I recently got back in touch with an old friend: Ambrose Bierce – Civil War veteran, writer, one who observed his times and gave pungent commentary. I thought readers of this blog might enjoy reading this definition:
PHILANTHROPIST, n. A rich (and usually bald) old gentleman who has trained himself to grin while his conscience is picking his pocket.
-- taken from Ambrose Bierce’s “Devil’s Dictionary” 1868
So... you started with a list of 150 people who were “C/S” or Cultivation and Solicitation prospects, you winnowed those down to the first 20. You then oriented and trained them, and each of them now has a list of 20 donor prospects that they are going to cultivate and solicit over time, and the written strategies (the “moves management” system) by which they are going to do that.
Your job’s not done. But of course you knew that. Now you’ve got to manage the work of these 20 volunteers and evaluate what they’re doing and how effective they are at it.
The first thing you need to do now is write down a set of performance standards by which you will measure the effectiveness of each volunteer. What are the characteristics of their performance that you want to evaluate? Here are some suggestions, but you can certainly add your own.
1. Did they ultimately get the gift at the desired level?
2. Did they follow the cultivation and solicitation strategy as devised?
3. Were deviations from that strategy done with imagination and skill?
4. Did the volunteer do a good job of relating personally to the prospects? Was the chemistry good, was it productive?
5. Did the volunteer come away with new (and potentially even better) prospects to cultivate and solicit as a result of their relationship with the donors?
6. Did the volunteer have a good time doing this work? Did they come away from the job still enthusiastic about their own skill, the organization and the mission or cause?
7. Was the volunteer low-maintenance or high-maintenance to work with?
Any more thoughts on this from readers? Leave a comment and let us know.
The evaluation process can be formal or informal. I prefer both informal and personal. Get with each volunteer over lunch or coffee and informally go through your list, but not FROM the list. They don’t want to know they’re being evaluated; it’s scary and internally disruptive to think that your fine efforts as a volunteer are being “judged” by your “supervisor.” Not a good position from which to derive daily motivational highs. But just talk with them about their experience, take some notes, and then go back to the office and write all this up in a brief in the volunteer’s file. Later you’ll use this information to evaluate the overall volunteer corps you’ve put together, the individual successes and problems, etc. and judge whether or not to keep this volunteer in the C/S corps.
Another aspect of your management system for these C/S volunteers is that you need to coach them along the way. So you’re going to be in touch with them on a fairly regular basis by email or on the phone, getting feedback from them, seeing how they are doing, understanding what they need on an almost daily basis and de-briefing them on their experiences. They’ll need someone to talk to and you’re that person.
You’ll also probably find that there is a need for occasional further training in various aspects of the cultivation and solicitation process. So be prepared to devise little training sessions for one or several volunteers at a time.
Other than that, you’re ready to sit back, relax, put your feet up and tally the gifts that come rolling in. AND.... get the next batch of 20 volunteers selected, oriented trained and ready to be deployed against another list of donor prospects.
“A mother’s work is never done!”
Showing posts with label Fundraising Management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fundraising Management. Show all posts
Friday, March 21, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Using Volunteers in Cultivate and Solicit – Part 4 of 5
Let’s say, for example, that you’ve succeeded in identifying 150 or so prospective "C/S" volunteers (Cultivation and Solicitation volunteers) from your database, based on their giving and any preference data you happen to have on them, and that you’ve vetted this list with board or other volunteers to get even more information about them. Now you’ve winnowed out the first batch of 20 and you’re anxious and ready to get them in the field tackling that long list of major gift people you THINK could be major gift prospects. So, what do we do now?
First off you’ll need to inform them, then you’ll need to bring their expectation levels up, and then you’ll need to give them some orientation and training in the fine sport of cultivation and solicitation of major gifts donors. At first blush, when these volunteers see what you’ve got in mind, they’re going to say “No way, Hose! and run the other way. So you’ve got to at least be careful if not cagey in how you approach these folks.
You might invite your 20 C/S prospects to a general information meeting and there you could given them their information and orientation all together. That sure would be a savings of time. But if you do it that way, you’re probably going to double your “fallout” rate. They’ll be in shock, and they’ll be in a group for the first time, and the number of people who will want to drop out will still include some who really do have the talent and experience to do this assignment but they’re either cowed by the group or motivated by a sort of “group shock.”
My preference is to meet with each of these volunteers personally. At most two at a time. This way, you start the whole venture out on a very personal note, which is symbolic of the fact that the whole major gifts enterprise is highly personal in nature. But more than that, you have the opportunity to “look-‘em-in-they-eye” and notice those nonverbals, and therefore minutely tweak and adjust your “pitch” to meet their needs right away.
Some of these people you’ve chosen are going to be keenly sensitive to any kind of pressure, but they are curious, have experience, have great ideas and abilities, and you want them on the team. So get with them personally and start by encouraging them to use their proclivities and talents for the benefit of your organization and the furtherance of its mission.
Your first job with these about-to-be-recruited C/S prospects is to get down through their list of objections. So the first item of business when you meet with them is to let the cat out of the bag carefully and gradually, but nevertheless straightforwardly. You can say something like this:
“Mary, there‘s a very special job we’re asking just a few volunteers to undertake on our behalf, and this is the cultivation and ultimate solicitation of some fairly large gifts for our organization. We know you’ve been a long-time and vigorous supporter of ours and we believe that your influence with certain people you know could be very beneficial in our being able to gather some special gifts for our work. We have a carefully conceived plan for this work and have devised a set of specific information inputs and action steps that will make your job pretty easy, and we think you have the motivation, experience and skills to make this happen."
The first objection is going to be “Why me?”
So you’re going to open up with something that makes them feel special but not “singled out.” You’re going to say, “Mary, we’re looking for some specially talented people who we believe have the kind of cognitive and people skills to do a very special job for ABC Charity. Bill and Susan Smith, your neighbors (and you know Bill is one of our Board members), suggested you would be such a person.
The second objection is going to be “I don’t know anybody.”
So you’re going to help them feel at ease with the fact that you’ve already figured out that they probably know only a few of your major gifts prospects, and those only superficially. But you’re going to let them know that the job includes a “getting-to-know-you” component and you’re fully prepared to show them how to go about this part of the task, too. You’re going to be sensitive to their issues and their objections, but you’re also going to use “feel, felt, found” with them so as to assure them that their objections are heard but easily overcome.
By the way “feel, felt, found” runs like this:
“Yes, I know you feel that way, and in fact, over the years, we’ve found that lots of people have shared your concern. But our experience tells us that...” And here you give them the exact opposite of what they are thinking.
So the volunteer says “I’m afraid that I don’t really know any of the people on your list.”
And you’ll say, “Yes, that’s true, and I know that might feel sort of awkward at first, but we’ve found that this is a better situation than knowing them too well. In reality, the very fact that you don’t know them adds a greater sense of acceptance with most donor prospects than if you were part of their inner circle. You’ll be much more effective if you’re not that close.”
The third objection is going to be “I don’t have any time for this; I’m already too busy.”
Here you’ve got to tread carefully, because most good people ARE too busy and they’re rightfully protective of their time because they have priorities on everything they are now doing.
So your task is to work with them to pull out the inner motivations that have made them good donors over the years and make those motivations work for you. You’re going to heighten those motivations and lift them up in a way that, from inside themselves, the prospective volunteer will understand how much of a priority this work is for them. In other words, you’re going to make their inner motivations do your persuasion work for you. Put them in touch with the things that move them and they’re all yours, you might say.
The fourth objection is going to be “I don’t know enough about the organization to do this.”
This one’s easy, because you can assure them that you have already figured that out and have prepared an orientation session and an information packet, plus some hands-on volunteer experiences that will close this information gap quickly and easily. When you’re done with this part of the work the prospective volunteer will be panting to get started.
Why? Because you’ve previously connected with the emotional “hook” that connects them to your organization and your work; now you’ve shown them just how easy and possible it is; and you’ve filled them with excitement that they can achieve something really remarkable in terms of financial support, and they’re going to be rarin’ to go!
Now the rest is easy. You give them the orientation session; you give them the information; you bring them into a short-term volunteering role to let them see the “inner workings” of mission delivery, and these inputs give the typical volunteer just about all they need. The only other ingredient you can provide for the few who are not yet experienced in cultivation activity is a bit of role-play to let them get used to the face-to-face cultivation situation. Not a lot of your volunteers are going to need that, but you should have it at the ready in case there are a few who do.
Now you’re off and running. More tomorrow.
First off you’ll need to inform them, then you’ll need to bring their expectation levels up, and then you’ll need to give them some orientation and training in the fine sport of cultivation and solicitation of major gifts donors. At first blush, when these volunteers see what you’ve got in mind, they’re going to say “No way, Hose! and run the other way. So you’ve got to at least be careful if not cagey in how you approach these folks.
You might invite your 20 C/S prospects to a general information meeting and there you could given them their information and orientation all together. That sure would be a savings of time. But if you do it that way, you’re probably going to double your “fallout” rate. They’ll be in shock, and they’ll be in a group for the first time, and the number of people who will want to drop out will still include some who really do have the talent and experience to do this assignment but they’re either cowed by the group or motivated by a sort of “group shock.”
My preference is to meet with each of these volunteers personally. At most two at a time. This way, you start the whole venture out on a very personal note, which is symbolic of the fact that the whole major gifts enterprise is highly personal in nature. But more than that, you have the opportunity to “look-‘em-in-they-eye” and notice those nonverbals, and therefore minutely tweak and adjust your “pitch” to meet their needs right away.
Some of these people you’ve chosen are going to be keenly sensitive to any kind of pressure, but they are curious, have experience, have great ideas and abilities, and you want them on the team. So get with them personally and start by encouraging them to use their proclivities and talents for the benefit of your organization and the furtherance of its mission.
Your first job with these about-to-be-recruited C/S prospects is to get down through their list of objections. So the first item of business when you meet with them is to let the cat out of the bag carefully and gradually, but nevertheless straightforwardly. You can say something like this:
“Mary, there‘s a very special job we’re asking just a few volunteers to undertake on our behalf, and this is the cultivation and ultimate solicitation of some fairly large gifts for our organization. We know you’ve been a long-time and vigorous supporter of ours and we believe that your influence with certain people you know could be very beneficial in our being able to gather some special gifts for our work. We have a carefully conceived plan for this work and have devised a set of specific information inputs and action steps that will make your job pretty easy, and we think you have the motivation, experience and skills to make this happen."
The first objection is going to be “Why me?”
So you’re going to open up with something that makes them feel special but not “singled out.” You’re going to say, “Mary, we’re looking for some specially talented people who we believe have the kind of cognitive and people skills to do a very special job for ABC Charity. Bill and Susan Smith, your neighbors (and you know Bill is one of our Board members), suggested you would be such a person.
The second objection is going to be “I don’t know anybody.”
So you’re going to help them feel at ease with the fact that you’ve already figured out that they probably know only a few of your major gifts prospects, and those only superficially. But you’re going to let them know that the job includes a “getting-to-know-you” component and you’re fully prepared to show them how to go about this part of the task, too. You’re going to be sensitive to their issues and their objections, but you’re also going to use “feel, felt, found” with them so as to assure them that their objections are heard but easily overcome.
By the way “feel, felt, found” runs like this:
“Yes, I know you feel that way, and in fact, over the years, we’ve found that lots of people have shared your concern. But our experience tells us that...” And here you give them the exact opposite of what they are thinking.
So the volunteer says “I’m afraid that I don’t really know any of the people on your list.”
And you’ll say, “Yes, that’s true, and I know that might feel sort of awkward at first, but we’ve found that this is a better situation than knowing them too well. In reality, the very fact that you don’t know them adds a greater sense of acceptance with most donor prospects than if you were part of their inner circle. You’ll be much more effective if you’re not that close.”
The third objection is going to be “I don’t have any time for this; I’m already too busy.”
Here you’ve got to tread carefully, because most good people ARE too busy and they’re rightfully protective of their time because they have priorities on everything they are now doing.
So your task is to work with them to pull out the inner motivations that have made them good donors over the years and make those motivations work for you. You’re going to heighten those motivations and lift them up in a way that, from inside themselves, the prospective volunteer will understand how much of a priority this work is for them. In other words, you’re going to make their inner motivations do your persuasion work for you. Put them in touch with the things that move them and they’re all yours, you might say.
The fourth objection is going to be “I don’t know enough about the organization to do this.”
This one’s easy, because you can assure them that you have already figured that out and have prepared an orientation session and an information packet, plus some hands-on volunteer experiences that will close this information gap quickly and easily. When you’re done with this part of the work the prospective volunteer will be panting to get started.
Why? Because you’ve previously connected with the emotional “hook” that connects them to your organization and your work; now you’ve shown them just how easy and possible it is; and you’ve filled them with excitement that they can achieve something really remarkable in terms of financial support, and they’re going to be rarin’ to go!
Now the rest is easy. You give them the orientation session; you give them the information; you bring them into a short-term volunteering role to let them see the “inner workings” of mission delivery, and these inputs give the typical volunteer just about all they need. The only other ingredient you can provide for the few who are not yet experienced in cultivation activity is a bit of role-play to let them get used to the face-to-face cultivation situation. Not a lot of your volunteers are going to need that, but you should have it at the ready in case there are a few who do.
Now you’re off and running. More tomorrow.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Using Volunteers to Cultivate and Solicit – Part 3 of 5
If we’re going out to find volunteers for our nonprofit’s fundraising effort, where do we go to find them? How do we put together a cultivation and solicitation list of volunteers, which we will call a "C/S List"?
One thing we know is that the Baby Boomers are a hands-on lot, and that they enjoy volunteering for the organizations they support. So one of the first places we might go to find volunteers is to our donor and prospect database. We can search here for basically the same characteristics we might use to find good donors: amount, recency, frequency, size of gift over time and lifetime giving.
So get yourself a printout based on those characteristics and see who you come up with. If you’ve got a database of 5,000 donors, you’ll probably get about 250 people out of that. If your database is about 10,000 people, you might come up with 500 possible volunteer prospects.
The next step would be to find out more about those prospects – who they are, where they are in the community, what they like and dislike, who in your organization already knows them, and so forth. Send the list of names to your board members, and/or program volunteers if you have such, and ask them to check off the people they know... even a little bit. Then go to each board member and ask them to tell you about each of the people they checked on the list. Pretty soon you’ll have a thoroughly annotated list and you can then begin to craft individual letters to these people asking them to volunteer for the organization.
Not all people who respond to your letter of invitation will be good material for cultivation and solicitation work. But many will be. Two ingredients might make up a process to find out: an orientation session for volunteers, and personal interviews with candidates for your final “C/S List.” You’ll get other volunteers as well, so it might be best to have some program volunteers along on the orientation so that candidates who are more oriented to program can help out there and you can skim the top of the lot for your list.
But there are other places to go for volunteers as well. For example, the next time you give an interpretive presentation to one of the services clubs in your town, take along some volunteer sheets and hand them out. These will ask for contact and preference information from those who are interested in lending a hand to your nonprofit’s mission. Do the same thing with church groups and any other groups you happen to address on behalf of your charity.
There’s another source, however, and that is to get your board members together around a table and have a volunteer-hunting party. Ask them to reveal their rolodexes and comb through them for their friends and associates who maybe haven’t been giving to your cause but who might do so and volunteer if the board member who knows them did a little cultivation with them.
Here you have almost a “mentoring” situation, where each board member selects a half dozen of their peers and agrees to mentor them into volunteering and being effective cultivation and solicitation people. This is perhaps one of the most solid foundations on which to build volunteers for this work, because these volunteers will be coached and mentored as they work in ways that the director of development or executive director could never afford the time and attention to do.
Next level, go to the friends of the organization, widen the pool of people who are looking for volunteers. Keep the same methods as you scan wider horizons. Connect with people, do orientation sessions, conduct individual interviews. Make the process as personal as you can, and provide direction and training along the way.
Next up: what to do with these volunteers when you get them.
One thing we know is that the Baby Boomers are a hands-on lot, and that they enjoy volunteering for the organizations they support. So one of the first places we might go to find volunteers is to our donor and prospect database. We can search here for basically the same characteristics we might use to find good donors: amount, recency, frequency, size of gift over time and lifetime giving.
So get yourself a printout based on those characteristics and see who you come up with. If you’ve got a database of 5,000 donors, you’ll probably get about 250 people out of that. If your database is about 10,000 people, you might come up with 500 possible volunteer prospects.
The next step would be to find out more about those prospects – who they are, where they are in the community, what they like and dislike, who in your organization already knows them, and so forth. Send the list of names to your board members, and/or program volunteers if you have such, and ask them to check off the people they know... even a little bit. Then go to each board member and ask them to tell you about each of the people they checked on the list. Pretty soon you’ll have a thoroughly annotated list and you can then begin to craft individual letters to these people asking them to volunteer for the organization.
Not all people who respond to your letter of invitation will be good material for cultivation and solicitation work. But many will be. Two ingredients might make up a process to find out: an orientation session for volunteers, and personal interviews with candidates for your final “C/S List.” You’ll get other volunteers as well, so it might be best to have some program volunteers along on the orientation so that candidates who are more oriented to program can help out there and you can skim the top of the lot for your list.
But there are other places to go for volunteers as well. For example, the next time you give an interpretive presentation to one of the services clubs in your town, take along some volunteer sheets and hand them out. These will ask for contact and preference information from those who are interested in lending a hand to your nonprofit’s mission. Do the same thing with church groups and any other groups you happen to address on behalf of your charity.
There’s another source, however, and that is to get your board members together around a table and have a volunteer-hunting party. Ask them to reveal their rolodexes and comb through them for their friends and associates who maybe haven’t been giving to your cause but who might do so and volunteer if the board member who knows them did a little cultivation with them.
Here you have almost a “mentoring” situation, where each board member selects a half dozen of their peers and agrees to mentor them into volunteering and being effective cultivation and solicitation people. This is perhaps one of the most solid foundations on which to build volunteers for this work, because these volunteers will be coached and mentored as they work in ways that the director of development or executive director could never afford the time and attention to do.
Next level, go to the friends of the organization, widen the pool of people who are looking for volunteers. Keep the same methods as you scan wider horizons. Connect with people, do orientation sessions, conduct individual interviews. Make the process as personal as you can, and provide direction and training along the way.
Next up: what to do with these volunteers when you get them.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Using Volunteers to Cultivate and Solicit – Part 2 of 5
I’ve heard some executives and development directors decry the use of volunteers. Some say “too busy.” Others say “too much problem.” Others feel “too pressed to take the time” to meet their revenue goals.
Hey! I’ll be first in line to say that, yes, volunteers can be very heavy maintenance sometimes. Yes, it does take time to find them, train them and then to monitor and evaluate them out in the field. And, yes, you have to go with them most of the time.
But the payoff is in the fact that they steer you away from the “duds” and right to the gold, and that they bring home the gold with so much greater frequency, not to mention the fact that they extend the capability of the whole fundraising operation quite a bit. Staff simply cannot handle the cultivation and solicitation load that a typical nonprofit needs to meet its revenue targets. Conversely, if the nonprofit is limited by the cultivation and solicitation reach of its development staff and executive, it will not be able to raise the money it needs to adequately perform its mission after the first year or two. I cannot imagine why it wouldn’t be worth the time, bother and aggravation to have that much more revenue!
For example, here’s the ABC Charity. They’ve been scraping along on about $250,000 of contributed funds each year. Of course “strategic planning” for this group consists of making up each year’s budget, so it bears the "curse of the finance officer" – no new revenue sources because that person doesn’t trust that there’s any new source out there that will produce! So they limp along. Executive director Mary does program work and development work. She’s in charge of seeing to it that the $250,000 happens. She has precious little time to go scouting around after a bunch of volunteers, and relies on a couple of nerve-wracking events and the ability to write a couple of proposals each year to local foundations. Those volunteers are trouble enough as it is! She can't be bothered.
But what that organization REALLY needs is about $500,000, and if Mary would slow down enough to take the time to do a reasonably good job of putting together a gift pyramid and selecting a decent list of prospects, she could see her way to finding that much money in a community that has been able to produce the $250,000 only with difficulty.
Now, if Mary would get herself a dozen volunteers and turn them loose on that prospect list, she would find out where the gold is, and would probably have added another couple dozen new prospects the volunteers thought of. If she turns them loose in the community to solicit, after having given them a bit of training and a thorough knowledge of the organization’s case for support, her job, basically, would be done. Mary would have cut her time in the field soliciting approximately in half! Yes, she’s still working hard for that half million, but the TYPE of work she’s doing is more oriented towards supporting and managing the people who can REALLY get the job of cultivating and soliciting done. And in doing that, she’s set the organization up for continued and incremental success in the future.
Tomorrow we’ll talk about finding volunteers.
Hey! I’ll be first in line to say that, yes, volunteers can be very heavy maintenance sometimes. Yes, it does take time to find them, train them and then to monitor and evaluate them out in the field. And, yes, you have to go with them most of the time.
But the payoff is in the fact that they steer you away from the “duds” and right to the gold, and that they bring home the gold with so much greater frequency, not to mention the fact that they extend the capability of the whole fundraising operation quite a bit. Staff simply cannot handle the cultivation and solicitation load that a typical nonprofit needs to meet its revenue targets. Conversely, if the nonprofit is limited by the cultivation and solicitation reach of its development staff and executive, it will not be able to raise the money it needs to adequately perform its mission after the first year or two. I cannot imagine why it wouldn’t be worth the time, bother and aggravation to have that much more revenue!
For example, here’s the ABC Charity. They’ve been scraping along on about $250,000 of contributed funds each year. Of course “strategic planning” for this group consists of making up each year’s budget, so it bears the "curse of the finance officer" – no new revenue sources because that person doesn’t trust that there’s any new source out there that will produce! So they limp along. Executive director Mary does program work and development work. She’s in charge of seeing to it that the $250,000 happens. She has precious little time to go scouting around after a bunch of volunteers, and relies on a couple of nerve-wracking events and the ability to write a couple of proposals each year to local foundations. Those volunteers are trouble enough as it is! She can't be bothered.
But what that organization REALLY needs is about $500,000, and if Mary would slow down enough to take the time to do a reasonably good job of putting together a gift pyramid and selecting a decent list of prospects, she could see her way to finding that much money in a community that has been able to produce the $250,000 only with difficulty.
Now, if Mary would get herself a dozen volunteers and turn them loose on that prospect list, she would find out where the gold is, and would probably have added another couple dozen new prospects the volunteers thought of. If she turns them loose in the community to solicit, after having given them a bit of training and a thorough knowledge of the organization’s case for support, her job, basically, would be done. Mary would have cut her time in the field soliciting approximately in half! Yes, she’s still working hard for that half million, but the TYPE of work she’s doing is more oriented towards supporting and managing the people who can REALLY get the job of cultivating and soliciting done. And in doing that, she’s set the organization up for continued and incremental success in the future.
Tomorrow we’ll talk about finding volunteers.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Using Volunteers to Cultivate and Solicit -- Part 1 of 5
In the past decade I have not seen very many of the smaller nonprofits moving in the direction of using volunteers to cultivate and solicit gifts of any kind, much less major gifts. With the exceptions of the hospitals and universities, most boards and executives around this area expect that when they hire "a fundraising professional" that person is going to relieve them of the burden of contact with donors. Even some of the larger charities don't have very large contingents of actively soliciting volunteers.
What a waste! Volunteers, who have made their gift to a campaign or project,are the most efficient and productive fundraisers; the use of volunteers in the field is really the way to do major gifts fundraising.
The first reason I can think of for using volunteers in fundraising generally, but especially in cultivating and soliciting major gifts, is that volunteers bring home the bacon far more often than anybody else. If you send the consultant out, the gift comes about 30% of the time; if you send the development director out (“just another ‘hired gun,’” I’ve heard people say), the gift comes back about 50% of the time; if you send the executive director out, the gift comes back about 65% of the time (probably because people like to be visited by the top banana!).
But if you send a volunteer who has made a significant gift out to a prospect, the gift comes back about 86% of the time. Volunteers, quite frankly, have the most credibility. My statistics come from observations of solicitation effectiveness during my time working with the Salvation Army, the Detroit Institute of Arts and with a few longer-term clients.
You probably know the next fact already, because you’ve seen how volunteers worry about whether they’ll make some kind of mistake, but I’ve seen volunteers – no matter how much we have prepared them in advance – go out there and stumble around, get red in the face, then suddenly blurt out what they think is the case for support, and still come away with the most marvelous gifts!
When I’ve gone back under other circumstances to some of those donors, the feedback I get is that those donors highly respected both the extent to which those “inept” volunteers had a visible, palpable commitment to the organization, and the fact that they had the guts to go in there in that situation, make fools of themselves and make the pitch all because they believed so much in the organization’s work. Their own commitment made it an easy sell to the donors.
Frankly, with a volunteer, you can’t lose! Unless you’re in a situation where the prospect flat out has no motivation to give, or has no financial capability to make a gift. In that case no one would come out with a gift; it's "blood out of a stone" time.
Another reason I think volunteers are so productive in cultivation and solicitation is that volunteers know the community. They know its history; they know the fights and grudges; they know where the skeletons are buried. They know a lot about who has what degree of financial capability. They know who is aligned with your organization and who’s really not interested no matter what they say outwardly. If you give a volunteer a list of 20 people, he or she will be able to guide you directly to the productive targets. You winnow down the list, waste much less time and come away with good gifts.
In a similar vein, volunteers know the people in the community. They know who’s been appearing in the symphony’s playbook for years; they know who attends the big auctions; they know what people need in terms of ego stroking; they know what people value, in terms of types of charitable work they do; they know who’s volunteering at which charities; they know what people want in terms of recognition. These volunteers are priceless!
It is, in my mind, therefore, inappropriate for any nonprofit to go into the marketplace of donors and prospects looking for major gifts without letting volunteers take the lead. These executives and development staff of smaller nonprofits are barking up the wrong tree when they don’t or can’t take the time to get together a strong contingent of volunteer solicitors, train them, monitor and evaluate their work and turn them loose in the community with substantial prospect lists and cultivation/solicitation assignments. They’re missing the boat – read “money” – if they don’t use volunteers.
More tomorrow.
What a waste! Volunteers, who have made their gift to a campaign or project,are the most efficient and productive fundraisers; the use of volunteers in the field is really the way to do major gifts fundraising.
The first reason I can think of for using volunteers in fundraising generally, but especially in cultivating and soliciting major gifts, is that volunteers bring home the bacon far more often than anybody else. If you send the consultant out, the gift comes about 30% of the time; if you send the development director out (“just another ‘hired gun,’” I’ve heard people say), the gift comes back about 50% of the time; if you send the executive director out, the gift comes back about 65% of the time (probably because people like to be visited by the top banana!).
But if you send a volunteer who has made a significant gift out to a prospect, the gift comes back about 86% of the time. Volunteers, quite frankly, have the most credibility. My statistics come from observations of solicitation effectiveness during my time working with the Salvation Army, the Detroit Institute of Arts and with a few longer-term clients.
You probably know the next fact already, because you’ve seen how volunteers worry about whether they’ll make some kind of mistake, but I’ve seen volunteers – no matter how much we have prepared them in advance – go out there and stumble around, get red in the face, then suddenly blurt out what they think is the case for support, and still come away with the most marvelous gifts!
When I’ve gone back under other circumstances to some of those donors, the feedback I get is that those donors highly respected both the extent to which those “inept” volunteers had a visible, palpable commitment to the organization, and the fact that they had the guts to go in there in that situation, make fools of themselves and make the pitch all because they believed so much in the organization’s work. Their own commitment made it an easy sell to the donors.
Frankly, with a volunteer, you can’t lose! Unless you’re in a situation where the prospect flat out has no motivation to give, or has no financial capability to make a gift. In that case no one would come out with a gift; it's "blood out of a stone" time.
Another reason I think volunteers are so productive in cultivation and solicitation is that volunteers know the community. They know its history; they know the fights and grudges; they know where the skeletons are buried. They know a lot about who has what degree of financial capability. They know who is aligned with your organization and who’s really not interested no matter what they say outwardly. If you give a volunteer a list of 20 people, he or she will be able to guide you directly to the productive targets. You winnow down the list, waste much less time and come away with good gifts.
In a similar vein, volunteers know the people in the community. They know who’s been appearing in the symphony’s playbook for years; they know who attends the big auctions; they know what people need in terms of ego stroking; they know what people value, in terms of types of charitable work they do; they know who’s volunteering at which charities; they know what people want in terms of recognition. These volunteers are priceless!
It is, in my mind, therefore, inappropriate for any nonprofit to go into the marketplace of donors and prospects looking for major gifts without letting volunteers take the lead. These executives and development staff of smaller nonprofits are barking up the wrong tree when they don’t or can’t take the time to get together a strong contingent of volunteer solicitors, train them, monitor and evaluate their work and turn them loose in the community with substantial prospect lists and cultivation/solicitation assignments. They’re missing the boat – read “money” – if they don’t use volunteers.
More tomorrow.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Delivering the Case for Support – Part 4 of 4
If it isn’t really “news” articles that people want to see and will respond to, what is it that will turn on our donors and prospects?
Let’s take that article about decorating the charity’s offices and teaching rooms that we talked about yesterday. Suppose we add an element of donor involvement. Then let’s give some examples that connect donor generosity to our mission with youth. Let’s thank, and commend, and talk about “going beyond” the expected.
“We’re extremely appreciative of the many donors who responded to our spring mail appeal. People like you gave us an unprecedented $5000 over our goal for this mailing. So we are using your generous gifts to reach our young learners with new enhancements to their learning environment.
“For example, thanks to your generosity, and that of three long-time volunteers, we now have newly painted learning rooms that are brighter and more professional-looking. We have found that already there is a keener interest on the part of our students. The teachers are using the new corkboards for exhibiting students’ work, and we invite you to come see how their learning has improved with the new decor and arrangements.
“Thank you so much for going that extra mile to give us more than we had hoped. You have made such a difference in the lives of our students. Take Julie and Mary, for example. They were so excited by their new homeroom that they now come a half our early, and we can’t get them out of there at closing time because they are so eager to stay involved in their projects.”
Or we could delve into that second article about teaching components. The first sentence in this article is good, with just a little modification. But then we need to take it in a different direction:
“Some of our generous donors, like you, often wonder why we tutor our students at our site as opposed to our volunteer tutors meeting the children in their homes or in a public setting such as a school or library. After all, wouldn’t it reduce our overhead costs?
“We know you want us to deliver our highly effective curriculum in the most efficient ways possible. That makes your hard-earned, generously-given dollars go further. So we’ve done studies with our students to see which environment offers the most complete and lasting learning experience. After all, we know that you would agree that if the learning doesn’t “stick” then it’s not real “learning,” is it?
“We set three groups a similar learning task. One group went through their learning process at our center; the second group went to a public library; the third group was taught in a local school classroom after school hours. All students were taught by our trained volunteers. And we know you are wondering about the results obtained from a curriculum that was exactly the same for all three groups.
“What we found was that the ingredients of our learning center were 75% more effective than those experienced by the other groups. You’ll appreciate the fact that when we asked the students in each group what motivated them the most, the students who learned in our center environment said they preferred our private rooms where they could have one-on-one learning experiences. You might also identify with some of the students who felt that the peer-to-peer learning in our small group writing sessions was invaluable, too.
“Your generous donations have made it possible for us to set up our center with unique advantages for this type of student. As you may know, often these students have pretty low levels of self-esteem. That means privacy is helpful at the start, because many are embarrassed that they don’t know much. Later, their peers, struggling together, become the best teachers. You can imagine our surprise to see Susan – the one who started out last in the class – now teaching the younger kids coming up through the ranks!
“We would love to have you come and visit with us to see the progress these young people can make in our new environment. And, if I haven’t already said it, we are so grateful that you gave more than we asked for! It has helped immensely. One of our girls said just the other day, ‘Don’t forget, Miss Hamilton, to mention how thankful I am to the people who gave the money for the paint and pictures.’ So I’m letting you know that your gifts have brightened the hearts, the learning and the lives of our 15 young learners. Thank you so much!”
In other words, the “newsletter” is just a long “thank you” letter to donors. You see, the point here is not to give a list of pedagogical features of the ABC Charity’s program. That’s academic, dry and uninteresting, unless you’re an academic and a researcher in the field. What donors and prospects want to know is how THEY figure into the learning equation, and how THEY are getting THEIR OWN objectives accomplished through the charity’s work. They feel great about the fact that ABC Charity is being effective. They want to know that the work is carried out efficiently and that it gets results. They want to know that staff is doing a lot with a little bit, and that volunteers are involved. But mostly they want to know how THEY are making a difference, and how THEY have helped people learn.
The “newsletter” is not about the organization; it is about the donors and prospects out there. The “newsletter” is not a newspaper, but a “thank you” and a “here’s what you did” sort of publication. It keeps people in touch in a motivational way that builds both involvement and a set of expectations in the donors. The so-called “newsletter” is a “reach out and touch” kind of publication, and if it doesn’t result in new, more and bigger gifts, it’s a waste of time and money.
Let’s take that article about decorating the charity’s offices and teaching rooms that we talked about yesterday. Suppose we add an element of donor involvement. Then let’s give some examples that connect donor generosity to our mission with youth. Let’s thank, and commend, and talk about “going beyond” the expected.
“We’re extremely appreciative of the many donors who responded to our spring mail appeal. People like you gave us an unprecedented $5000 over our goal for this mailing. So we are using your generous gifts to reach our young learners with new enhancements to their learning environment.
“For example, thanks to your generosity, and that of three long-time volunteers, we now have newly painted learning rooms that are brighter and more professional-looking. We have found that already there is a keener interest on the part of our students. The teachers are using the new corkboards for exhibiting students’ work, and we invite you to come see how their learning has improved with the new decor and arrangements.
“Thank you so much for going that extra mile to give us more than we had hoped. You have made such a difference in the lives of our students. Take Julie and Mary, for example. They were so excited by their new homeroom that they now come a half our early, and we can’t get them out of there at closing time because they are so eager to stay involved in their projects.”
Or we could delve into that second article about teaching components. The first sentence in this article is good, with just a little modification. But then we need to take it in a different direction:
“Some of our generous donors, like you, often wonder why we tutor our students at our site as opposed to our volunteer tutors meeting the children in their homes or in a public setting such as a school or library. After all, wouldn’t it reduce our overhead costs?
“We know you want us to deliver our highly effective curriculum in the most efficient ways possible. That makes your hard-earned, generously-given dollars go further. So we’ve done studies with our students to see which environment offers the most complete and lasting learning experience. After all, we know that you would agree that if the learning doesn’t “stick” then it’s not real “learning,” is it?
“We set three groups a similar learning task. One group went through their learning process at our center; the second group went to a public library; the third group was taught in a local school classroom after school hours. All students were taught by our trained volunteers. And we know you are wondering about the results obtained from a curriculum that was exactly the same for all three groups.
“What we found was that the ingredients of our learning center were 75% more effective than those experienced by the other groups. You’ll appreciate the fact that when we asked the students in each group what motivated them the most, the students who learned in our center environment said they preferred our private rooms where they could have one-on-one learning experiences. You might also identify with some of the students who felt that the peer-to-peer learning in our small group writing sessions was invaluable, too.
“Your generous donations have made it possible for us to set up our center with unique advantages for this type of student. As you may know, often these students have pretty low levels of self-esteem. That means privacy is helpful at the start, because many are embarrassed that they don’t know much. Later, their peers, struggling together, become the best teachers. You can imagine our surprise to see Susan – the one who started out last in the class – now teaching the younger kids coming up through the ranks!
“We would love to have you come and visit with us to see the progress these young people can make in our new environment. And, if I haven’t already said it, we are so grateful that you gave more than we asked for! It has helped immensely. One of our girls said just the other day, ‘Don’t forget, Miss Hamilton, to mention how thankful I am to the people who gave the money for the paint and pictures.’ So I’m letting you know that your gifts have brightened the hearts, the learning and the lives of our 15 young learners. Thank you so much!”
In other words, the “newsletter” is just a long “thank you” letter to donors. You see, the point here is not to give a list of pedagogical features of the ABC Charity’s program. That’s academic, dry and uninteresting, unless you’re an academic and a researcher in the field. What donors and prospects want to know is how THEY figure into the learning equation, and how THEY are getting THEIR OWN objectives accomplished through the charity’s work. They feel great about the fact that ABC Charity is being effective. They want to know that the work is carried out efficiently and that it gets results. They want to know that staff is doing a lot with a little bit, and that volunteers are involved. But mostly they want to know how THEY are making a difference, and how THEY have helped people learn.
