Philanthropy and the Economy -- Part 2

I well remember Robert F. Sharpe, Sr., who said to us back in about 1984, as we were in training to become major and planned gift officers in our respective nonprofits, that "giving follows compelling ideas."

Just as in business and industry the money tends to follow the leading edge of ideas that make what we euphemistically refer to as "better mousetraps." If Google comes up with a better search engine, the money to develop that comes their way, then followed by hugely increasing use of that engine when developed, and then followed by the ad dollars as advertisers finally catch on. Better ideas lead to better products, lead to booming economy. Right?

Can we apply that to charities? I think we can. But from what I've seen, the boards and staffs of nonprofit organizations don't seem to share that point of view. For example, I've started collecting fundraising letters again this year. From the ones I've received so far, it's pretty obvious there are not too many compelling ideas for fundraising letters out there in the southeast Michigan philanthropic marketplace.

-- Over here we have another gala – "please give to our cause and come to our gala."
-- Over there we have another human service agency that writes a letter two pages long giving a long diatribe on all the aspects of their many-faceted program.
-- Then we have the dogs and cats that need homes, and the "gee-whiz" statistics that show what the organization is doing. Makes my eyes glaze over after the first paragraph!
-- Then we have the hospital campaign – they're short and sweet: never mind what we're doing with your money, just pay up! Your pledge is past due.

The case for support for most of these can be reduced to: "We do this, we do that, we do the other thing." or "We need, please give."

During last year's holiday season I racked up 57 fundraising letters that I got in the mail. I can't complain about this. Comparatively, not all that many have my name and address, in light of the fact that there are over 4000 agencies in southeastern Michigan that have the 501-c-3 IRS designation! But of the 57 letters, only 3 of them had any real appeal at all, to my way of thinking. The rest just didn't have the ideas, the program, or the way of describing their efforts or success that appealed to me as a donor.

So I gave to those three. I could have given to all 57, and would have, IF any of the other 54 had shown a spark of creativity about them, or presented their case for support in some way that was involving, compelling, motivating.

So my question on this is, does an economy in the tank mean, then, that all the creativity and all the good ideas suddenly vanish from the minds of those in charge of our nonprofits? Is the economy to blame for the fact that dull fundraising letters keep being produced? Does the economy dictate whether or not a given nonprofit thinks up a compelling, tantalizing or creative twist to its case for support?

I don't think so, because this stuff happens – the dull fundraising letters, the lackluster descriptions of program, the failure to talk about exciting results people are having with their program – these all happen in GOOD economic times as well as in bad. Somehow I don't think creativity and compelling cases for support are tied that much to the economy. I'll bet an agency head could come up with a creative and compelling way to capture a donor's heart in any kind of economic circumstance. What do you think, dear reader? Have you been reading the fundraising letters you get in the mail? Do your eyes glaze over after the first paragraph?

Bob Sharpe Sr. also said that there was never such a time of economic difficulty that someone couldn't raise a dollar, and there was never such a time of economic well-being and abundance that some nonprofit or other wasn't required to close its doors because of lack of contributions. And I'd like to add to that the comment that the most likely reason any nonprofit has to close its doors would be that it failed to create a compelling, motivating case for support that attracted resources to its cause.

We'll explore the donor's response to the economy tomorrow.