Why This One Is Different

For the past couple of weeks, I’ve been immersed in Bad Money by Kevin Phillips. It’s a very gloomy portrait of the American economy. The NY Times review will give you the flavor of it. If Phillips is right (and I would argue that where he’s wrong, it’s only by degree), this recession could be a different one and we may not even realize how bad it is (See Chapter 4, Bullnomics, which was also the subject of an article in the April Harpers, reprinted in the St. Petersburg Times).

For the next few days, I’m going to discuss some techniques for raising funds and managing organizations during stormy weather. I hope you’ll participate.

Surprise!

An organization with which I’m working hosted a lecture featuring a well-known news commentator a few weeks ago. The event was a sell-out, but at the last minute, the organization found itself with a few unclaimed tickets in prime locations.

The development director could have sold them at a premium price and gotten a quick revenue fix. Instead, he identified a dozen people he wanted to cultivate and offered these choice seats to them. Nearly all accepted, all were grateful for the offer, and a few asked, “What do I owe you?”

“Nothing,” he said. “I just want to thank you for all you do for us.”

There’s nothing new to this, but it underscores the value of giving our most loyal donors something they don’t expect. Too often, we pile benefit on benefit to build perceived value into upper giving levels. Who are we trying to convince of our value—our donors or ourselves?

Instead, this development professional showed his donors that they are valued. They will remember this long after donor benefits have been offered and ignored. Surprise your donors with something unexpected and heartfelt.

The Board Perplex

During my TACS/RVDO presentation last week, one participant asked, “How can I get my CEO to make the board help in major donor fundraising?” Here are my observations:

1. As the question is stated, you can’t. You’re asking your boss to manage his or her bosses. Having headed an organization, I know what a tough spot that is.
2. The best motivation comes from within the board. Board members themselves have to see fundraising as one of their core responsibilities.
3. To begin, identify a board member who believes in the fundraising cause and will champion it to colleagues.
4. Don’t expect too much at first. Not all board members are comfortable making direct asks. Some never will be. But if coached and motivated, most can identify, cultivate, and/or steward.
5. The easiest place to start is stewardship—getting board members to thank current donors. The warm reception they get helps convince board members that fundraising can be fun.
6. Build by example. Identify and recognize board members who are effective. Share stories of their success. Make others want to emulate them and achieve similar recognition before their peers.
7. Good fundraising boards often evolve, so have patience. Achieve small victories and build on them. As the board begins to enjoy success and sees fundraising as more central to its role, it will begin to recruit those with greater fundraising expertise.

Another duty of the board is it’s own management. It should take the lead in its own development and not expect the CEO to do so. Here’s how the Ronald McDonald Houses of Oregon and Southwest Washington handles board recruitment and self-evaluation. (This link may require registration, but it’s painless.  We developed this site for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s Major Giving Initiative.)

Governments study non-profit exemptions

From the NY Times, Exemptions for Charities Face New Challenges.

Minnesota has exercised more oversight of charitable organizations during the past few years than most states. This increased scrutiny is the result of some organizations and outright scam artists taking advantage of tax exempt status, but I fear that some worthy organizations will be swept up in it.

China Relief Contributions Soar

Richard Read’s story in The Oregonian of Wednesday, May 21, casts a different light on our earlier post on “disaster fatigue.” Donors are contributing to China, according to Portland-based Mercy Corps, while they did not to to Myanmar. Reasons, Read speculates, are greater donor confidence that their gifts will reach victims and more compelling pictures (and NPR sound, I might add) from the scene.

clipped from www.oregonlive.com Mercy Corps has raised $2.67 million for China’s earthquake victims — three times the amount the organization has received for Myanmar, where the cyclone death toll is far higher. The disparity suggests that the Myanmar regime’s refusal to admit foreign relief workers and journalists to the disaster area is hurting contributions. Many donors apparently aren’t confident that aid will reach victims in Myanmar, which has attracted $886,000 to Portland-based Mercy Corps. Compelling images and stories from China tug at donors’ heartstrings, while most victims in Myanmar suffer beyond view.

Thanks to TACS and Rogue Valley Development Officers

Many thanks to TACS and Rogue Valley Development Officers for allowing me to address them at their May meeting today. We discussed how organizations can understand, cultivate, and solicit the new generation of philanthropic leaders. There was great interaction and some good success examples from the group.

Time Reports on Disaster Fatigue

The latest issue is Time reports on donor “disaster fatigue,” a reaction to the sheer number and scope of disasters that began to develop after Katrina and has grown since. Target Analytics documents it in its National Index.

clipped from www.time.com (NEW YORK) — The numbers are almost too large to fathom, so many Americans stop trying. As bodies pile up in disaster after global disaster, even the most sympathetic souls can turn away. Charities know this as “donor fatigue,” but it might be more accurately described as disaster fatigue — the sense that these events are never-ending, uncontrollable and overwhelming. Experts say it is one reason Americans have contributed relatively little so far to victims of the Burma cyclone and China’s earthquake. Ironically, the more bad news there is, the less likely people may be to give. “Hearing about too many disasters makes some people not give at all, when they would have if it had been just one disaster,” says Michal Ann Strahilevitz, who teaches marketing at Golden Gate University and specializes in the factors at play in charitable giving.