Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Bad Statistics Are Dangerous For Charities

In the last week a few people on my Twitter timeline have posted (some sceptically) the results of Google's research in to how and why people donate on-line.

The conclusions from the statistics included that 75% of people start their donation research on-line, 74% of people donate because they believe in the mission, and 57% of people make a donation after watching a video.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is all complete bullshit.

Firstly, common sense - think about those numbers. Of course it's not true that more than half of people donate after watching a video. Of course it's not true that three quarters of people donate because they believe in the mission - do you even know what your favourite charity's mission is?

Secondly, let's look at the survey and trace it back.

The article I just read was this one, that exclaims that "57% of Those Who Watch Nonprofit Videos Go On to Make a Donation". Please note that the article is written by a YouTube Video Producer. I'm sure he's very good at that. But his statistic is just not true. That's not his fault...let's look where he gets it from.

He gets it from here. It's a nice article that most subsequent articles are referring to. It casually mentions that "An impressive 57% of people who watch a video for a nonprofit go on to make a donation."

But it doesn't link to the original research, which is a shame.

The original research is quite hard to find. Here it is. It is incredibly vague and unhelpful. It's also notable in the fact that the research was actually carried out by MillwardBrown association with Google.

Look a bit further and you'll find the methodology, which is almost always overlooked when we read statistics. This particular methodology really tells us very little.

But it does tell us they surveyed 982 people. I hate surveys - they are generally used by students and people trying to sell you something. The truth is when you ask people about their donation habits it is completely unreliable.

They also 'tracked donors behaviour backwards'. It is possible that they looked at donors, worked backwards and found that 57% of people had come from videos. But that certainly isn't the same thing as 57% of people make a donation after watching a video. I would assume that more than 99% of people watch a video and then do nothing. This is either really badly worded...or they're just wrong.

And the carelessness in this analysing and presentation of statistics is dangerous. I find statistics in charitable fundraising particularly dangerous.

Small, medium and even large charities are going to read these statistics and going to read articles written by very intelligent people. They're going to assume that it's correct - 57% of people who watch a video will go on to donate. And then they're going to put their fundraising budget in to making these videos. They'll put them on-line and they will do nothing. They will not generate income. They will fail. And that money will be gone.

These statistics are dangerous because it draws charities in to the belief that this is what will work for them.

It won't.

Please don't put your fundraising budget in to YouTube videos unless it is part of a bigger and more researched fundraising mix.

Monday, August 26, 2013

I Wish I'd Thought Of That: Direct Dialogue Fundraising

This is an expanded version of what I said at Fundraising Ireland's 'I Wish I'd Thought Of That' event in August 2013.

I want to talk about my favourite form of fundraising - direct dialogue, face-to-face, door-to-door, street, 'chugging'. You’ve no doubt already made your mind up about it - you use it and love it, you think it’s a necessary evil, or you hate it and you’re never going to use it.

But, I want to talk about how it changed fundraising, how it changed my life, and why I think it’s important to you whether you use it or not.

Door-to-door sales was invented shortly after the invention of door but it was around the early 70s that a charity first made a measured effort to recruit regular givers - it was the Red Cross using an agency in Germany, made up of mainly Austrian students.

And through that the concept spread back to Austria. One of the big charities to do it in Austria was Greenpeace, and one day in the hot summer of 1995 the employees of an agency named Dialog Direct were whining that there was nobody home. So they went and stood outside a public swimming pool and started talking to strangers walking by, signing them up for DD. It worked - they did it at a second swimming pool - and then shifted almost all of their door on to street.

In ‘96 the French were well into their nuclear testing - identifying some of the most beautiful places in the world and then blowing those places up - and it was thanks to this that Greenpeace really found their groove with direct recruitment.

They recruited 55,000 new direct debit donors that year through direct dialogue in Austria (a country about double our population). Some of the fundraisers involved presented it at the IFC conference - and people didn’t believe it worked. It wouldn’t work. It’s not possible. But they were wrong.

The idea was exported to Italy. Czech republic. Anywhere that could process standing orders or direct debits. Australia started using it. A telephone agency in the UK was essentially forced by Greenpeace to move out onto the street. But they knew it would be controversial, so they got the likes of Amnesty and WWF on board to help control the public opinion.

