Donors and the Economy

A recent client of mine, R. Hatter, sent me an email asking what the appropriate response would be to a key donor who had expressed irritation at the increased number of requests for contributions and the steady flow of information from that charity to his mailbox in recent months. "What can I tell him when he complains that we send him too many appeals and too much information?"

My response was this: On the guy who says "too much" -- I suspect the reason he's saying this is because his commitment to your charity is faltering a bit. He sounds like he's out of touch, hopefully only temporarily. What I would suggest is that you get him directly back in touch with "the kids." Let him touch and feel the urgency that these young lives contain, let him get back in touch with the urgent realities of their situation. And the reality is that the reason we ask more often, ask more people, and ask for more money is that the costs of keeping these kids moving towards being fully participating citizens (in a society that otherwise would just dump 'em in the garbage) is getting more expensive each year.

Let him see a "life on the mend," so to speak. Let him see that while "God don't make no junk" it's really generous and self-giving human beings who provide sustenance for the lives of these abused and neglected kids. Let him see that little girl's face, let him read the poem she wrote or see the video or view the new invention that was born in that young child's mind as a result of his past gifts. He's out of touch. That's all. And you can fix that.

My further suggestion is that you really don't need to answer his more "obvious" objection, having to do with mailings, and asking too much. That's not where the issue is. And arguing the "facts of the case," such as the number of mailings, etc., in the terms in which he has couched the discussion, won't really get anywhere because he will just continually come back with the same answer. His question sets it up that way. The increased efforts of your staff in fundraising can only encounter objections among those who haven't seen, felt, touched the power of these young lives. Because, for any of the rest of us, there is only one answer -- "ask more, get more, use more, save more kids."

Another thing to consider is whether all those mailings he's receiving and objecting to have been written as creatively as possible; whether the way you state your case for support is truly compelling and motivating, and whether you have the ability to capture peoples' imagination in your fundraising letters. Maybe his eyes have glazed over once too often when receiving your letters, and maybe he's really telling you he doesn't like what you're writing.

What would your response have been to this question, dear reader? Let us hear from you! Get in on the dialogue.

The Economy Gives Donors the Excuse Not to Give?

We've been discussing this problem with the economy and charitable giving, and I think we need to take a look at the donor's or prospect's view of this situation.

It seems to me that in a down economy it's pretty easy to get into a mode (or maybe it's just a mood) of "scarcity," as opposed to a mood of "plenty." Resources seem scarce, rather than plentiful. Whether this is reality or in the mind, mostly depends on the particular donor.

On the home front, for example, there's all the defensive budgeting we have to do to meet our decreased income level – tightening the belt and depriving ourselves of those expenditures we'd really like to make to achieve our various materialistic goals or obtain the kind of gadgets, environment or acoutrements we need to bolster our self image.

And then there are the cuts we experience in our places of work in both budget and programs, the re-prioritizing of objectives and the re-directing of scarce resources to the "things that count."

Together, on the home front and in the workplace, this begins to look like a wonderfully perfect excuse to also deal with those nonprofits that bug us for contributions but don't give us anything to be excited about. Now we can just tell them we simply don't have the cash to help them. And we can feel good inside about doing that because, after all, isn't that really the case? I can't afford to give to charity because I have to eat, right?

For example, for several years now, I've been giving to what in other times has been a favorite charity, my alma mater, in central Pennsylvania. Great place. They dealt with me, didn't they? Took a rough, provincial kid and drummed an education into his brain? This MUST be a great place. And they continue to take hundreds of central PA's rural and small-town, provincial, unfocused kids and make thinking, discerning, creative adults out of them. With what more laudable program could you ply a vision for our world's betterment?

But, truth to tell, in tight financial times, my giving there goes down. Why? Well, frankly, it's an excuse to save a little money for something else. Either that new computer I want, or maybe to get involved with a new charity that has captured my imagination. But what is really happening is that when I read the letters, when I read the bulletin, when I get on the website to see what's happening, and even though there's a whale of a lot happening there in terms of the type and quality of education you can get at this institution, the fact is that the way they describe it in the letters that ask for money make my eyes glaze over; it just wipes away all motivation to keep giving there.

So, does the economy affect fundraising? I think it does: it allows donors, and some of the people we think could be our best prospects, the perfect excuse to use the economy as a reason to give elsewhere or to use resources for things they want when we cannot come up with anything that sparks their continued interest, meets their needs, matches their values. Sure the economy affects fundraising….. or does it!? We take on another example tomorrow.

Philanthropy and the Economy -- Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Economy and Fundraising

We have a new topic today. It concerns the flagging economy. At least here in Michigan, we have an economy sorely in need of help.

In the past year, I have received many inquiries from clients and others about whether the slow economy, particularly slow here in Michigan, hurts fundraising. The most recent of these inquiries came in November from a prominent reporter for a business publication who was doing an article on philanthropy matters locally.

The proposition was this: "There are so many capital campaigns going on right now, but will a slow economy hurt these efforts? Shouldn't these nonprofits wait until we have improved economic circumstances? Are there more campaigns going on than there is money to fund them?"

My response to this was that philanthropy is not like a pizza. A pizza is a finite, unexpandable entity. You slice it up. When you eat all the slices, the pie is gone. If there are 8 pieces of pizza and Joe has three, Bill and Mary can't each have 3 pieces. Three people can't divide an 8-piece pizza evenly.

That's great for pizza, but that's not what philanthropy is. Many people I've talked to over the years, especially a lot of Board members of nonprofits, seem to assume that if there are "too many charities in town" then there just can't be enough money available to be donated by the local populace for all of them to survive and thrive.

But that's just not the case. Philanthropy is like an amoeba. An amoeba reaches out to where the food is, forms itself around the food, then ingests it. Philanthropy -- the love of humankind -- is similar: it grows out toward the "food" of good ideas; the more good, compelling ideas to give that there are out there in the marketplace, the more the "amoeba" of philanthropy thrives. The more compelling reasons there are to give, the more great and wonderful programs that really help people and achieve the ideals we all generally share about the advancement of humankind, the more people are willing to give to those ideas.

Conversely, when there is a paucity of food, the amoeba shrinks up and, eventually, dies. Similarly with philanthropy, to the degree there is a shortage of compelling and motivating ideas happening in an area's nonprofits, when all is more or less ho-hum and same-ole-same-ole, that is the degree to which more and more people find excuses not to give. They become disinterested. Or they flock to the nonprofit that has the most compelling case for support and the one that gets the best results.

So philanthropy is like an amoeba. We'll continue this tomorrow.