Stanford Social Innovation Review

Charity Fundraiser-in-Chief

MARK ROSENMAN on the government’s competition with nonprofits.

We’re used to hearing about politicians trolling for campaign contributions. This has posed a particular problem for public interest nonprofits--it’s hard for them to compete with large corporations that use strategic gifts to help sway legislation, regulation, and policy decisions. Campaign donations haven’t been such a problem for other charities, which don’t view politicians as competition for dollars because campaign contributions aren’t tax deductible.  But, surprise, the President has just made some of his fundraising a problem for all nonprofits. 

President Bush is asking for a billion dollars in foundation grants and other tax deductible charitable contributions to replace the much-needed funding he has egregiously failed to give our national parks for years and years.

Leaders have long called upon institutional and individual donors–-you and me–-to cover dwindling government funding for nonprofits that provide basic human services and attend to other public needs. But in February, the President led the federal government into direct competition with those very nonprofits for the very grants and individual donations they depend on to pick up some of the slack.

And he’s done this while giving the wealthiest one percent of households over a trillion dollars in tax cuts, and denying those missing funds for use on the nation’s most critical problems!

Our national parks and many, many Americans are in trouble today because of the fiscal policies of the Bush administration (see this illuminating Center for Budget and Policy Priorities slideshow), and the nonprofit and philanthropic community would be foolish to think that increased altruism could be an adequate substitute for responsible government.

Public policies and public institutions do much to create and exacerbate problems, and private action for the public good must take that into account when it seeks remediation or remedy. We can do a great deal through voluntary initiative, but we cannot replace public agency. And it’ll take more than new park benches with shiny plaques to save government!

Please share your thoughts below.

Posted by Mark Rosenman

9 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Ad Council Giving Campaign Misses the Target

JEFF BROOKS on how agency bigshots misunderstood fundraising.

“Generous Nation,” the campaign by the Ad Council urges Americans to give—just give.

The campaign, created by top creatives from top agencies, is slick, clever, well-executed—and spectacularly off-target.  Just about what you expect when agency bigshots try to figure out fundraising.

The campaign tagline is Don’t almost give.  Give. You can find out all about it and see the very nice 30-second PSAs at the Don’t Almost Give website.

This campaign seems to have been built on three faulty assumptions:

Assumption #1: The battle for charitable giving takes place between good intentions and inertia.

Inertia is a minor factor for most donors, who give all the time.  The barriers you have to overcome in donors’ hearts and minds are these: Does this matter? and Will my gift make a difference? Inertia is probably a factor for chronic non-donors, mainly those who have not yet matured into donor status, which leads to the next assumption…

Assumption #2: The audience is the precious 18-34 group.

They’ve defined their own audience, but the choice isn’t wise.  Selling giving to the younger generation is about like selling skateboards to the 55+ group.  You’ll get some takers, but you’re not in the sweet spot.

Assumption #3: Giving is a generic act.

To misquote Tip O’Neil, All philanthropy is specific.

The Ad Council’s intentions are good.  But really, they should have done a little research on who gives and why.

(Illustration courtesy of Stockxpert.)

Posted by SSIR Editor

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

The More They Give, the More They Love You

JEFF BROOKS on the Ben Franklin Effect.

I know professional fundraisers whose mental picture of donor goes like this:  Donors give to us with tight fists and gritted teeth.  Every time we ask donors to give, we withdraw from a limited pool of good will—and every time they give, an even bigger withdrawal happens.  Nonprofits subsist on a tragic irony:  While they seek to do good in the world, they rely on fundraising—which is a bad thing.

That’s balderdash.  Self-destructive balderdash.

Donors love to give.  They love the organizations that create outlets for their generosity.  The more they give, the more they’re likely to give.  (In fact, the top indicator of likeliness to give is recency of the previous gift!) They like being asked, and they like even more saying yes.

Furthermore, giving can lead to other forms of involvement: Volunteering, advocacy, recruiting others.

It’s called the Ben Franklin Effect.  Because Franklin once said:  He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another, than whom you yourself have obliged.”

That’s the rich, wonderful ground you’re on as a fundraiser:  Giving begets love.  Every time a donor gives, they grow more bonded to your organization.  More likely to give again, more likely to give larger gifts.  More likely to tell her friends about you.  More likely to answer other calls to action. 

Reality is directly opposed to the belief that donors are a non-renewable, zero-sum resource and that fundraising is a necessary evil.

A lot of the world of commerce is win/lose.  One side gains at the expense of the other.  Not fundraising.  The only losers here (other than frauds) are those who don’t join the circle, who hold back out of fear, who fail to see how much donors love what we do together.

(Photo courtesy of Stockxpert.)

Posted by SSIR Editor

1 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Does Your Program Officer Actually Read Your Progress Report?

PERLA NI on the bureaucratization of the nonprofit sector.

“I’ve randomly inserted pictures of my grandkids in my progress reports,” one executive director of a prominent mid-Atlantic nonprofit told me. “I’ve inserted lines like, ‘If you really read this, call me.’” He was bemoaning the fact that he’s forced to spend time writing reports that his foundation officer doesn’t seem to read. “Next time,” he said, “I’m going to put in an ad for my used car.”

