I remember the start of this dynamic well. What was particularly tragic, as you hint, is that the various methods of "unreal" and disengaged fundraising reinforced each other-- so "less popular" charities could compete on the f2f/pdd merry-go-round and therefore feel financially secure enough to justify "corporate" rebranding in a way that took them away from connection with donors. In some notable instances, disability charities (I will mention no names) would brief f2f fundraising teams with a nod and a wink that it was OK to use old-fashioned language about disability on the high street and on the doorstep, while they rebranded to a "pure" beneficiary-led corporate identity in all their written communications. As I've said to you, Mark-- the FPS pauses this process of disengagement, it doesn't end the tragedy of the commons on which it is based. I applaud your continued enthusiasm to get back to real engagement-led fundraising.