2002 or 2003-ish was about the time that the first in-house teams started to appear and about the time it arrived in Ireland.

Which brings me to 2004 - the year I started on the street for UNHCR, MSF and Forgotten Children (an Australian charity whose celebrity patron is Toadfish from Neighbours). And that changed my life.

It changed it immediately because I met amazing people, and was given amazing things on the street, and randomers would invite me to parties. I completely fell in love with the girl who trained me in and that was a disaster for about a year, and then it was really good for about 6 hours, and then it was a disaster again.
And then long-term it changed my view on ‘charity’ and realistically how we are going to change the world (Hint: it involves money). It got me working in the charity sector which is where I’ve stayed - I currently own a fundraising agency that employs nearly 100 'dialoguers'. And in a roundabout way I met my girlfriend and had a kid through it.

But why would you care about any of that?

Well, the point is that face-to-face fundraising works. And I don’t mean using an agency. I’m not necessarily talking about these large campaigns or even the fundraisers that stand on the street all day. I’m talking about you, as a fundraiser.

I’ve worked with a lot of people who have gone on to work in other agencies and charities and I believe if you’ve ever worked in sales or street or door-to-door that you take this skill along with you to ask for money. A friend of mine who worked on door-to-door (as well as other jobs) made the transition to office-based fundraiser. He ended up working for a well known international charity, who had been in Ireland for nearly 10 years and they had 1 direct debit donor. He went in and started engaging with volunteers, supporters, at events, even staff. He started 'face-to-face fundraising' with everyone he met. Within about a year they had 50 DD donors.

I love technology and digital - twitter and e-mail and social media and text giving and all this fancy stuff - and I hate talking to people. But in terms of fundraising very often this technology is just making it easier for us to NOT really ask for money. We’re using the latest technology to access hundreds of thousands of people and make it really easy to ignore us. Genuinely, are you going to raise more money today by e-mailing 100,000 people or by talking to ten?

Whatever changes in the future humans will continue to give to humans. The more you sound like a human, the more you look like a human the more you will raise. You can't fully understand any form of fundraising until you've had someone say "Yes" to your face and someone say "No" to your face.

And that's why I wish I thought of Direct Dialogue fundraising.

Friday, August 23, 2013

4 Things Fundraisers Can Learn From Spanx

The infamous Mary O'Kennedy challenged me to write a blog post on Spanx and fundraising.
First of all I had to learn about Spanx - and I'll never get that time of my life back, so thank you Mary. Thankfully the history of the company is reasonably interesting. I also learned that on-line Spanx is the 'Street Fundraising' of the underwear world: people have some pretty strong opinions.

But here we go...4 Things Fundraisers Can Learn From Spanx.

You Are Not Your Target Audience
When the founder of Spanx, Sara Blakely, tried to get the idea off the ground, most of the [male] mill owners said they wouldn't get involved because the idea didn't make sense and would never work. It was only when one of the mill owners ran the idea by his two daughters (who loved it) that he change his mind.
That's important to remember in your fundraising - it doesn't matter what you like. What's important is what your donors and potential donors like.

Be Realistic With Your Expectations
Spanx don't make you look a size or two smaller - they'll smooth you out and can help your appearance, but they're not a miracle fix.
Like fundraising, there is no miracle fix. It takes hard work. It takes time. It takes good, solid fundraising over time to build your income. Stop looking for a quick fix because there isn't one.

Pretty Does Not Mean Good
They might not be pretty, but if it achieves what you're trying to achieve then who cares?
Some of the best forms of fundraising are ugly. Be clear on what your goal is: are you trying to raise money for amazing causes or are you trying to look pretty? Do you want little knickers riding up your butt all day or do you want your direct mail campaign to break-even in the first year?

Don't Be Afraid To Cut Out The Parts That Don't Work For You
The concept of Spanx was simply pantyhose/tights that didn't roll up when you cut the bottom off. Sara Blakely cut out (am I clutching at straws here?) the part of the product that didn't work for her.
Too often in fundraising we keep something going because we're attached to it - golf classics, annual events, membership programmes, microsites, etc. But if they're not working anymore, if they're not the best use of time and resources, then we have to have the courage to cut them out.

