Development-Fundraising Staff

If you read The Agitator… or Ken Burnett’s blog… If you follow Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang…

Then you’ve been reading about fundraisers, their pride and souls, weaknesses and just plain failures.

So here’s my quick summary of some great resources on the topic:

• Proud to be a Fundraiser from The Agitator. You really need to subscribe if you don’t already!

• Passion Assassins, also from The Agitator.

• Keeping the Right Fundraisers, Ken Burnett’s blog. If you don’t know who Ken is, it’s time you learn. And fast. Back in 1992, Ken introduced the concept of “relationship fundraising,” in his groundbreaking book of the same name. And Ken is the founder of the marvelous compilation website, the Showcase of Fundraising Innovation and Inspiration.

• The Great Fundraising Report, commissioned by ClaytonBurnett and research carried out by Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang.

• Fundraising Technician or Organizational Development Specialist, posted in the Free Download Library on my website. I’ve long worried that too many fundraisers are technicians only – and that just doesn’t cut it. This concept is also described in the 3rd edition of my book Strategic Fund Development. 

• See the job description of a chief development officer in my Free Download Library, too. And read about The Art of Leadership in Strategic Fund Development, 3rd edition.

If you want to be a great fundraiser, I suggest you read all of this. Then compare yourself. And, as necessary, make changes.

I figure we all know the power of words. Certainly fundraisers do! (Or should…)

But are we always mindful of the words we use?

Do we think before we speak, worrying that someone might overhear and misinterpret – or be offended?Do we ever consider that our behavior might start reflecting our vocabulary?

Phrases like “low-hanging fruit” or “hit up that donor” or?

Tony Elischer, U.K. colleague, wrote an interesting article called “The New Lexicon of Fundraising, 2014 and Beyond…”

It’s well worth a read. Makes you think. (And Think Consulting Solutions is the name of Tony’s firm.)

By the way, this is a good paper to share with your development colleagues and your boss and board. Engage people in conversation. That’s how learning happens. And learning produces change.

Imagine me humming Barbara Streisand’s version of the song.

I’ve told you before how much I love teaching in the  Masters Program in Philanthropy and Development at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. Okay. Sure, dorm living isn’t totally great. But honestly – even dorm living has its good moments!

The SMU experience is for those who want to work with a team, your very own cohort. If you want an intense exploration of philanthropy and the NGO sector – and, actually, life and your own philosophies.

Check out these videos that we watched and talked about in the first course, “Frameworks for Thinking and Working.” You can apply these to your management, your fundraising, your leadership…and your life, too.

• Brené Brown’s TedTalk about vulnerability
• The Cleveland Clinic: Empathy – The Human Connection to Patient Care
• RSA Animate: The Empathic Civilisation by Jeremy Rifkin

Maybe you want all your agency’s staff to watch these together and talk. For sure, let’s have the fundraising staff watch and talk about.

“What’s attention worth?” asks Seth Godin in his 12-17-13 blog. “Marketers that fail are often impatient and selfish.” (Think fundraisers!) “Impatient, because they won’t invest in the long-term job of earning familiarity, permission and trust.” (Think fundraisers and fundraising and your boss and boards that want money right now! Hurry up!)

Earn! Earn familiarity. Don’t pursue visibility, hoping that “everyone will know you and then send money.”

Earn permission and trust. Remember how important trust is to loyalty. Just read Adrian Sargeant‘s work. Read The Agitator. Read Jeff Brooks and Tom Ahern. Read all the great people.

Now think about Seth’s word “selfish.” So many nonprofit organizations and fundraisers and fundraising programs are selfish. Focused on the organization and all the good the organization does. Forgetting (or on purpose ignoring?) donor centrism and customer centrism.

Wow. Basic flaw. It’s not about you and your organization and your amazing staff. It’s all about the wonderful donor whose investment allows you and your organization and your amazing staff to do stuff. And without those donors, you won’t be able to do much.

You can’t demand attention, as Seth so clearly notes. It’s not about you. It’s about the person who is paying attention. “We call it ‘paying attention’ for a reason. It’s worth quite a bit, and ought to be cherished.”

That’s good fundraising.

One of the biggest problems we have in fundraising is bad bosses and lost-in-space board members.

What’s a bad boss? Just read the UnderDeveloped Report. Read my response and suggestions.

Sometimes the fundraising field is just so…so… Ill-informed. Ignores the body of knowledge. Disregards research. Doesn’t apply the fundamental principles and practice of great fundraising.

And without this knowledge and research and expertise, it’s hard to fight your boss and board. And mostly, your boss and board are really ill-informed and ignorant and apply the “opinion over expertise” approach. But remember, your boss and board members don’t need to know this stuff. Your boss and board just need to listen to you, because you’re supposed to be the expert, the one reading the research and interpreting the body of knowledge and and …

(So here are some big questions for you: Do you know the right stuff? Do your boss and board listen to you because you know the right stuff and they respect you and you communicate effectively? And if your boss and board don’t listen to you, why? And if it’s their problem and not yours, then find another job. Because you deserve better!)

Anyone who knows my work knows that I follow Jeff Brooks’ blog. And anyone who reads Jeff Brooks has encountered his stupid nonprofit ads. Jeff comments on nonprofit ads created by some of the world’s best ad agencies. And when I say “comments on,” I mean Jeff destroys these ads! He explains why they don’t work. And he warns nonprofits to avoid these ad agency creative traps.

So here’s today’s idea to teach your boss and board (and also your fellow staff colleagues who aren’t working in fund development): Periodically show one of Jeff’s stupid nonprofit ads – video or print or whatever. And then read Jeff’s critique to your people. Let Jeff tell the story to your boss and board and fund development committee and individual board members. Let Jeff do the talking.

Fundraisers teach their bosses and boards and board members and staff colleagues. Do it! Do it now and over and over.

P.S. What prompted me to tell you this right now? Jeff’s 11-25-13 blog about the whales. And what the creators said. And how smart the nonprofit was not to use it!

I know. Maybe you’re tired of me recommending resources. But hey! I see myself as a curator of good info.

1.  I recommend that everyone subscribe to Roger Dooley’s neuroscience marketing e-news. A recent issue offers this very cool persuasion concept. (And then The Agitator people produced an e-news with more info, too. And, speaking of persuasion, check out Robert Cialdini, the influence guru. Read his books, too!)

Roger Dooley also tells us how to persuade people with BYAF (But You Are Free). This can double your success rate. Read this one and try it.

And – for amusement but also insight – read the newest Roger, “Women Can Be Irrational, Too.”

2.  Never forget those great agitator people, Roger Craver and Tom Belford. A must-read for all fundraisers (and their bosses and boards) is the October 3, 2013 myth-busting e-news from The Agitator is “Dangerous Myth #1: Too Much Solicitation Causes Poor Retention.” Read it. Destroy that myth in your organization. And raise more money.

3.  Check out Larry Johnson’s “Misplaced focus-misspent energy.” Also see Larry’s book The Eight Principles of Sustainable Fundraising.

4. Look at the love pyramid from John Lepp of Toronto’s Agents of Good. The love pyramid can replace that typical donor pyramid. Just try it!

5. I subscribe to Seth Godin‘s daily blog. I read Seth for his general strategic approach to stuff. My most recent favorites:

• “When to speak up,” September 28, 2013. Seth talks about decision-making and speaking up. The blog makes me think about conversation, which is inquiry not advocacy. Conversation, both formal and informal. Avoiding dysfunctional politeness. Remembering that silence is consent. Complainers complaining about decisions made when those complainers didn’t offer insights before the decision was made. So check out that blog.
• And here’s one for sales people (which includes fundraisers): “The failure of the second ask,” September 19, 2013. Seth says: “Asking the first time might be brave. Asking again (more forcefully) after you get a no is selfish and dumb.”

6. Then there’s Jeff Brooks and his daily blog, Future Fundraising Now. My recent favorites from Jeff:

• “Designer or art school grad?” You want a designer who understands fundraising and audiences.
• “How and why you should speed up your donor acknowledgements.” And Jeff refers us to Claire Axelrod’s “3 Secrets to Getting Your Donor Thank You Out in 48 Hours.”
• And how sad that we still have to convince fundraisers, bosses, and boards that emotions rule, not reason. See Jeff’s blog, “Is your fundraising just a lot of blah blah blah?” Thanks to Inspiring Generosity’s commentary, “Why Reason Alone Doesn’t Work in Fundraising.”
• Also see Jeff’s blog of October 7, “The most bone-headed fundraising meme of our time.” Jeff reminds us all that yes, donor retention is a big problem…but to focus on retention only…and ignore acquisition…is pretty silly!

7. And today’s last recommendation, visit the new on-line learning community, the Knowledge Fountain. The Knowledge Fountain offers courses, and provides an on-line chat room about nonprofit topics. Take a look. Topics include social media and analytics, fundraising, marketing communications, personal productivity, and more.

I write a semi-monthly web column for the Nonprofit Quarterly, one of my favorite publications. In fact, I strongly urge all nonprofit executives out there – CEOs, fundraisers, etc. – to subscribe to NPQ. Subscribe as an organization and then pass it around. The quarterly print edition is a keeper. For example, an issue might focus on governance, with multiple articles from experts. Another issue might focus on the nonprofit sector and democracy. And the daily web issue is also great. Subscribe now! This is the Harvard Business Review of the nonprofit sector. Read it!

But I digress.

One of my NPQ web columns is about the rich … and their irrelevancy, so to speak. I’ve written about that twice already in my own blog right here. Tom Ahern wrote about the rich and fundraising, too.

In response to my NPQ column, here’s a brilliant statement from Seattle’s Susan Howlett: 

“The top of the pyramid isn’t people with money. It’s people with deep connection to the mission. We’ve all seen instances where people without a lot of dispensable income really stretched to make a significant gift to something that matters to them — to an organization where they feel engaged in the work, connected to the leaders, on fire about the impact. My husband and I have done that, when we were leaders on boards, and we’re not rich. If we think about the top of the pyramid (or triangle) being the people with fire in their belly about our work, it takes the focus off rich people. I’d rather have a donor base full of people without a lot of resources who care deeply, than with rich people who don’t.”

The thing is, giving a major gift according to your organization’s definition of a major gift does not embrace all those who are hugely committed to your organization. Those who leave bequests are hugely committed. You might not know about that gift till the donor dies. And even then, you might not consider the gift size “sufficient” to qualify as a “major gift” for your organization. But for that donor – loving you so much that she wants to give after she is dead – I suspect that is pretty major.

The donor defines what a major gift is for her or his life. The donor chooses how to demonstrate huge commitment and love for the impact your organization can have.

Let’s build a donor pyramid that doesn’t include money. Instead, let’s build a donor pyramid that focuses on donor loyalty and Adrian Sargeant’s research. How about a “love” pyramid?

Thank you, Susan.

Did you read Tom Ahern’s, archived on his website? “Proposed: A new set of messages for nonprofits.” He talks about emotional triggers and other tricks of the trade – and how we need to use them.

Well, I’m the “senior expert” explaining “fundraising 101” that he references in his e-news. I’m the one who apparently smiled warmly. (He should know; he was in the room watching me.) After Tom’s usual great presentation, I told people not to take the negative approach and think that these “tricks of the trade” are manipulative. Instead, we’re talking about basic principles and best practice.

I said, “Don’t worry. This isn’t manipulation. You’re plugging into people’s own values and emotions.” As you saw in his e-news, Tom thought, “What’s wrong with manipulation? I think manipulation is great.”

So what, exactly, is manipulation or manipulate? My old Webster’s Dictionary says: “Manage or utilize skillfully.” Well, that’s good.

But then, of course, what we all seem to think of mostly is, “control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means to one’s own advantage.” I don’t like unfair or insidious. Actually, insidious is a somewhat odious word, isn’t it?

Then there’s that final phrase, “to one’s own advantage.” That’s really, the problem, I suspect. I trap you into doing something you don’t want to do. I make you act in ways contrary to your own interests.

But that isn’t good fundraising. Good fundraising honors and respects people’s values and interests. Good fundraisers don’t keep chasing people who aren’t interested. Good fundraisers don’t even think in terms of “hitting up” people for gifts. Good fundraisers don’t misrepresent or lie.

Good fundraisers and the most effective fundraising are ethical and respectful, donor-centered and caring. And good fundraisers and effective fundraising apply the body of knowledge and research, and use the best tools.

You might remember the blog below, from December 2012. A brief conversation between Tom and Simone. Well, Tom just sent out an e-news that explores this issue a bit more. Read my blog below. Then read Tom’s newest e-news, “Major gifts or more gifts: Which is better?”

Remember the Pareto Principle, 80/20? And now we know that, at least in a capital campaign, the rule is more like 90% of gifts come from 10% of donors. I want more love than that. I want more donors. I want that broader base. I want that broad base of donors to demonstrate community support. I want a broader base because I believe that philanthropy can (and should) be a democratizing act. I want that broader base to be so loyal that they will give bequests. Loyalty from many. That’s what I want.

So read the old blog below. And read Tom’s e-news. Think about it.

“The rich are irrelevant,” said Tom back in December 2012. And so started a very interesting conversation.

Tom is my life partner and a donor communications expert. We often talk about our shared experience in philanthropy and fund development. Our respective work takes us down similar paths, often diverges, and then reconnects. This philanthropy thing is our life’s work – each of us along and both of us together.

“The rich are irrelevant,” Tom repeats. “You and I are not interested in the rich people. We aren’t interested in the money and the transaction.”

“Instead,” Tom continued, “you and I see giving as the chance to balance the scales of selfishness. Of course, all humans are selfish. Our own biology demands self-care, self-protection, fighting for our own safety and our own way of living. And if history isn’t enough to show us this selfish truth, neuroscience now documents our selfishness.”

Tom continues. “Of course, human beings are insightful enough to know that we’re built for selfishness. Neuroscience proves this, too. So we try to balance the scales of selfish and unselfish.”

Think about it. People balance the scales of selfishness by giving. Giving friendship. Giving advice. Offering time. Investing money.

Philanthropy, voluntary action for the common good, is one way we balance the scales…selfish…unselfish.

But fundraising gets off track. Too often, fundraising focuses on money. Fundraisers and their organizations (too often desperately) search for money…and the bigger the bucks the better.

The bigger the bucks the better. “Fundraisers and their organizations keep searching for the top of the pyramid,” Tom said. “They don’t spend enough time moving the base up.”

Ah yes, the pyramid – and its top. The pinnacle of the pyramid where so few donors reside. And fundraisers focus on the top. Fundraisers and their organizations keep looking up. Too few fundraisers pay too little attention to too few people.

The fundraising pyramid focuses on the rich. The pyramid devalues people. Ascending the pyramid forces fundraising into a particularly narrow focus, big bucks – and only the rich have those big bucks.

There’s an irony in the pyramid…that the people at the top are special and better. The pyramid gives off a certain echo…royalty, for example. Slaves built the Egyptian pyramids for the pharaohs. Talk about “better” and “special!”

Why do we call it a “pyramid?” At least we could call it a “triangle.” There’s no negative echo with a triangle. Maybe we could somehow and somewhat avoid what I call “philanthropy’s moral dilemma” if we called it a triangle.

But more importantly, aiming for the top of the pyramid – or even the triangle – is so limiting. How about we re-conceptualize? Visualize the triangle with a big bulge somewhere in the middle, above the base and below the pointy top. Maybe the bulge looks like cloud cover surrounding the middle of the mountain. Maybe the bulge is like a big donut pushed down over the top, settling around the middle section of the triangle.

“A bequest is usually the largest gift a person ever makes,” noted Tom. And fundraisers know that loyal donors (not necessarily rich ones!) make bequests.

What if fundraising focused on rejecting the pyramid, embracing the triangle, and building the bulge?

What if fundraisers spent more time and energy and expertise and experience moving the base of the triangle into a big bulge right in the middle? Sure…if you can get to the top, go for it. Embrace the rich. Just don’t focus on them.

What a luxury for Tom and me. We can encourage our clients – and those who read our writings and attend our workshops – to transition from pyramid to triangle. We can promote a big bulge.

Yes, the rich can be irrelevant.

P.S. Watch for Tom’s e-news. I suspect he’ll be talking about our talk, too.

Hi there. It’s Simone, your information curator. Have you seen / read these? You might find them reaffirming or informative. You might use them with your executive director or board.

• Interview with Roger Craver, 1/2 of The Agitator duo. Donor retention. Social media in fundraising. Changes in the profession. And more. To listen, click here to download the audio file or visit the Fundraising Is Beautiful page here, where you’ll find several listening and subscription options. Thanks to Jeff Brooks, May 23, 2013.

• New! I want something new. Read Tom Ahern’s e-news about “new” and other variations like (secret and insider and launch and…) But also read Seth Godin when he talks about “neophilia.” And check out Jeff Brooks’ reprise. The bottom line: What works matters more than what is new.

• And that leads to this next item, “When your common sense leads you astray,” another Jeff Brooks posting. Some uninformed person – knowing nothing about fundraising – criticizes a fundraising letter. This makes me so angry. Stop the ill-informed and uninformed expression of opinion when expertise actually matters!

• Now here’s an amusing little tale for your board members who “don’t like your fundraising.” It’s the story of Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss…translated into fund development. It actually goes along with the opinion versus expertise issue.

• Here’s another amusing little tale, “Snow White and the Seven Small Woods People.” A fairy tale of fundraising from our Agitator pals.

• I just received my copy of the Donor Retention Project. Action guides. 12 interviews on 6 CDs. 2 CDs with mp3 and pdf files. Advice from Adrian Sargeant, Marc Pitman, Lisa Sargent, Simone Joyaux… Good stuff.

• I just finished this book by Dan Ariely: The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone – Especially Ourselves. I liked it. I learned. It’s part of professional development to learn about life and community and the economy (yes), etc.

• Check out this blog, “Why Social Media Hasn’t Replaced the Traditional Marketing Funnel,” by Dianna Huff. Remember, fundraising is really good marketing/sales. By the way, Dianna is a really good search engine optimization specialist. She changed my website to the well-organized, easy-to-use site that it is now. And Dianna introduced me to the web designers who created my wonderful site.

• Another by the way, based on Dianna’s blog: Subscribe to the Stanford Social Innovation Review. And, read Jen Shang‘s work about social proof. Jen is the world’s first PhD in philanthropy – and the world’s only philanthropic psychologist.

• And finally: Check out Bloomerang if you need a donor database. Designed with Adrian Sargeant’s donor loyalty and lifetime value research. Coupled with Tom Ahern’s donor communications expertise. And the ease and intuitiveness of iPad and iPhones.