The “newsletter” is not about the organization; it is about the donors and prospects out there. The “newsletter” is not a newspaper, but a “thank you” and a “here’s what you did” sort of publication. It keeps people in touch in a motivational way that builds both involvement and a set of expectations in the donors. The so-called “newsletter” is a “reach out and touch” kind of publication, and if it doesn’t result in new, more and bigger gifts, it’s a waste of time and money.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Delivering the Case for Support – Part 3 of 4
Let’s take a look at the content that charities are putting out there these days. There’s quite a variety of communications. Mostly what comes across my computer screen or desk is newsletters. And a lot of those newsletters still have the “we do, we do” or “we need, we need” kinds of entries, but nothing compelling or motivating for donors to sink their teeth into.
It may be the case that those nonprofits that are publishing these newsletters have taken the term “newsletters” a bit too seriously. Maybe these folks feel that any missal that carries “news” or any word of what’s going on in the charity, will serve as a communication that “stays in touch with donors.” But this isn’t really what donors want to see.
It might also be the case that some of the board members, other volunteers or constituents have given development and marketing staff the idea that they want “news” from the nonprofit. I’ve heard comments such as “I just want to be kept informed of what’s going on here,” and “just let me know what’s happening from time to time.” But these comments, when carefully analyzed, are not exactly true and complete representations of what constituents really want to know.
What people won’t tell you is that they want to know how THEIR OWN involvement with the charity is able to help them feel good about themselves and their priority choices to support and be involved with ABC Charity. They can’t come right out and say this in a focus group or board discussion, because it makes them look more self-centered than they want to be seen. But, in truth, if you look at the donor’s eyes and check their interest level, you’ll find that there’s quite a difference between a “news” article and a motivational, compelling article that demonstrates how a donor’s gift went to work on a program recipient with unusual power and great results.
Consider this story from a recent nonprofit newsletter that I received:
“The ABC Learning Center is currently undergoing a beautification process; an ongoing project we call 'Making Learning Beautiful.' The center will be cleaned, repaired and reorganized. Our new and improved facilities will be awaiting a response from [foundation grant maker] in the hopes of adding radiant artwork and new computer desks and chairs for our students...”
Here’s another “news” article:
“People often wonder why we tutor our students at our site as opposed to our volunteer tutors meeting the children in their homes or in a public setting such as a school or library. After all, wouldn’t it reduce our overhead costs? Having our students come to our center is imperative! Here is a list of crucial program components that are received by our students and volunteers when coming to our site.....” And the article goes on to give a laundry list of program components with the reasons why each component is considered necessary to the learning process.
Now, if you’re really into decorating, you might feel like continuing with the first article to see what new decor features are a part of that project. Otherwise, it leaves the reader cold, because there’s no involvement that meets the donor’s or prospect’s self-interest, or their own needs, wants and values.
In the second article, if you’re an academic or researcher into methods of teaching, this listing of program components might be valuable. Does it motivate donors? Does it wake them up and make them feel alive and well and happy? Does it compel them to give sacrificially?
But if that’s NOT the case, then why have the newsletter in the first place? What I’m saying here is that the nonprofit’s constituents really don’t want “news” so much as they want to see themselves reflected IN the news; they want to have their own egos stroked, they want to see how their own objectives are getting met.
Maybe the trick here is to stop calling these communications devices “newsletters” and start calling them “motivational shots in the arm.” Maybe we should call them our “ego boosters” or our “inoculations” against our donors moving to another charity. In any case, what is needed here is not a piece with a lot of “news” articles, like a newsPAPER – we’re not needed as journalists here, we’re looked to as fundraisers, development professionals. So let’s “develop” some continuing interest and motivation in the donors and prospects with whatever we put out there for people to read. Otherwise the money we spend on these kinds of communications is simply wasted, because these “news” articles aren’t any more than mildly interesting.
“But,” you might say, “if these sorts of news articles aren’t helpful, what kind of information would help donors and prospects respond more positively?” We’ll deal with that tomorrow.
It may be the case that those nonprofits that are publishing these newsletters have taken the term “newsletters” a bit too seriously. Maybe these folks feel that any missal that carries “news” or any word of what’s going on in the charity, will serve as a communication that “stays in touch with donors.” But this isn’t really what donors want to see.
It might also be the case that some of the board members, other volunteers or constituents have given development and marketing staff the idea that they want “news” from the nonprofit. I’ve heard comments such as “I just want to be kept informed of what’s going on here,” and “just let me know what’s happening from time to time.” But these comments, when carefully analyzed, are not exactly true and complete representations of what constituents really want to know.
What people won’t tell you is that they want to know how THEIR OWN involvement with the charity is able to help them feel good about themselves and their priority choices to support and be involved with ABC Charity. They can’t come right out and say this in a focus group or board discussion, because it makes them look more self-centered than they want to be seen. But, in truth, if you look at the donor’s eyes and check their interest level, you’ll find that there’s quite a difference between a “news” article and a motivational, compelling article that demonstrates how a donor’s gift went to work on a program recipient with unusual power and great results.
Consider this story from a recent nonprofit newsletter that I received:
“The ABC Learning Center is currently undergoing a beautification process; an ongoing project we call 'Making Learning Beautiful.' The center will be cleaned, repaired and reorganized. Our new and improved facilities will be awaiting a response from [foundation grant maker] in the hopes of adding radiant artwork and new computer desks and chairs for our students...”
Here’s another “news” article:
“People often wonder why we tutor our students at our site as opposed to our volunteer tutors meeting the children in their homes or in a public setting such as a school or library. After all, wouldn’t it reduce our overhead costs? Having our students come to our center is imperative! Here is a list of crucial program components that are received by our students and volunteers when coming to our site.....” And the article goes on to give a laundry list of program components with the reasons why each component is considered necessary to the learning process.
Now, if you’re really into decorating, you might feel like continuing with the first article to see what new decor features are a part of that project. Otherwise, it leaves the reader cold, because there’s no involvement that meets the donor’s or prospect’s self-interest, or their own needs, wants and values.
In the second article, if you’re an academic or researcher into methods of teaching, this listing of program components might be valuable. Does it motivate donors? Does it wake them up and make them feel alive and well and happy? Does it compel them to give sacrificially?
But if that’s NOT the case, then why have the newsletter in the first place? What I’m saying here is that the nonprofit’s constituents really don’t want “news” so much as they want to see themselves reflected IN the news; they want to have their own egos stroked, they want to see how their own objectives are getting met.
Maybe the trick here is to stop calling these communications devices “newsletters” and start calling them “motivational shots in the arm.” Maybe we should call them our “ego boosters” or our “inoculations” against our donors moving to another charity. In any case, what is needed here is not a piece with a lot of “news” articles, like a newsPAPER – we’re not needed as journalists here, we’re looked to as fundraisers, development professionals. So let’s “develop” some continuing interest and motivation in the donors and prospects with whatever we put out there for people to read. Otherwise the money we spend on these kinds of communications is simply wasted, because these “news” articles aren’t any more than mildly interesting.
“But,” you might say, “if these sorts of news articles aren’t helpful, what kind of information would help donors and prospects respond more positively?” We’ll deal with that tomorrow.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Delivering the Case for Support – Part 2 of 4
Well, the reason why a case for support isn’t just a list of “we do this, and we do that” is that this kind of recitative just makes donors’ eyes glaze over. Without knowing WHY this is important, no one cares except the administrators of the charity.
It is rather distressing to see textbooks on fundraising published today perpetuating this old, time-worn idea that the case for support is a document focused solely on the organization itself, and not on the donor. For example, Greenfield's "Fund Raising" or Seiler's "Developing Your Case for Support," or Pakroo's "Starting & Building a Nonprofit." These books talk about "the case." but apparently have no idea that the case for support that appeals to donors is the one that speaks of the organization's good works and need for money from the donor's perspective.
Take Greenfield, for example. What does he advise as the ingredients for a case for support? The problem or opportunity to be addressed, trends affecting the problem, your response to the problem, the role of the donor, your mission, your history, your goals and strategies and objectives, your organizational resources, your accountability and evaluation procedures, your future plans for your organization. This isn't a case for support, it's a recitative of an organization's strategic plan.
However, when we establish WHY donors should give, then we have the donor’s interest and attention in a way we did not have it before. So we want to avoid having a case for support that is a recitative of the strategic plan written from the standpoint of the charity’s administrators. We want to move to one that is written from the standpoint of the donor’s interest, or the donor’s possible need for information that is relevant to what the donor wants to achieve in society. Because, unless that first “hook” is set, the donor, quite frankly, just isn’t going to be that interested.
So let’s see if we can start out our case for support with a remarkable and attention-getting reason why the donor or the prospect should pay attention. How about a few of the following:
Secondary school: “Mary’s talents are going to go to waste because she can’t go to college. Why? Her teachers never understood the unique ways that Mary learns. You gift today helps us give Mary and 150 other students the education they need to become productive citizens of their community.”
Homeless shelter: “The Martin family has been living in a dumpster for 2 years. We helped them find, afford and move into a new home on Main Street last month. Your gift last year helped us provide new, affordable housing to 124 families like the Martins. The result? Family crises resolved, breadwinners back to work, children back to school. Life is good. Can you help again this year? It's important. You can make a difference.”
Safe house: “We saved Susan from being shot to death by her estranged and deranged husband. Your gift helps us protect Susan and 58 other women and helps them get the legal help and psychological counseling they need to keep going and make a new world for themselves.”
Food bank: “In the richest county in our state 20% of the population goes to bed hungry each night. You contribution can change that. Please make your donation today so others can have the food they need to keep going.”
After school program: “We not only kept Mike out of jail, but we have helped him discover a real purpose in his life: learning how to set up a business. That happened because people like you gave generously last year. We need your gift this year, too, because there are still 1000 more Mike's out there in our community who desperately need your help.”
Do you see the point here? If you don’t like these lines, then write your own. But that IS the point, that you should be writing more effective, compelling, motivating case for support copy based on the understanding that to get a donor’s attention, one must address a situation that the donor finds intolerable and wants to see fixed. Without that, a mere recitative of programs your charity has no use in a case for support.
Now, armed with that understanding we can write a case for support that might look like this:
1. There’s a crying need in our community that’s not going to go away without a lot of effort. (describe the specifics of the need – 1000 kids went to jail last year because they didn’t know what to do with themselves after school.”)
2. Our charity makes a difference. We’ve been around a long time and we know the kids. We know how devious their little minds are. And we’re getting remarkable results. The number of kids on the street has been reduced by 75% due to our programs.
3. Now there’s a new crisis (or opportunity, if you phrase it that way), because the facilities we use to help Mike and Susan are so crowded and small that we can hardly breathe around here! We can't serve them well because of our physical space limitations.
4. But our Board, in its wisdom and out of its concern for our community's well-being, has devised a plan to expand our physical plant and enhance our services to youth. This plan involves building a new service headquarters with advanced technologies that will do a lot more for community youth than we’ve ever dreamed of doing.
5. We will need $5.6 million dollars over the next three years to bring about this new expansion of physical plant and program enhancements. That’s an investment we are asking our community to make in order to ensure that our youth aren’t wasted and thrown away just because they don’t have anything to do with themselves after school.
6. Without donors like you, we can’t do this; but with your support we can accomplish service levels that will return this community to the halcyon days of old, just like you remember they were!
7. Your gift will be recognized and celebrated; even if you want to give anonymously, you will know that deep down we care about you and are grateful for your generosity, and the community will understand that your gift made it happen.
8. As a longtime member of our inner family, you will receive our regular updates on how we are using your money to make it possible for Mike and Susan and all kids like them to lead productive lives, go on to college and become standard-issue, regular American contributors to society.
Now, here’s a case for support that, regardless of the specific program attributes being described, brings the charity’s programs and needs face-to-face with the donor’s needs, wants and values. Now the charity’s work is described in ways that demonstrate how a donor’s concerns for social problems can be, and will be met through their donations.
Now that we have gotten specific about what a case for support is, let’s get down to this question of delivering that case for support to donors and prospects on a regular, frequent, persistent and consistent basis.
It is rather distressing to see textbooks on fundraising published today perpetuating this old, time-worn idea that the case for support is a document focused solely on the organization itself, and not on the donor. For example, Greenfield's "Fund Raising" or Seiler's "Developing Your Case for Support," or Pakroo's "Starting & Building a Nonprofit." These books talk about "the case." but apparently have no idea that the case for support that appeals to donors is the one that speaks of the organization's good works and need for money from the donor's perspective.
Take Greenfield, for example. What does he advise as the ingredients for a case for support? The problem or opportunity to be addressed, trends affecting the problem, your response to the problem, the role of the donor, your mission, your history, your goals and strategies and objectives, your organizational resources, your accountability and evaluation procedures, your future plans for your organization. This isn't a case for support, it's a recitative of an organization's strategic plan.
However, when we establish WHY donors should give, then we have the donor’s interest and attention in a way we did not have it before. So we want to avoid having a case for support that is a recitative of the strategic plan written from the standpoint of the charity’s administrators. We want to move to one that is written from the standpoint of the donor’s interest, or the donor’s possible need for information that is relevant to what the donor wants to achieve in society. Because, unless that first “hook” is set, the donor, quite frankly, just isn’t going to be that interested.
So let’s see if we can start out our case for support with a remarkable and attention-getting reason why the donor or the prospect should pay attention. How about a few of the following:
Secondary school: “Mary’s talents are going to go to waste because she can’t go to college. Why? Her teachers never understood the unique ways that Mary learns. You gift today helps us give Mary and 150 other students the education they need to become productive citizens of their community.”
Homeless shelter: “The Martin family has been living in a dumpster for 2 years. We helped them find, afford and move into a new home on Main Street last month. Your gift last year helped us provide new, affordable housing to 124 families like the Martins. The result? Family crises resolved, breadwinners back to work, children back to school. Life is good. Can you help again this year? It's important. You can make a difference.”
Safe house: “We saved Susan from being shot to death by her estranged and deranged husband. Your gift helps us protect Susan and 58 other women and helps them get the legal help and psychological counseling they need to keep going and make a new world for themselves.”
Food bank: “In the richest county in our state 20% of the population goes to bed hungry each night. You contribution can change that. Please make your donation today so others can have the food they need to keep going.”
After school program: “We not only kept Mike out of jail, but we have helped him discover a real purpose in his life: learning how to set up a business. That happened because people like you gave generously last year. We need your gift this year, too, because there are still 1000 more Mike's out there in our community who desperately need your help.”
Do you see the point here? If you don’t like these lines, then write your own. But that IS the point, that you should be writing more effective, compelling, motivating case for support copy based on the understanding that to get a donor’s attention, one must address a situation that the donor finds intolerable and wants to see fixed. Without that, a mere recitative of programs your charity has no use in a case for support.
Now, armed with that understanding we can write a case for support that might look like this:
1. There’s a crying need in our community that’s not going to go away without a lot of effort. (describe the specifics of the need – 1000 kids went to jail last year because they didn’t know what to do with themselves after school.”)
2. Our charity makes a difference. We’ve been around a long time and we know the kids. We know how devious their little minds are. And we’re getting remarkable results. The number of kids on the street has been reduced by 75% due to our programs.
3. Now there’s a new crisis (or opportunity, if you phrase it that way), because the facilities we use to help Mike and Susan are so crowded and small that we can hardly breathe around here! We can't serve them well because of our physical space limitations.
4. But our Board, in its wisdom and out of its concern for our community's well-being, has devised a plan to expand our physical plant and enhance our services to youth. This plan involves building a new service headquarters with advanced technologies that will do a lot more for community youth than we’ve ever dreamed of doing.
5. We will need $5.6 million dollars over the next three years to bring about this new expansion of physical plant and program enhancements. That’s an investment we are asking our community to make in order to ensure that our youth aren’t wasted and thrown away just because they don’t have anything to do with themselves after school.
6. Without donors like you, we can’t do this; but with your support we can accomplish service levels that will return this community to the halcyon days of old, just like you remember they were!
7. Your gift will be recognized and celebrated; even if you want to give anonymously, you will know that deep down we care about you and are grateful for your generosity, and the community will understand that your gift made it happen.
8. As a longtime member of our inner family, you will receive our regular updates on how we are using your money to make it possible for Mike and Susan and all kids like them to lead productive lives, go on to college and become standard-issue, regular American contributors to society.
Now, here’s a case for support that, regardless of the specific program attributes being described, brings the charity’s programs and needs face-to-face with the donor’s needs, wants and values. Now the charity’s work is described in ways that demonstrate how a donor’s concerns for social problems can be, and will be met through their donations.
Now that we have gotten specific about what a case for support is, let’s get down to this question of delivering that case for support to donors and prospects on a regular, frequent, persistent and consistent basis.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Delivering the Case for Support to Prospects, Part 1 of 4
My observation is that a great many charities give too little thought to delivering their case for support to their donors and prospects on a consistent, persistent and frequent basis.
For one thing, everyone seems to want to do this by remote control, so to speak. There’s the website and the newsletter and the email blast, and then folks stop because those are the easily automated ways of communicating.
But what do they typically do with those communications pieces? They write newsletter articles from their own viewpoint, not that of a donor or prospect. They write the website copy as if everyone visiting the site had the perspective of the executive director of the organization. Navigation generally suffers, too, on that count. You can’t find your way around the charity’s site unless you think like a nonprofit administrator! And the e-blasts come across as if the only thing a recipient donor or prospect had on their mind is that particular charity’s need.
There are actually three issues that need to be addressed here: first, the content of the communications that charities choose to put out there; second, the need to broaden and deepen the communication channels necessary to effectively get the case for support out to the people who can help the charity through financial support; third the definition of “case for support.”
Let’s start with the last one first, so we know what we’re talking about before we discuss how to get the CFS to the people who count.
The Case for Support, as I have come to understand it from a donor’s point of view, is a set of reasons why donors should support a charity.
Mostly what I see happening out there in the real world is that charities want to make their case for support a list of their programs, and a statement of why they sorely need funds to accomplish their mission. There are also many texts, such as those by Timothy Seiler, James Greenfield or Joan Flanagan, whose authors advise sharing all the various internal and planning items: your history, your mission, your goals, strategies and objectives, your organizational resources, etc. Everything is about the organization. NOTHING is about the donor!
But as tempting as I know that is to do, it nevertheless makes a donor's or a prospect’s eyes glaze over. This constant recitative of our programs and who they serve and down to the nth detail of what we do. This is NOT a case for support, in my opinion. It is just a list of programs. "We do this, we do that, we need this, we need that, therefore please give."
But there’s no motivation in it, nothing compelling, unless you read between the lines and understand that, for example, the reason we have this safe house is that there’s a maniac out there trying to get to Melissa to kill her, and the donor is standing between Melissa and certain mayhem or death. Now THAT’s compelling. But nobody says it that way, of course.
So, let’s take it a step at a time. What are the reasons why anybody should give to ABC Charity? Well, one would think that the best reasons to give would have something to do with the reasons donors do, in fact, say they support any charity. Here is a list of the reasons donors typically give to explain why they contribute generously to nonprofit work:
1. The charity has a long-standing history in the community, a squeaky clean image, and is getting great results with their programs.
2. The charity is accomplishing something remarkable that the donor wants to get done in the community, or in society at large.
3. There is a crisis or an opportunity in the community that the charity is addressing so that the donor can see the crisis is clearly resolved or the opportunity is clearly being met.
4. The charity has a definite plan for meeting the opportunity or resolving the crisis and the plan is both workable and “ironclad and copper-bottomed.”
5. The charity needs a defined amount of contributed cash to support this effort over a defined amount of time.
6. The charity needs the donor’s gift, and cannot, in fact, do the job without that support, which donors are asked to give.
7. The result of making a gift to the charity is that the donor will be thanked and recognized for their support.
8. Those who donate to this effort will be considered “one of the family” and will be kept up-to-date on how their money is being used and the results it is bringing in the community.
So, let's take the reasons why people give money to charity and transform them into a case for support that will meet the donor’s needs rather than just meeting the needs of the charity’s administrators.
And why is this so important? Because when we do that we will have a case for support that has its orientation in the donor's needs, wants and values; one that shares our nonprofit information in ways that meet those values and entice, motivate, compel the donor to give out of THEIR OWN motivations, values and needs, not out of our nonprofit administrative perspective.
Now that is a case for support! Stay tuned for the next post on this tomorrow.
For one thing, everyone seems to want to do this by remote control, so to speak. There’s the website and the newsletter and the email blast, and then folks stop because those are the easily automated ways of communicating.
But what do they typically do with those communications pieces? They write newsletter articles from their own viewpoint, not that of a donor or prospect. They write the website copy as if everyone visiting the site had the perspective of the executive director of the organization. Navigation generally suffers, too, on that count. You can’t find your way around the charity’s site unless you think like a nonprofit administrator! And the e-blasts come across as if the only thing a recipient donor or prospect had on their mind is that particular charity’s need.
There are actually three issues that need to be addressed here: first, the content of the communications that charities choose to put out there; second, the need to broaden and deepen the communication channels necessary to effectively get the case for support out to the people who can help the charity through financial support; third the definition of “case for support.”
Let’s start with the last one first, so we know what we’re talking about before we discuss how to get the CFS to the people who count.
The Case for Support, as I have come to understand it from a donor’s point of view, is a set of reasons why donors should support a charity.
Mostly what I see happening out there in the real world is that charities want to make their case for support a list of their programs, and a statement of why they sorely need funds to accomplish their mission. There are also many texts, such as those by Timothy Seiler, James Greenfield or Joan Flanagan, whose authors advise sharing all the various internal and planning items: your history, your mission, your goals, strategies and objectives, your organizational resources, etc. Everything is about the organization. NOTHING is about the donor!
But as tempting as I know that is to do, it nevertheless makes a donor's or a prospect’s eyes glaze over. This constant recitative of our programs and who they serve and down to the nth detail of what we do. This is NOT a case for support, in my opinion. It is just a list of programs. "We do this, we do that, we need this, we need that, therefore please give."
But there’s no motivation in it, nothing compelling, unless you read between the lines and understand that, for example, the reason we have this safe house is that there’s a maniac out there trying to get to Melissa to kill her, and the donor is standing between Melissa and certain mayhem or death. Now THAT’s compelling. But nobody says it that way, of course.
So, let’s take it a step at a time. What are the reasons why anybody should give to ABC Charity? Well, one would think that the best reasons to give would have something to do with the reasons donors do, in fact, say they support any charity. Here is a list of the reasons donors typically give to explain why they contribute generously to nonprofit work:
1. The charity has a long-standing history in the community, a squeaky clean image, and is getting great results with their programs.
2. The charity is accomplishing something remarkable that the donor wants to get done in the community, or in society at large.
3. There is a crisis or an opportunity in the community that the charity is addressing so that the donor can see the crisis is clearly resolved or the opportunity is clearly being met.
4. The charity has a definite plan for meeting the opportunity or resolving the crisis and the plan is both workable and “ironclad and copper-bottomed.”
5. The charity needs a defined amount of contributed cash to support this effort over a defined amount of time.
6. The charity needs the donor’s gift, and cannot, in fact, do the job without that support, which donors are asked to give.
7. The result of making a gift to the charity is that the donor will be thanked and recognized for their support.
8. Those who donate to this effort will be considered “one of the family” and will be kept up-to-date on how their money is being used and the results it is bringing in the community.
So, let's take the reasons why people give money to charity and transform them into a case for support that will meet the donor’s needs rather than just meeting the needs of the charity’s administrators.
And why is this so important? Because when we do that we will have a case for support that has its orientation in the donor's needs, wants and values; one that shares our nonprofit information in ways that meet those values and entice, motivate, compel the donor to give out of THEIR OWN motivations, values and needs, not out of our nonprofit administrative perspective.
Now that is a case for support! Stay tuned for the next post on this tomorrow.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Fundraising Staff Accountability (cont'd)
As we said yesterday, there's a need to measure fundraising performance, but we want to understand what the metrics are. If money in the till isn't the only way to measure what the fundraising professional is doing, what, then, are we to measure?
What I think we should be measuring in fundraising staff performance are these elements:
1. Relationship-building activities – are we building significant and productive relationships between our organization's leadership and an increasing number of donors?
2. Prospecting activities -- are we bringing increasing numbers of new prospects within the sphere of influence of our organization, and are we informing and cultivating these prospects on a frequent, regular, persistent and consistent basis?
3. Cultivation and solicitation activities – are we personally cultivating and personally asking an increasing number of prospects and donors for more contributions?
4. Use of Donor Database – are we using the donor database to give us the information we need about donors to produce ever more successful cultivation and solicitation activities?
5. Volunteers – are we working hard to identify, recruit, train, deploy and evaluate an increasing number of volunteers within our organization who can engage in delivering our case for support to prospects, and who can cultivate and solicit prospects and donors for more and higher gifts?
6. Money – OK, yes, we are interested in the financial rewards the above five activity areas will bring in. But, if those activities are being pursued correctly, and if the Board has done its vital work of strategic planning, and if the executive has invested in fundraising infrastructure that ALLOWS those activities to be pursued effectively, then the money will, in fact, be no worry.: It will be there.
So, what we want to measure, in terms of fundraising staff effectiveness, is the number of calls, letters, visits to donors and donor prospects, the number of volunteers, the number of solicitations made and cultivations underway.
We want to measure the depth of the relationships we have with donors and prospects. So we'll use a three-digit scale of measurement: On a scale of 0-9, what is the prospect's relationship with our institution? On a scale of 0-9 what is the prospect's relationship with a specific person in our institution? And, on a similar scale, what is our judgment of how close the prospect is to making a gift?
We want to measure the number of volunteers who are ready and deployed in the field doing cultivation and solicitation work on our behalf.
We want to measure now many cultivations and solicitations are actually going on in a given week, month, quarter or year, and how many volunteers are involved in that process.
We want to measure the number of times the donor and prospect database actually produce the vital information we need in order to keep all these activity levels going.
If we're measuring these kinds of activities, not just the money, we'll soon find out whether the Board's planning is adequate and in the right direction. We'll soon find out whether the executive has been investing adequately in fundraising infrastructure. We'll also find out if the new director of development is any good at what she/he does. This kind of evaluation will definitely show whether it's the institution's problem, or whether it's the lack of work or experience on the part of the newly hired fundraising professional.
And at least half the time, in my experience, it's going to be the organization that really needs improvement, not the development professional. Why? Because, generally, the focus of Board members is on budget, and the focus of the executive is on program, management and budget. Fundraising is often seen as just something we need in order to balance the budget, but not something in which many organizations typically invest a whole lot.
Now, I invite some of you out there who have been executives of nonprofits, and think I'm all wet on this, to come back and give your side of the picture. And some of you reading this might also be "Founder" executives, and you've struggled with many conflicting priorities. But your side of the story needs to be told and I'm willing to hear it. That way we can get on with some dialogue here and make this a real exploration.
What I think we should be measuring in fundraising staff performance are these elements:
1. Relationship-building activities – are we building significant and productive relationships between our organization's leadership and an increasing number of donors?
2. Prospecting activities -- are we bringing increasing numbers of new prospects within the sphere of influence of our organization, and are we informing and cultivating these prospects on a frequent, regular, persistent and consistent basis?
3. Cultivation and solicitation activities – are we personally cultivating and personally asking an increasing number of prospects and donors for more contributions?
4. Use of Donor Database – are we using the donor database to give us the information we need about donors to produce ever more successful cultivation and solicitation activities?
5. Volunteers – are we working hard to identify, recruit, train, deploy and evaluate an increasing number of volunteers within our organization who can engage in delivering our case for support to prospects, and who can cultivate and solicit prospects and donors for more and higher gifts?
6. Money – OK, yes, we are interested in the financial rewards the above five activity areas will bring in. But, if those activities are being pursued correctly, and if the Board has done its vital work of strategic planning, and if the executive has invested in fundraising infrastructure that ALLOWS those activities to be pursued effectively, then the money will, in fact, be no worry.: It will be there.
So, what we want to measure, in terms of fundraising staff effectiveness, is the number of calls, letters, visits to donors and donor prospects, the number of volunteers, the number of solicitations made and cultivations underway.