If you want to read more about Sara Blakely there's a good bit of detail on Spanx's website. Sara Blakely was the first female billionaire to join the Giving Pledge. She's an amazing person. She works hard to break down the barrier of women not having the same opportunities as men, which is still blatantly evident, even in Ireland. I would like to buy her a hot chocolate.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Ask The Fundraisers #1

I wanted to try this as a semi-regular blog post - ask a bunch of my favourite fundraisers the same question and see what answers they come back here's the first "Ask The Fundraiser":

“If you joined a brand new charity on their first day of existence - no fundraising programme or staff whatsoever and little or no budget – as the person responsible for fundraising what is the first thing you would do?”

"I would try to get my head around the need – 1. The need for the organisation and 2. the need for fundraising to support us meeting the need. Then I’d go after data…I love data and am not afraid to say it."
Elley Martin, Donor Marketing Manager, Northern Ireland Chest Heart & Stroke

  1. Refine your story. Communicate with passion and emotion why the charity is needed and make the story as personal as possible about who will be helped. Recruiting (or being) a good copywriter will make a big difference to how people respond to your story. An emotive video to tell your story is probably one of the most effective things you can do.
  2. Define exactly what a gift to your charity will accomplish. Make it tangible and connected directly to the beneficiary.
  3. Treasure Mapping – This involves interviewing everyone involved with starting the charity. Ask them who they know that might be interested in helping either with money, in-kind gifts or advice. Ask for introductions and make personal visits to everyone on the list. Continue to ask each person you meet to refer you to 2 or 3 others who might be interested. Keep telling your story and make sure all the staff can tell the story.
  4. Rent a mailing list of local businesses, professionals and individuals and mail a well written, emotive letter asking for donations. Mail regularly, you have to stay in people's minds. Be prepared with Thank You letters and a very simple follow-up report on how the gifts were used (this will become your newsletter eventually).
  5. If you have a programme site invite people down to tour the programme and meet the staff. Focus tours on telling the story and building relationships.
  6. Set up a Facebook page that tells your story and directs people to a donation website to give to a particular project. (next step is a basic website)
  7. Research possible foundation grants & submit 2-3 grant applications.
  8. Don’t expect to do anything but work and sleep for the first year. Start-up is painful.
Denisa Casement, Head of Fundraising, Merchants Quay Ireland

"What I am noticing more and more at the moment is the commentary on the importance of 'real' interactions with donors to keep them engaged (and giving!).  Assuming this would be a small start-up organisation, part of my strategy would be to use my smallness as an advantage and where possible, thank donors in personal and special ways. I would also try to give my donors opportunities to interact with the beneficiaries face-to-face, so they can see what an amazing difference their money has made. I think technology is great for lots of things but not for real relationships. Ultimately - I'd have a sure-fire fundraising strategy! Fail to prepare, prepare to fail!"

Ed Hurrell, Business Development Manager, Fundraising Ireland

"I'd get the list of whatever volunteers, donors or supporters there were (including board members). Pick up the phone and give them all a call to find out why they care about the charity, what the charity does well in their opinion and what it doesn't do well."

Kevin Delaney, Founder of Charity Hack and Relay For Life Coordinator, Irish Cancer Society

"I'm assuming that the charity is a small start up with no funding and that you are donating your spare time.  In my opinion, everything stems from community fundraising so that's where I would start.  By building your brand locally first, you create a strong base which can then be turned into regular donors, corporate donations, major donors etc.
I'd start by asking friends and family to donate to a specific project, something that can be used as a showpiece as to what you are about.  I'd also ask for items of value to be donated which can be sold at car boot sales or online to raise money for the charity.  I'd also talk to local businesses and the church about running collections and displaying collection boxes and I would run local fundraising events.  It would be important to get contact details from donors so you can report back to each donor to keep them interested in the charity and to show how their donation is being used to drive change.
The other thing I would do on day one is to see if there were any grants available for the organisation.  That can be a long process so it is best to start day one.
In summary, I'd go for all the traditional routes that work.  Build a strong foundation and work out from there.  Don't waste much time on social media, it rarely works and its not as productive as the traditional routes."
Mike McGuire, Corporate Partnerships Manager, UNICEF