This executive director’s stories would be funny if they weren’t true. I hope his situation is an exception, but it represents the sad state of affairs surrounding progress reports. Foundation folks I know have admitted to me that the program officer is typically the only person who reads the reports. After that, nothing is done with them. One foundation actually told me, “We say we believe in knowledge building, but the truth is, the progress reports are not shared with other staff members or the board.”

There’s a difference between bureacratization and professionalization. A lot of professions, such as law and medicine, do involve a lot of bureacracy and paperwork, but those professions revolve around many institutionalized rules. It sometimes seems that the nonprofit sector is being bureaucratized faster than it is becoming professionalized.

There are usually three prerequisites to becoming a profession:
1. There must be an accepted body of knowledge.
2. There must be a code of ethics.
3. And there must be a body to enforce the code of ethics.

The nonprofit sector is developing in all of these directions, but it isn’t quite there yet. We don’t have an accepted understanding of effectiveness. There is no code of ethics, except for fundraisers. And if we did have a code of ethics, there would be no enforcement body to suspend or admonish anyone who broke it.

The venture capital industry is similar to our sector in that is also not quite a profession; but it, however, has managed to avoid the bureaucracy. In venture capital, funders rarely ask portfolio companies for progress reports. The response would be, “What? You want me to stop calling potential customers and write a report instead?” Venture capitalists rely on quarterly phone calls or informal lunches. Formal, written quarterly earnings reports are rare until a company goes public.

While I heartily agree with the need to measure progress, do you think we’ve gone a bit far in terms of bureacracy and formality in our sector? Even though we’re not really a profession yet, do you think we’re becoming too bureacratic? Does writing progress reports give you a headache? Do you think your foundation officer really reads your reports? Would it be just as effective to brief them by phone, or in person over lunch?

Please tell us what you think.

Perla Ni, founder and former publisher of Stanford Social Innovation Review, is the founder and CEO of GreatNonprofits. She is also a co-founder of Grassroots.com.

Posted by SSIR Editor

13 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Cruelty to Donors?

JEFF BROOKS on believing in fundraising.

To hear some fundraisers and consultants talk, you’d think asking donors to give was a vile and rude act.  Some in our industry seem to equate a direct mail fundraising appeal with a slap in the face by a very ripe fish: painful, odoriferous, and just plain uncalled for.

It’s just not true.  Except in one way:  It’s self-fulfilling.  Because if you believe fundraising hurts donors, I can almost guarantee you’re doing fundraising in a harmful way.

For most donors, fundraising is the main way they experience an organization they support.  To say they love you but hate your communications is to attribute them with a nearly clinical level of cognitive dissonance!

How much better it would be to work from a higher and more beautiful set of assumptions:

• Communicating with donors is good.
  
• Donors love to hear from us.
  
• Every touch can and should be a positive, relationship-building experienceeven when it doesn’t generate a gift.
  

You’ll have a much more satisfying life and do more life-affirming and effective fundraising if you believe these things rather than the self-destructive assumption that fundraising is a necessary evil.

Of course you don’t want to send irrelevant, money-wasting mail to people who aren’t interested and unlikely to give.  That’s what smart segmentation is about.  But in your heart, you need to believe that asking is good.  Otherwise, you are on a path to anti-donor communications and fundraising failure.  And one heck of a miserable career in fundraising.

If you struggle with that dark sense that asking is shameful, wrong, or hurts donors, repeat this little catechism every day until your attitude improves:

• Donors donate.
  
• Donors love to donate.
  
• Giving feels good.
  
• Giving is good.
  
• Creating opportunities for giving is a great service to humanity.
  

When you feel these truths in your heart, you are a fundraiser.

Posted by SSIR Editor

2 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Private Language in Public Places

BY JEFF BROOKS

He works every day at the corner of 6th and Pine in downtown Seattle.  He’s been there for years.  He holds a sign that says (in part; it’s a full paragraph long):

FRYE APT AND SEATTLE POLICE

YOUR COMMUNIST-DEVIL COMMUNIST LIAR!

He doesn’t interact with the people that swarm around him on the sidewalk, but he shouts at cars as they pass.  His voice is deep, gravelly, loud, and unintelligible. 

6th and Pine Man has something very important to say, and he’s absolutely dedicated to saying it.  Trouble is, he’s speaking his own private language.  He’s going to have a lot of trouble attracting supporters to his cause.

Here’s another Seattle sign that’s working to gain some traction for an important issue:

This is a yard sign you’ll see often in my neighborhood.  The organization behind it is Queen Anne Neighbors for Responsible Growth.  A locally owned and much-loved grocery store faces being bought, torn down, and replaced by a national chain supermarket of the worst, most characterless kind.

You wouldn’t know that from this yard sign, would you?

That’s because like 6th and Pine Man, QANRG has chosen to speak a private language in public.  In their case, they’re trumpeting the philosophical underpinnings of the argument against the Big Ugly Supermarket.  That’s very sophisticated, but it’s going to cost them support.  Because the real issue is No Big Ugly Supermarket in our Nice Neighborhood! Even if you whole-heartedly agree with what the sign says (assuming you understand it)—it doesn’t lead you to any specific call to action that might galvanize opposition to the new supermarket.  And that’s too bad.  Because it’s a worthy cause.

Any time you’re talking in public, take a moment for a reality check.  Are you talking to those you’re targeting?  Or are you talking to yourself?

Posted by SSIR Editor

1 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments