement be limited to people who approach fundraising stands themselves?

    How can shopping centres and nonprofit organisations work together to create environments that protect shoppers while supporting charitable causes?

    Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Explore Beyond the Pitch

    Face-to-face fundraising depends on more than securing donations. It requires an understanding of donor behaviour, professional communication and the environments in which fundraising takes place.

    Beyond the Pitch: The Art of Face-to-Face Fundraising explores the conversations, challenges and professional realities behind this work.

    Explore Beyond the Pitch and other resources:

    Reflections In Motion Shop:
    https://reflectionsinmotion.blog/shop/

    Amazon Author Page — Lelo:
    https://www.amazon.com/author/lelo

    Work With Me

    I offer support in face-to-face fundraising, fundraiser development, team coaching, communication and leadership through Rebieth Productions and Entertainment CC.

    Email: lelon@reflectionsinmotion.blog

    Website: https://reflectionsinmotion.blog

    Reflections In Motion — Ideas • Insight • Impact

  • When the Crowd Changes, the Approach Should Too

    When the Crowd Changes, the Approach Should Too

    Why a good fundraiser can thrive in one mall and struggle in another

    You can be a great fundraiser in one mall and struggle in another. Same fundraiser. Same cause. Same pitch. Completely different result.

    If you’ve worked in face-to-face fundraising long enough, you’ve probably experienced it. At one location, people stop easily, conversations flow, and you find your rhythm. Then you move to another mall and suddenly it feels as though you’re invisible. People rush past, some avoid eye contact and others say no before you’ve even finished saying hello.

    After a while, you start wondering: Have I suddenly forgotten how to fundraise?

    Maybe not.

    Maybe the crowd changed.

    Every Mall Has Its Own Rhythm

    We often talk about “the public” as though we’re approaching the same audience everywhere. We’re not. A mall filled with office workers during lunch behaves differently from one filled with families spending a Saturday afternoon shopping. A commuter crowd moves differently from a browsing crowd. Even the same mall can change throughout the day.

    The fundraiser who understands this stops simply labelling a location difficult and starts observing it. Are people rushing? Are they willing to make eye contact but reluctant to stop? Are they stopping but leaving conversations quickly? Is everyone on the team struggling, or has one fundraiser found a way through?

    Those details matter because sometimes the problem isn’t necessarily the fundraiser or the pitch. It is the way the approach fits—or doesn’t fit—the crowd in front of them.

    Read Before You React

    A difficult crowd can tempt you to push harder: talk louder, approach more aggressively or desperately try to make somebody stop. But sometimes a resistant crowd doesn’t need more from you. It needs different.

    A fast-moving crowd may need a shorter opening. A relaxed crowd may give you more room for conversation. A crowd tired of being approached by promoters may respond better to something natural rather than something that immediately sounds like another sales pitch.

    The cause hasn’t changed. Your integrity shouldn’t change. But your approach can.

    Adaptability isn’t about becoming a different fundraiser every time you change locations. It is about understanding that good communication responds to the person and environment in front of you.

    Sometimes the Best Lesson Is Standing Next to You

    If most of the team is struggling but one fundraiser keeps getting conversations, don’t only look at their numbers. Watch them. Who are they approaching? Where are they standing? How are they opening? What are they doing that the crowd seems to respond to?

    This is where teams can learn from one another. Instead of always asking, “How many did you get?” perhaps another useful question is:

    “What are you noticing about this crowd?”

    That question shifts the conversation from performance alone to understanding what is actually happening on the floor.

    It can also help team leaders coach more effectively. If everybody is struggling, repeatedly correcting individual fundraisers may miss the bigger picture. If one person is succeeding while everyone else struggles, there may be something worth observing and sharing.

    And Sometimes, It Really Is a Difficult Crowd

    Not every slow day is a coaching problem, and not every struggling fundraiser needs their pitch corrected. Sometimes foot traffic is poor. Sometimes people are rushing. Sometimes the position isn’t working. Sometimes the crowd simply isn’t responding.

    Good leadership means looking at both the fundraiser and the environment before deciding what needs fixing.

    That distinction matters because constantly treating environmental problems as individual performance problems can damage confidence without solving anything. At the same time, blaming the crowd for everything can prevent fundraisers from recognising where they genuinely need to adapt.

    Experience teaches you to look at both.

    Beyond the Pitch

    One difficult mall doesn’t erase your ability, but it may expose something you still need to learn.

    Face-to-face fundraising isn’t only about memorising the right words. It is about reading people, movement and energy. It is knowing when to engage, when to adjust and when to let someone walk.

    The script gives you a foundation.

    Experience teaches you what to do when the environment doesn’t behave the way the script expected.

    Because eventually you learn something the script cannot teach on its own:

    A good fundraiser learns the pitch. An experienced fundraiser learns the crowd.

    Reflections In Motion — Ideas • Insight • Impact

    Continue the Conversation

    Have you ever performed well at one fundraising location and struggled at another? What differences have you noticed between the crowds you encounter?

    Share your experience in the comments.

    Want to Go Further?

    Beyond the Pitch: The Art of Face-to-Face Fundraising explores the realities behind donor conversations, fundraiser development and the work that happens beyond simply delivering the pitch.

    Explore Beyond the Pitch and my other resources →
    https://reflectionsinmotion.blog/shop/

    Work With Me

    I work with fundraising teams and organisations around face-to-face fundraising, fundraiser development, team coaching, communication and leadership.

    📧 lelon@reflectionsinmotion.blog
    🌐 https://reflectionsinmotion.blog

  • When the Team Leader Is Also Competing With the Team

    When the Team Leader Is Also Competing With the Team

    What happens when the person responsible for developing the team is also expected to compete for individual results?

    A fundraiser is struggling. Their approaches aren’t working, their confidence has dropped and their numbers are behind. The team leader notices and steps away from their own fundraising to observe, listen and coach. Perhaps they conduct a one-on-one, help the fundraiser adjust their approach or simply spend enough time understanding what has gone wrong.

    Eventually, the fundraiser improves. Their confidence returns and their numbers begin to move again. The coaching worked.

    But while the fundraiser was improving their numbers, the team leader wasn’t building theirs.

    In some face-to-face fundraising structures, that matters because the same person expected to develop the team may also be expected to achieve an individual fundraising target. If commission or income is tied to that target, helping someone else succeed can come at a personal financial cost.

    It creates an uncomfortable question: What happens when the person responsible for developing the team is also competing with the team?

    When Leadership and Production Collide

    There is value in having a team leader who still fundraises. They understand what rejection feels like, remain connected to changing donor behaviour and can demonstrate good approaches rather than simply talking about them. A leader who understands the reality of the stand can have enormous credibility with a team.

    But there is a difference between remaining connected to fundraising and being expected to operate simultaneously as a full fundraiser and a full team leader. Coaching takes time. So do one-on-ones, observation, conflict resolution, training new recruits, monitoring performance and rebuilding morale. Every hour spent doing those things is an hour that cannot also be spent approaching potential donors.

    This becomes particularly complicated when the leader is a strong fundraiser. If their income depends heavily on personal production, the system naturally encourages them to keep doing what made them successful: fundraising. Yet leadership sometimes requires exactly the opposite. A leader may need to step away from a strong prospect and allow a developing fundraiser to try. They may need to spend thirty minutes coaching someone instead of chasing their own target.

    These are not simply questions about whether someone is a good leader.

    They are questions about incentives.

    When Good Leadership Costs the Leader

    Imagine the leader decides to prioritise development. They conduct regular one-on-ones, observe weaker fundraisers, coach people through difficulties, intervene when morale drops and spend time helping the team improve.

    And it works.

    The team’s numbers improve. A struggling fundraiser becomes productive. Someone who was losing confidence starts performing again. A new recruit settles into the role.

    Those should be leadership successes.

    But what happens if the leader’s own numbers fall in the process? What if the people they coached now earn more commission while the leader earns less because they spent fewer hours fundraising?

    Suddenly, the organisation may have created a strange situation in which doing more of the leadership work can reduce the leader’s personal reward.

    There is also a relationship issue. A leader who aggressively protects their own prospects may be perceived as competing with the team. Yet a leader who consistently sacrifices their own opportunities to develop everyone else may carry the financial consequences themselves.

    Neither outcome is particularly sustainable.

    How Should We Measure a Team Leader?

    Individual fundraising is relatively easy to measure. If someone recruits ten donors, we can count ten donors.

    Leadership is more complicated because its results often appear under somebody else’s name.

    How do we value the one-on-one that helped a fundraiser recover from weeks of poor performance? What about the coaching that improved someone’s conversion rate, the new fundraiser who became productive, the conflict resolved before it damaged the team, or the fundraiser who stayed because someone took the time to develop them?

    A leader may personally recruit fewer donors while helping several other people recruit more.

    That does not mean personal numbers should disappear. Team leaders should remain connected to fundraising, and sometimes leading by example is exactly what the team needs. But organisations need to distinguish between a fundraiser who occasionally leads and a leader who is genuinely accountable for developing other people’s performance.

    Those are different responsibilities.

    What Does the Organisation Want From the Role?

    Perhaps the real issue is role clarity. Is the team leader primarily a fundraiser who also helps colleagues, or are they responsible for team development while maintaining some fundraising activity?

    There is no single compensation model that will work for every organisation. Some programmes may reduce individual targets for leaders, recognise team performance, provide leadership allowances, combine personal and team incentives, or create dedicated coaching time. Each approach has trade-offs.

    The important principle is simpler:

    The system should not consistently punish the behaviour the organisation says it wants.

    If leaders are expected to coach, there must be space to coach. If they are expected to develop people, development must count as work. And if they are expected to build stronger teams, their performance cannot be understood only through what they personally produce.

    Beyond the Pitch

    Face-to-face fundraising will always need people who can produce. Targets matter, donors matter and income matters. But once someone becomes responsible for other people’s performance, the nature of their job changes.

    Their contribution is no longer limited to the conversations they personally have. It can also be seen in the fundraiser who improves, the struggling team that stabilises, the new recruit who stays and the future leader who develops.

    That is one of the strange things about good leadership: the better it becomes, the more its results may appear in somebody else’s numbers.

    So perhaps the question isn’t whether team leaders should still fundraise. They should.

    The question is whether our systems recognise the difference between producing results and leading people who produce results.

    A fundraiser’s success can often be seen in their own numbers. A leader’s success may sometimes be seen in everyone else’s.

    Reflections In Motion — Ideas. Insight. Impact.

    Continue the Conversation

    How should face-to-face fundraising organisations measure working team leaders? Should individual targets remain the same, or should coaching and team development form part of how leadership performance is recognised?

    Share your experience in the comments.

    Want to Go Further?

    My book Beyond the Pitch: The Art of Face-to-Face Fundraising explores the people, leadership challenges and realities behind face-to-face fundraising.

    📘 Explore Beyond the Pitch and my other resources:
    https://reflectionsinmotion.blog/shop/

    Work With Me

    I work with fundraising teams and organisations around face-to-face fundraising, fundraiser development, team coaching, communication and leadership.

    📧 lelon@reflectionsinmotion.blog
    🌐 https://reflectionsinmotion.blog

  • When a Fundraiser Is Having a Bad Day

    When a Fundraiser Is Having a Bad Day

    The person behind the pitch doesn’t always arrive at work feeling their best

    There are days when a fundraiser arrives at the stand ready for the day.

    The energy is there. The confidence is there. Starting conversations feels natural.

    And then there are other days.

    Maybe you didn’t sleep well. Something happened at home. You’re worried about money. You’ve had an argument with someone. You’re emotionally exhausted.

    Or perhaps nothing dramatic has happened at all.

    You’re simply having a bad day.

    But the fundraising stand doesn’t disappear because you’re struggling. The targets are still there. People are still walking past. And your job still requires you to approach strangers, smile, start conversations, tell the organisation’s story and ask people to care.

    That creates a difficult reality in face-to-face fundraising:

    What happens when the person whose job is to create connection doesn’t feel connected themselves?

    Fundraisers Are People Before They Are Performers

    Face-to-face fundraising is deeply human work.

    Unlike jobs where someone can quietly work through a difficult day behind a computer, a fundraiser’s emotional state can become visible very quickly.

    It shows in your face, your voice and your body language. It can affect your willingness to approach the next person after several rejections.

    People often respond not only to what you say, but to how you make them feel.

    That creates an unspoken pressure for fundraisers to appear positive regardless of what may be happening in their lives.

    But professionalism and pretending are not the same thing.

    Being professional means managing what you are carrying so that it does not negatively affect donors, colleagues or the work.

    It does not mean becoming a person who is never allowed to struggle.

    Don’t Give the Next Person Your Previous Rejection

    A difficult day can follow you into your conversations without you even noticing.

    Your shoulders drop. Your greeting becomes mechanical. You’re approaching people because you have to rather than because you’re genuinely open to the conversation.

    Then someone says no.

    Another person ignores you.

    Someone else waves you away before you’ve finished introducing yourself.

    On a good day, you might brush those moments off. On a difficult day, each rejection can feel heavier than usual.

    And this is where emotional discipline becomes part of the profession.

    The next person walking towards you knows nothing about what happened earlier.

    They didn’t reject you.

    They weren’t rude to you.

    They didn’t waste your time.

    They deserve to meet you, not the frustration left behind by the person before them.

    Learning to reset between conversations is one of those quiet skills experienced fundraisers develop over time.

    Don’t Make One Difficult Morning the Whole Day

    Sometimes the biggest mistake happens before lunchtime.

    You decide:

    “Today is just not my day.”

    Once you believe that, you start looking for evidence.

    Every rejection confirms it. Every person who walks past confirms it. Every colleague who gets a donor while you’re struggling confirms it.

    Before long, you’re no longer simply having a difficult morning.

    You’ve mentally written off the entire day.

    Sometimes you don’t need a dramatic transformation.

    You need a reset.

    Step away briefly if you can. Drink some water. Clear your head. Stop thinking about the entire target and come back to one good conversation.

    Not ten donors.

    Not what your colleague has achieved.

    Not everything that went wrong this morning.

    Just the next person.

    Sometimes one genuine conversation is enough to change the rhythm of the day.

    Your Team Leader Cannot Support What They Cannot See

    There is another difficulty that can develop when someone is having a bad day.

    The fundraiser says nothing.

    The team leader sees someone who is unusually quiet, approaching fewer people or appearing disengaged.

    The fundraiser thinks:

    “Surely they can see I’m not okay.”

    The team leader thinks:

    “Why aren’t they working?”

    Now a personal difficulty has the potential to become a performance conflict.

    This doesn’t mean fundraisers need to disclose every detail of their private lives at work.

    They don’t.

    Sometimes a simple:

    “I’m having a difficult morning. I’m going to keep working, but I’m not quite myself today.”

    is enough to provide context.

    Good teams need enough trust for people to communicate when something is affecting them.

    Leadership Needs to Know the Difference

    This is where the team leader’s judgement matters.

    Not every drop in performance means someone has become lazy or uncommitted.

    Patterns matter.

    If someone repeatedly avoids work, ignores expectations, and consistently underperforms, that requires a performance conversation.

    But if a normally engaged fundraiser arrives one morning and is clearly not themselves, perhaps the first question shouldn’t immediately be:

    “Why are your numbers down?”

    Sometimes it should be:

    “Are you okay today?”

    This doesn’t mean targets disappear or standards suddenly stop mattering.

    It means understanding that performance is produced by people.

    And people do not operate exactly the same way every single day.

    Be Careful With Comparison

    A difficult day can feel much worse when the person standing next to you is having an excellent one.

    You’ve had nothing for two hours.

    Your colleague has already signed several donors.

    Suddenly you’re not only struggling. You’re comparing.

    “Maybe I’m not good at this anymore.”

    “Everyone is moving except me.”

    Healthy teams should learn from strong performers. But another fundraiser’s good day should not automatically become evidence of your failure.

    Fundraising results fluctuate. Timing matters. Location matters. Different fundraisers connect with different people.

    And sometimes someone simply has a better day.

    Learn where you can.

    Then return your attention to your own conversations.

    Professionalism Does Not Mean Performing Happiness

    There is an important balance here.

    Having a difficult day is not permission to treat donors badly, snap at colleagues or abandon your responsibilities.

    But neither should fundraising cultures expect people to pretend that everything is perfect every day.

    You can be struggling and still be professional.

    You can be quieter than usual and still be respectful.

    You can ask for a moment to reset.

    You can tell your leader you’re not at your best.

    And sometimes you can simply acknowledge:

    Today I may not be operating at 100%, but I can still give what I reasonably have.

    Tomorrow Is Another Stand

    One of the dangers of a difficult fundraising day is carrying it home and turning it into a judgement about yourself.

    “I was terrible today.”

    “Maybe I can’t do this anymore.”

    “I’ve lost my touch.”

    But one day’s numbers cannot tell the whole story of a fundraiser.

    Review the day. Be honest about what you could have done differently. Learn what needs to be learned.

    Then allow the day to end.

    Tomorrow, the people walking past the stand will be different.

    The conversations will be different.

    And you may be different too.

    Beyond the Pitch

    Face-to-face fundraising asks people to do something emotionally demanding.

    Approach strangers. Accept rejection. Stay present. Tell stories with conviction. Ask people to care.

    Then repeat the process throughout the day.

    We talk a lot about techniques, targets and performance.

    We should also talk about the person doing the work.

    A fundraiser having a difficult day does not automatically need lower standards.

    Sometimes they need perspective.

    Sometimes they need a reset.

    Sometimes they need support.

    And sometimes they simply need someone to recognise that behind the branded shirt, the target and the pitch is a human being.

    Fundraisers spend their days asking strangers to care.

    Sometimes we need to remember to care about the person doing the asking.

    Continue the Conversation

    If you work in face-to-face fundraising, how do you reset when you’re having one of those days?

    And if you lead fundraisers, how do you balance supporting someone who is struggling with maintaining the standards the job requires?

    Share your experience in the comments.

    Want to Go Further?

    Face-to-face fundraising is about far more than learning the perfect pitch.

    My book Beyond the Pitch: The Art of Face-to-Face Fundraising explores the people, conversations, leadership challenges and realities behind the work.

    📘 Find Beyond the Pitch and my other resources on Reflections In Motion:
    https://reflectionsinmotion.blog/shop/

    Work With Me

    I work with fundraising teams and organisations around face-to-face fundraising, fundraiser development, team coaching, communication and leadership.

    If your organisation wants to strengthen the people behind the pitch through practical training and development:

    📧 lelon@reflectionsinmotion.blog

    🌐 https://reflectionsinmotion.blog

    Reflections In Motion — Ideas. Insight. Impact.