"I believe the most important part of any fundraising plan is knowing why the charity exists and what you are raising the money for. In order to know that you need to speak to as many people involved in the work of the charity as possible. And this is the first thing I would do. Find out why the charity exists, what it is trying to achieve and its objectives. I would speak to the people who started the charity and ask them how it came to exist. I believe fundraising should be built around the output of the charity and what it is achieving. This should be the foundation of any fundraising department and strategy. When you know why you are fundraising, it will become much clearer as to how to fundraise."
David Muldoon, Fundraising Manager, Cope Galway

"The first thing I'd do would be to look at the database. I'd want to know how many donors are on there, can we contact them and how, how they give (regular gift, or one off....or both!). If you have donors there that are actively engaged and want to give (or had in the past) you have a group of people to go to with a fundraising ask."
Aoife Garvey, Direct Marketing Executive, Concern Worldwide

Hugh O'Reilly, Business Development Executive, The Wheel

Do you want to be involved in the next one?
Do you have a suggestion for the next question?
Get in touch!

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

More Than One Way To Skin An Annual Report

'Tis the season of charity's annual reports and I always find it interesting to see how newspapers interpret results. I'm one of the only losers in the world that actually reads these things and I'm always disappointed to see the focus firmly sit on the finances as opposed to impact, output and achievement.

I wonder, what do the press releases look like?

Take Trócaire, for example...

In their latest annual report they exclaimed that, because of their donors:
- 2,409 families in Honduras now have access to water.
- 4,000 people in Mali were provided with emergency aid.
- 20,000 victims of conflict were given food and shelter.

And much, much more.

The newspapers went with the headlines "Trocaire goes into red even after €1m donation", "Anonymous donor leaves Trocaire a bequest of €1 million" and "Over €4 million left to Trócaire in wills last year".

It's a shame...wasted, precious media space that could have been used to highlight successes or raise awareness of work still to do. What percentage of media space is wasted on celebrity gossip and wishful-scandal?

The majority of articles and comments focused on the CEO's salary. People asked how much of their donations go on salaries...despite the fact that the annual report answers this very question. Wouldn't we be better asking how many lives were saved for each donation?

It's our own fault...the media are pawns and fueled entirely by supply from the charity and demand from us   - so that's clearly what we want to read. But just in case you'd like to read further than the headlines, here are some of the highlights I took from Trócaire's financial report:
  • Trócaire had a total income of €60 million and employed 423 staff. About 0.002% of their income went to their CEO, who worked for well below the market rate to manage a huge organisation and hundreds of staff and volunteers across 27 countries.
  • None of their trustees or board received an income from their work with Trócaire. They didn't even claim any expenses - no mileage, no cups of coffee, no bus fare to get to board meetings!
    It's worth noting that most private company directors would receive an income. It's safe to say these people have Trócaire's best interests at heart, and they are the ones that determined a fare salary for their CEO. If it was reasonable to pay less they probably would have.
  • Trócaire have published their senior manager's salaries - not many organisations, businesses or charities do that. Shouldn't we appreciate their transparency instead of criticising it?
  • The income from the public stayed stable - it takes amazing supporters and an amazing fundraising team to achieve that in a recession.
  • The level of detail is incredible. For example they specifically declared a €1,000 restricted donation from the Daughters of Charity. The people that benefit from their work is reported right down to the individual number. This is incredible for an organisation with a turnover of €60 million.
  • But they put a pie chart in saying what percentage they spent on 'charitable' activity - I hate's nonsense.

Oh, and if you'd like to actually start discussing their impact and the incredible work they do, then why don't we focus on their achievements for a couple of seconds. Why don't we take a mild glance at their output before we even consider judging them?

Shouldn't that be the what annual reports are all about?

How To Say No To A Street Fundraiser

I wanted to do a post on how to say no to a street fundraiser as so many people struggle with it, which I've never understood. The big secret is to say "No thanks" or "No" or nothing and keep walking on your usual path. That works 99.9% of the time.

If that doesn't work then you need to make a complaint...I'm going to do a post on 'How To Make A Complaint' as so many people seem to struggle with that too. (Hint: the first person you need to call is someone who can do something about it)

But I've also stolen a great idea from Diarmaid O'Sullivan and built upon it. So here's a voucher/coupon for you to complete and give to street fundraisers who try to engage you:

Thursday, August 15, 2013

I'm Sorry, But Charity Works

It is remarkably convenient to say that charity doesn't work.