We want to measure the depth of the relationships we have with donors and prospects. So we'll use a three-digit scale of measurement: On a scale of 0-9, what is the prospect's relationship with our institution? On a scale of 0-9 what is the prospect's relationship with a specific person in our institution? And, on a similar scale, what is our judgment of how close the prospect is to making a gift?
We want to measure the number of volunteers who are ready and deployed in the field doing cultivation and solicitation work on our behalf.
We want to measure now many cultivations and solicitations are actually going on in a given week, month, quarter or year, and how many volunteers are involved in that process.
We want to measure the number of times the donor and prospect database actually produce the vital information we need in order to keep all these activity levels going.
If we're measuring these kinds of activities, not just the money, we'll soon find out whether the Board's planning is adequate and in the right direction. We'll soon find out whether the executive has been investing adequately in fundraising infrastructure. We'll also find out if the new director of development is any good at what she/he does. This kind of evaluation will definitely show whether it's the institution's problem, or whether it's the lack of work or experience on the part of the newly hired fundraising professional.
And at least half the time, in my experience, it's going to be the organization that really needs improvement, not the development professional. Why? Because, generally, the focus of Board members is on budget, and the focus of the executive is on program, management and budget. Fundraising is often seen as just something we need in order to balance the budget, but not something in which many organizations typically invest a whole lot.
Now, I invite some of you out there who have been executives of nonprofits, and think I'm all wet on this, to come back and give your side of the picture. And some of you reading this might also be "Founder" executives, and you've struggled with many conflicting priorities. But your side of the story needs to be told and I'm willing to hear it. That way we can get on with some dialogue here and make this a real exploration.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Strange Ideas about Fundraising Staff Accountability
Why is it that charities don't seem to provide much accountability structure for their fundraising staff?
This is something I see all the time in my practice and in my association with fellow fundraising professionals. From what I hear, and have the opportunity to observe firsthand in my clients, it seems that many nonprofit Boards and executives want to measure the productivity of a fundraising professional in terms of the amount of revenue generated for the charity. Horrors! What a thought!
But, seriously, consider, for example, the small nonprofit, or even the larger charity, struggling to enlarge and enhance fundraising capacity. Typically, the Board and executive are going to be out in the fundraising marketplace looking to fill the Director of Development position with someone who will come onboard cheap, but who will clear up their fundraising problems. So they're going to go for the combination of most experience they can get for the least money.
Isn't this a perfectly logical approach? But this means that "money" is a criterion to begin with, not building relationships with donors, not financial stability, not infrastructure building, not long-term financial success.
In other words, these boards and executives are looking in the wrong direction. The main consideration is only "how much money do we have to lay out, and how much money can that person raise?" That's the sole criterion; but this approach will only lead to more problems, as we have seen on numerous occasions. These people are buying fundraising professionals as if they were wheat, corn or automobiles: as if they were commodities.
The other little problem here is that these Board members and this administrator seem to want to do this as quickly as possible because they desperately need incoming revenue, new revenue, more revenue. They have a budget they need to balance. And, of course, they're concentrating on the wrong thing: not the financial health of the organization over time, not the forming of long-term productive relationships with donors, but the budget, the needs of the budget to be balanced.
So they go out and get someone with 3 to 5 years of experience whom they can snag for $35-$55,000, and they put that person in the position, and then tell them – not in the job interview but only after they're in the position – that they have to raise a quarter or half million dollars. And that they have little or no fundraising infrastructure in place with which the new fundraiser can work. They also don't say to the new-hire that the board has no intention of investing in any infrastructure either.
Sometimes, of course, they will mention the financial goal in the job interview. Then the candidate, wishing to please and wanting to get the job, will promise just about anything to get the job. Not wanting to offend in any way, the candidate doesn't ask the hard questions about "Do you have the fundraising infrastructure in place that will support the accomplishment of that goal?"
So here we are on day 1 of week two on the job and the truth is finally revealed that this organization is in trouble, needs to raise substantial sums of money through voluntary contributions, and doesn't have any fundraising infrastructure in place with which to do that job. They're counting on Ms. Newhire or Mr. Gogetem to do the job single-handedly and without the necessary support system. And the way they're going to measure success is whether or not Ms. Newhire or Mr. Gogetem helps them balance their budget for that fiscal year! That's probably why we have such a high turnover of development professionals. People are staying only 18 months to 2 years in our area!
This is nonsense, and the result of "muzzy" or confused thinking by boards and executives, but I've seen it so often. Boards and executives really seem to think that a new fundraiser on the premises can actually make up for their sins of omission – bad planning and lack of knowledge about the fundraising process. More than that, however, it is simply bad management practice, fostered by being in a hurry as well as being uninformed about the real nature of the fundraising process.
This is one of those areas, by the way, where boards should simply stand back and let the executive do the hiring and management. Boards typically cannot do deliberative thinking. They can brainstorm, they can tell stories, but they cannot think through issues and come up with a solution or a management process that makes any sense. Most board members haven't a clue as to what constitutes good fundraising performance in the first place. That being the case, board members should simply give up micro-managing: they should get out of the budget-building process and leave that to the financial officer and the executive, and get out of meddling in the fundraising side of things and leave that to the executive. Now all we have to do is get a well-informed executive in there!
But I digress. We need to focus here on what do we really want to measure in the fundraising process? What, besides the amount of cash in the till at the end of the year, tells us the fundraising process is really doing well? And, especially, what will separate out the difference between the effect that the performance of the fundraising professional is having on the organization's bottom line and the effect that the organization's bad planning and lack of investment in infrastructure are having? Charities are cutting their own throats with their current practices. More tomorrow.
This is something I see all the time in my practice and in my association with fellow fundraising professionals. From what I hear, and have the opportunity to observe firsthand in my clients, it seems that many nonprofit Boards and executives want to measure the productivity of a fundraising professional in terms of the amount of revenue generated for the charity. Horrors! What a thought!
But, seriously, consider, for example, the small nonprofit, or even the larger charity, struggling to enlarge and enhance fundraising capacity. Typically, the Board and executive are going to be out in the fundraising marketplace looking to fill the Director of Development position with someone who will come onboard cheap, but who will clear up their fundraising problems. So they're going to go for the combination of most experience they can get for the least money.
Isn't this a perfectly logical approach? But this means that "money" is a criterion to begin with, not building relationships with donors, not financial stability, not infrastructure building, not long-term financial success.
In other words, these boards and executives are looking in the wrong direction. The main consideration is only "how much money do we have to lay out, and how much money can that person raise?" That's the sole criterion; but this approach will only lead to more problems, as we have seen on numerous occasions. These people are buying fundraising professionals as if they were wheat, corn or automobiles: as if they were commodities.
The other little problem here is that these Board members and this administrator seem to want to do this as quickly as possible because they desperately need incoming revenue, new revenue, more revenue. They have a budget they need to balance. And, of course, they're concentrating on the wrong thing: not the financial health of the organization over time, not the forming of long-term productive relationships with donors, but the budget, the needs of the budget to be balanced.
So they go out and get someone with 3 to 5 years of experience whom they can snag for $35-$55,000, and they put that person in the position, and then tell them – not in the job interview but only after they're in the position – that they have to raise a quarter or half million dollars. And that they have little or no fundraising infrastructure in place with which the new fundraiser can work. They also don't say to the new-hire that the board has no intention of investing in any infrastructure either.
Sometimes, of course, they will mention the financial goal in the job interview. Then the candidate, wishing to please and wanting to get the job, will promise just about anything to get the job. Not wanting to offend in any way, the candidate doesn't ask the hard questions about "Do you have the fundraising infrastructure in place that will support the accomplishment of that goal?"
So here we are on day 1 of week two on the job and the truth is finally revealed that this organization is in trouble, needs to raise substantial sums of money through voluntary contributions, and doesn't have any fundraising infrastructure in place with which to do that job. They're counting on Ms. Newhire or Mr. Gogetem to do the job single-handedly and without the necessary support system. And the way they're going to measure success is whether or not Ms. Newhire or Mr. Gogetem helps them balance their budget for that fiscal year! That's probably why we have such a high turnover of development professionals. People are staying only 18 months to 2 years in our area!
This is nonsense, and the result of "muzzy" or confused thinking by boards and executives, but I've seen it so often. Boards and executives really seem to think that a new fundraiser on the premises can actually make up for their sins of omission – bad planning and lack of knowledge about the fundraising process. More than that, however, it is simply bad management practice, fostered by being in a hurry as well as being uninformed about the real nature of the fundraising process.
This is one of those areas, by the way, where boards should simply stand back and let the executive do the hiring and management. Boards typically cannot do deliberative thinking. They can brainstorm, they can tell stories, but they cannot think through issues and come up with a solution or a management process that makes any sense. Most board members haven't a clue as to what constitutes good fundraising performance in the first place. That being the case, board members should simply give up micro-managing: they should get out of the budget-building process and leave that to the financial officer and the executive, and get out of meddling in the fundraising side of things and leave that to the executive. Now all we have to do is get a well-informed executive in there!
But I digress. We need to focus here on what do we really want to measure in the fundraising process? What, besides the amount of cash in the till at the end of the year, tells us the fundraising process is really doing well? And, especially, what will separate out the difference between the effect that the performance of the fundraising professional is having on the organization's bottom line and the effect that the organization's bad planning and lack of investment in infrastructure are having? Charities are cutting their own throats with their current practices. More tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