That conclusion could save us billions in aid, allow each of us to personally save money in donations, and we could finally ban all those heartwrenching pictures we see on TV and in the post. Knowing that charity didn't work would allow us to feel helpless, remove all guilt and let us conveniently blame 'them'.

And a lot of people are telling us this.

Warren Buffett's son was the loudest most recently - he explained that "giving back" keeps the structure of inequality in place. "No charitable intervention can solve any of these problems."

And anecdotally you've probably read about a failed project, met someone who has seen a charity wasting money, or heard about a fat cat charity CEO sitting on a throne of gold human skulls. The latest charity CEO salary debate saw responses exclaiming that little or no money gets to the people that need it. That charities are not motivated to fix problems as it keeps them in employment. They're corrupt, they're inefficient, they're not transparent.

Yes, I'm sure you can find that charity (although most critics don't have any facts to back up their claims). I personally struggle with charities like the Iona Institute, those that promote homeopathy, and specific organisations I've seen managed badly.

But there are hundreds of thousands of charities who are making a difference. Charities who are transparent, will answer all your questions and will publish all of their achievements and failures. There is independent research and analysis showing projects and work that succeeds...that is working, and will continue to work as long as there is money coming in. Organisations like GiveWell are thoroughly researching charities and publishing exactly how well they are doing what they do.

And anecdotally try talking to someone who has seen the good work a charity has done or even benefitted directly from it. Try calling the Samaritans phone number or visiting an animal shelter and then saying it isn't "working". Look up how many people the Red Cross have trained in First Aid or how many wells Charity Water has built. Try talking to one of these fat cat CEOs or their staff and asking for the results.

But, as Stewart Lee said, you can prove anything with facts.

Of course they don't all work. In the same way that not all 'businesses' will succeed, not all 'politicians' are effective and not all 'scientists' are right. But you can't dismiss 'charity' because of another's failures. You wouldn't give up eating forever because you got food poisoning.

Unfortunately, it comes down to research and a little bit of trust. Research in the same way you would research the creche you leave your kids at or research a car before you buy one. And trust in the same way you have to trust that not everyone on your flight is a terrorist and not everything is a scam.

The Effective Altruism movement is the desire to make the world as good a place as it can be; the use of evidence and reason to find out how to do so; and the audacity to actually try.

Massive inequality, unethical companies and immoral governments and laws are making it more difficult to have an impact (and of course that needs to change). But that's no excuse to give up improving lives within the constraints we have.

There's no easy way to say this. You can make a difference and change the world.

But it's going to take a little work.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

What Is Innovation?

1. Make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.
2. Introduce something new, esp. a product.
When people and charities think about innovating they think about amazing websites, viral videos and slick apps. We see Google sending up wi-fi balloons, Coke using personalised vending machines, and Apple churning out whatever shit Apple is churning out right now.

But this misinterpretation of innovation is dangerous. It's causing charities to spend money on stuff that isn't likely to work for them and using big chunks of their budget on something that really requires millions to make any kind of a dent. I'm all for taking risks...but there's a scale of risks.

One organisation's innovation is another organisation's history. There's no point trying to keep up with Google, Oxfam or Steve Jobs if you haven't even got the basics in place.

If you've never asked anyone for a donation before then that's an innovation...try it.

If you don't have a direct debit facility then that's an innovation...get it.

If you've never picked up the phone to speak to a donor then that's an it.

Here's to the kind-of-crazy ones that try something new...something that everyone else has already proved works.

Monday, August 12, 2013

What I Got From Charity Hack 2013

Saturday 10th of August was the first ever Charity Hack, organised by future fundraiser of the year Kevin Delaney. It brought together 5 amazing charities and a roomful of people to spend 12 solid hours coming up with a 'campaign' from scratch.

Charity Hack have done a good job at capturing the day through blog posts, twitter, photos, video and even an artist. And I wanted to add to it from my perspective...and so here is What I Got From Charity Hack:

The 'secret' to fundraising is asking
Small to medium charities always fear fundraising. Organisations are often embarrassed to ask for money because it feels like we're only 'taking'.
But it's not begging, it's not just shaking buckets, it's not one-way.
It's an opportunity. Almost everyone wants to make the world a better place and almost everyone has the money to do so. Fundraising is engaging with people and giving them the opportunity to improve their own world. Fundraising is spelling out for people how they can help and what will improve because of them.
Reducing crime, supporting the bereaved, improving our environment, educating people on their choices...these are all benefits and when you donate to charity you are buying these things in the same way you would buy any service or product.

We need to support the next generation of fundraisers
The fundraising talent is out there - individuals who are driven and clever and ready for bigger things.
And the need is out there - charities are struggling to fundraise, struggling to fill positions, and struggling to survive.
But the two aren't connecting. Why is that? Do we need more forums for junior/mid-level fundraisers? Do we need more mentoring? More support? More encouragement? Should charities take more risks on people? Spend more on training? Devote time to learning and growing?

Digital is not our saviour
It's just not. It probably never will be. It's a great facility, but it's cold.
Just because you have an amazing website and text-donate facility and a stupid App it doesn't mean people are going to use them.
People still respond to people, and the more you look and sound like a person the more people will respond.

Charities need support from the start
A new charity is formed every two days in Ireland. In some ways I understand why: the world is crap and we would all like to do something about that.
And if setting up a new charity is genuinely the best thing to do, then you need to be prepared. You know what you're trying to achieve, but you need realistic, achievable and measurable goals. You need a strategy. You need to plan.
And you need to be is irresponsible to take donations in year 1 if you're going to have to shut your doors in year 2 because you can't afford to go on.
We need to support charities from day 1, and charities need to be open to that support. Thankfully, every person at Charity Hack was open to that.

People are inherently good
Over 30 people gave up their Saturday to devote more than 12 hours to helping people they didn't know.
Sponsors paid for food, drink and random stuff because they liked the idea and wanted to help.
In my thirties, since I became a miserable bastard, I try to limit the number of new friends I make to about one per year. My rate of friend attrition is running at about 30%.
But when you put yourself in situations where you're surrounded by motivated, positive and passionate people there is a definite risk of meeting people you like.

It's safe to say it'll happen again next year... #charityhack2014

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Charity Salaries And Overheads - It's That Time Again

It comes around about 3 times a year: a leading national newspaper publishes the (publicly available) salaries of charity staff and a bunch of people flip out.

So, for convenience, here's a collection of blog posts I've written on the subject:

How Much of My Donation Is Spent On Overheads (Or Why Admin Costs Are Bullshit)
"I want you to spend my donation on your wages, on your toilet paper, the spatula on the new Rainbow Warrior, on your Xmas party. Whatever you feel it takes to change the world.

Frequently Asked Questions
"It's not wrong to make money from selling water, providing information, providing gas and electricity, producing medicine, teaching, upholding the law, being a doctor, destroying our planet, etc."

Donate Directly To Those That Need It
"Here's my artistic interpretation of money going directly to those in need."

The Problem With Dan Pallotta
"The correct argument is of course that nobody should be earning $400,000 or $232,000 or anything near that while there are still people suffering for no reason."

Why Charities Are Doomed
"Why couldn’t a charity have created Facebook, the iPod, Coke? Imagine! Instead of profits for shareholders these things were funding life changing projects?"

The Magic 100,000
"How much should they earn? Is €99,999 ok? €80k? €50k? €40k? What's the cut-off?"

The People vs. Angela Kerins
"A successful Irish business woman who is willing to work well for a salary well below the industry standard because what she is doing is good."

The Opposite Of A Careerist
"You can not possibly care about animal rights, the environment, lifting people out of poverty AND keeping children safe."

Only 67% Of People Think Advertising Is Worthwhile
"74% felt that London-based offices for businesses were a "somewhat" or "very" wasteful expenditure."

Imagine Two Organisations
"They are heralded as one of the most generous, benevolent and ethical companies in the world."

More Than One Way To Skin An Annual Report
"What percentage of media space is wasted on celebrity gossip and wishful-scandal?"

The Death of Pie
"If we keep providing this information in such a lazy format then potential donors will continue to judge us lazily."

Friday, August 2, 2013

1 Second Every Day

This isn't strictly a charity or fundraising post, but I think there could be some relevance. I've always liked Charity Water's photo of the day, but I think there's an opportunity here to trump them.

For a number of reasons I've started recording one second every day of my life, and beyond that I'm trying to avoid taking photos or recording videos.

I'd love to see a charity record one second of every day. What would it look like?

UPDATED: Here's 18 months: