Author: Hank Lewis, MA, CFRM

This posting by: Hank Lewis

There are two steps to take in answering that question.

The first is asking, “Who cares?” Isn’t what we call that person largely irrelevant? Isn’t that person going to do what has to be done, no matter his/her title?

Definitely not !! We are greatly affected by how we are labelled. Titles are important to people because they impact both self-image and how others see us. With the “wrong” self-image and/or the “wrong” face to the world, our effectiveness must suffer.

The second step involves defining/understanding that person’s role/job.

So, here we start with the concept of development – the process of identifying potential donors, sparking their interest in the organization, identifying the needs of those individuals, determining how giving to the organization can satisfy those needs, helping to build a bond between them and the organization, and growing that relationship.

Bottom line, development is about creating, maintaining and enhancing the relationships that lead to charitable contributions. Fundraising is merely the end result of the development process. Without the relationship building and the satisfying of donor needs, there can be no real/substantive fundraising.

Now, having gotten that out of the way, let’s look at some of the titles commonly used by nonprofit organizations:

The title to which I object the most is Director of Philanthropy. Aside from that being a really pompous designation, the reality is that you don’t/can’t direct philanthropy. Philanthropy comes from the individual. Philanthropists give because of their desire/need to help other people … or society in general. Those feelings are internally generated, not such that someone can direct them.

Director of Charitable Giving: I’m sure that everyone has heard the expression, “Charity Begins At Home.” Well, the organizational staff person can show potential donors possible places/programs where they can put their money. S/he can show them how their giving can make a difference, how it can help others, but, as with philanthropy, you can’t direct charity. The word, “charity,” is also so very passé.

Of all that I’ve heard, I like “Director of Development,” because the focus is on the building of relationships, but that’s become a euphemism for “fundraiser.”

The Staff Person In-Charge of Raising Charitable Contributions can (personally or through others) show a potential donor how making the gift will not only help other people but will satisfy the needs of the donor. The key to successful fundraising, however, is getting the donor to want to make the gift.

So, what do we call that staff person whose job it is to get the donor to want to make the gift? Not somebody who directs fundraising; not someone who directs philanthropy, not a director of charitable giving; maybe not even a director of development.

There’s also “Director of Community Relations,” “Director of Donor Relations,” and “Director of Constituent Relations.” The first seems so very broad, even encompassing institutional marketing; and the second and third seem to come after the fact.

Finally: Sophisticated (potential) donors know that a nonprofit organization has to raise the funds to run its programs … to help the people it serves. And, they know that, whatever the title, that the person “cultivating” them is working to move them toward a specific end result.

The answer to the question, therefore, is that the Staff Person In-Charge must have a title that is comfortable for (prospective) donors, unpretentious, and satisfying to the Staff Person.

What do you think it should be ?? Why ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Hank Lewis

I Recently saw the heading on a listserve posting relating to naming an annual award after a donor. It started me thinking about the ways that a donor could be recognized for their support. (BTW, I didn’t read that posting, just to be sure that whatever I wrote wouldn’t be repetition of someone else’s words.)

One question that occurred to me was the dividing line between recognition and donor perks. But, since that can often be too fine a distinction, I decided to ignore the issue. I’ll let you decide which is which !!

So, I’ll start with “Naming an Award” after a (major) donor. The award can be given to almost anyone for almost any reason; but, the ideal is that the award goes to someone who has dramatically helped advance an organization’s mission or who exemplifies what an organization represents. Note, that this award would not necessarily be based on the size of the donor’s gift … that the only connection is the name of the award, whether the award is an object or cash.

An organization that wishes to honor someone in this manner as a regular part of their donor recognition process must first adopt a set of policies that will guide the process: Is there a specific dollar requirement? Who, by description, would not be eligible to have an award in his/her name? Will the board have to vote on every instance, or will this now become automatic? Will the award be presented every year, every other year, once, for five years, or in perpetuity? What other issues and qualifications must be considered as part of the policy?

I recommend against having an endowment created just to present an award based on the income generated by the endowment. That’d be a waste, unless the “award” is a scholarship … or something similar !!

The Founder’s Award, or an Award named after someone (who was pivotal in getting the organization started, re-started and/or expanded, and getting it wide recognition), can be presented major donors to give them recognition; but, again, this should be guided by a carefully drawn set of policies.

Naming a Program or part of a Program is something I’ve previously addressed, but is worth repeating. For this, the first step is the identification of (parts of) programs that are worth naming: a lunch program for pre-schoolers or seniors; buying science books for the local library; taking kids on a museum field trip; etc.

Naming Gift Clubs … this was addressed in detail in a prior posting.

Naming an Ad Hoc Committee: Occasionally an issue arises that requires some temporary attention. Naming the committee created to research/advise on that issue can be a significant honor for the person being named … especially if that person is invested in that issue/question.

Naming a Table at An Event: It’s been standard for tables to be “named” for people or corporations buying a table at an event. I’m thinking that a table could be named in honor of someone who has previously made a major gift … whether or not they buy a ticket/table for the event. Again, it would help to have a set of policies in place….

I’ve also been told about three other ways major donors are recognized at events or conferences:
• Taking the donor to the “Green Room” to meet the celebrities who will be speaking at the event.
• Having a Reception/Presentation just for (Potential) Donors prior to an event or conference. Please note, that if the reception is just for donors, then a pro rata share of the cost of the reception must be subtracted from the deductibility of their gift. If non-donors or potential donors are also invited to that reception, the “deductibility” question goes away – ask a tax attorney to be sure, I’m not one !!
• Donor Track at a Conference, where specific sessions allow admission only to donors at certain levels.

If you have some ideas/thoughts you’d like to share about Creative Donor Recognition, please comment on this posting. We’ll publish your ideas and give you credit for them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Hank Lewis

In a recent exchange of email….

“What’s the standard thought on nonprofit annual employee appeals (a.k.a. asking your employees to donate back to the organization)? Is this standard practice? Is it a good/bad idea?”

Like almost everything else in fundraising, there is no “standard” thought about annual employee appeals. There is, however, standard thinking that questions whether you can (or should) run an effective fundraising program if an organization’s insiders don’t/won’t support it.

• It’s always good to be able to say to (potential) donors that all of the members of your “family” give … to the best of their ability !!

• How can you ask outsiders to give to your organization if the board and staff don’t?

• Now, to be able to leverage “family” giving effectively, it would be best if all “family members” made a gift early in the year, i.e., early January. That way, you’ll be able to say to potential donors (individual, foundation and corporate) that every board and staff member is also a donor.

• Should it become known that your family members don’t support your organization, you can be sure that there’d be a drop-off in contributions from outsiders. And, by the way, many foundations ask about staff giving … and consider that information when deciding on grants.

• I have a problem with the concept/reality of asking staff to “give back.” Unless a staff member (or one of their family members) has benefitted from your services, the question of giving back is moot. Asking staff to contribute money to your organization is not “giving back.” One must assume that they are being paid for the work that they perform – that there has been an even exchange of value.

• Staff should support the organization they work for because they believe in the mission and get satisfaction from seeing what is accomplished on a day-to-day basis.

“I’ve had conversations internally and with acquaintances in other nonprofits about this topic. There seems to be two primary thoughts (as you say, no standard). One is exactly what you’ve stated…. The other goes something like: nonprofits pay so little to begin with (compared to the corporate world) that it’s an insult to ask employees to give back to the organization they’re already working so hard for.”

• That “insult” excuse is what people say when they’re afraid to ask, and/or when there is lousy employee morale. It’s never a question of whether an employee can afford to make a gift – even the poorest person can afford a dollar. It is a question of whether an employee feels good enough about the organization/mission to want to give.

The reality should be that employees (and board members) give to the best of their ability. And, being able to say that that is the case can only strengthen your position when asking others to give.

Caveat: Staff members should not be required to give. Giving is their decision to make, and must not be coerced.

One last thought: A nonprofit organization should never have an annual appeal … either for “family” or outsiders. Donors should be allowed/encouraged to give as often as is comfortable for them – not just once each year !!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Hank Lewis

I received the following email:
I am involved in local education foundations which is a 501(c)(3). We do some really neat things that help to educate kids in our community, and we have a few big fundraisers each year. On our website and in the marketing info for the events, we’ve been using language like…” Funds raised are used for mini-grants for creative and innovative class programs, scholarships, specialized educational equipment and staff training in our schools “.

The fact is that we do use a portion of the funds for necessary overhead – and we recently hired an executive director with the goal of moving the organization forward. Does this “paying of our overhead” need to be mentioned in statements of what we do with income from the fundraisers? Is it illegal or unethical (or misleading) not to mention that a portion of the funds raised will be used to cover overhead, or is this a “given”?

==================
I responded:

I can’t speak to what the laws in your state might require regarding disclosure/transparency; but, I have no hesitation in pointing out the ethical question.

You raised the issue, and there will likely be others outside of your organization who will do the same – “Is all the money contributed to the foundation being used to fund programs and activities to (directly) benefit the students?”

If the answer is, “No,” then you can’t use any wording that would say, or even suggest, that that is the case. At the least, it would be unethical. At the worst it could be construed as fraud.

Use a statement such as: “Over 90% of all funds raised go directly to support programs and activities to benefit our kids.” Or: “All contributions, directly or indirectly, are used to support programs and activities to benefit our kids.”

On another subject, I’m not sure how to interpret your reference to “a few big fundraisers.” I would hope that you are not relying on events to provide all/most of your funding. That, for the long-term survival/effectiveness of your foundation, can be disastrous.

If you’re not securing major gifts from individuals, you’re missing out on the biggest source of funding for nonprofits — 60% of all contributed dollars to nonprofits come from such support.

In addition, I hope that your new Executive Director is well versed in “real development/fundraising,” and will spend a significant percentage of his/her time working with and training volunteers to make it happen.

I’ll add this closing thought, that so much of the fundraising potential of (so called) Local Education Foundations (LEFs) is never realized because the organizers/leaders/board members never get past the PTA and/or Bake Sale mentality.

No matter the state of the economy, there will always be corporations, foundations and individuals that can/would provide significant support … if the approach was based on the development process and not just focused on “fundraisers.” Gad, I hate that word !!
(See: ‘Development’ and ‘Fundraising’ are Not Synonymous)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Hank Lewis

An issue was raised on a listserve:
“I have become more and more concerned about the exploitation of clients and “their stories” as fundraising tools.” “How do you counsel clients about the ethics/morality of using client stories as appeals?”
=========================
Whenever a question is posed about ethics/morality that includes the words “using” and “exploitation,” it’s a pretty good bet that the writer has already made a judgment.

“Exploitation” was/is a favorite word used to describe/condemn how employers who use young (physically attractive) women to generate business. The word was never used by the employers (who increased the bottom line), the employees (who were being paid for their labors), and the patrons of the businesses (for their own reasons).

The word was only used by outsiders who did not and/or could not agree with the perspective of either of the three participants.

I am commenting, remember, on the use of a word, not on the writer’s discomfort.

Before using the word “exploit,” one should ask oneself what, if any, harm is being done. If no harm is being done… that’s your answer. And, if only an “outsider” is seeing the “harm,” is there really any harm being done?

In the case of using the story (with or without photos or live appearances) of a consenting adult (client-of-a-nonprofit), it would be incorrect to attach the emotional content of “exploitation” to the transaction — because it is, indeed, a transaction.

The client would agree to having his/her story told in exchange for something that makes him/her feel good — be that gratitude, a desire to give back, the understanding that s/he will benefit when the nonprofit benefits … or any other reason s/he might have.

That does raise a few questions: Have (for example) those starving, barefoot children in the tv solicitations given their consent? Are they capable of giving “informed consent”? Are they being harmed by having their stories told and their faces “displayed”? Do they benefit by having their stories told and their faces “displayed”? Are they being exploited?

What do you think ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Click this link to find descriptions of all the titles in The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

I’m not enough of a philosopher or debater to extend the discussion of ethics much beyond the development arena, so I’ll address the concept in that context; and, even though it sounds as if I’m making statements of fact, I acknowledge that these are my opinions and that not everyone would agree with me.

The definition/application of ethics has little to do with “accepted norms.” Many actions/activities become generally “accepted” by society, but acceptance or common practice doesn’t equal ethical practice.

Honesty is, of course, an element of ethical behavior, but they are not equivalent concepts. I can imagine circumstances where being dishonest would not be unethical — i.e., complimenting my wife on her appearance in a new dress that I hate.

Ethics for fundraising counsel, as I learned the concept, has to do with ensuring that our behavior keeps in mind the best interests of the NPO and of the donor, with the understanding that what we do under contract — and what we advise the client to do is not to benefit ourselves, but the donor, the client and those the client serves.

An ethical system (as in the code that AFP and others have promulgated) defines itself not as “regulating/controlling” certain behaviors, but in precluding behaviors that could have undesired (unethical) outcomes.

Under a code of ethics, we are precluded from thinking, in hindsight, that since everything came out o.k. and no one was hurt, that the action/activity must have been ethical.

People (my clients, at least) should be able to say that, “Hank Lewis subscribes to the XYZ Code of Ethics, therefore we can rest assured that there are certain things he’d never do, certain circumstances that can never occur, that certain questions will never be raised, and that we can be comfortable….

Of course, it would help if my (prospective) clients were aware of the existence of such a code, and that I subscribed to it. Sad thing is that most people — most NPOs — haven’t a clue.

So, bottom line, I, like you, do what I do and refrain from doing other things that wouldn’t feel right. That AFP wrote it down on paper only helps me put it into words. And, honestly, some of what’s in the code I had not considered before being exposed to it. My reaction, on hearing those concepts and (in some cases) having them explained to me, was to say, “Of course, that makes great sense.”

I don’t find an ethical code to be in the category of telling-me-what-to-do-or-how-to-do-it. It just reminds me of the kind of impact on others that (hopefully) I would want to avoid anyway.

I guess an ethical code has to do with consideration for how our actions will — or could — impact others.

For a number of years I taught a (2 hour) class in Fundraising Ethics as part of a certificate program in fundraising management. The hardest task for me was in not just coming out and telling the participants what actions/activities are acceptable or unacceptable. My role, as I saw it, was to pose “hypotheticals” to get them to discuss how they’d react.

But, as it turned out, no matter what the question, the class always split in their opinions/reactions/thoughts – and that split was usually along income/cultural lines.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Click this link to find descriptions of all the titles in The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

A Reader wrote: “Even after 18 years in development, and earning the CFRE credential, I still have a hard time making the mental adjustment from thinking about our clients’ and organization’s needs to thinking about the needs of the donor. And it’s a totally foreign concept to my Executive Director.

“I also have difficulty understanding how one can ask for a major gift that is not for construction, or renovation, or major equipment, or some other kind of one-time expense.

“We have only asked for unrestricted operating support from our donors, and for program-specific support we write grant applications.

“Our donors are wary of making a major gift because they fear they will then be expected to give at that level from then on. How do you deal with that, when, in fact, we do hope that the long-term effect will be an increased level of on-going support.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
One thing that the CFRE program/process doesn’t teach/emphasize is that the development operation at a nonprofit is different/separate from the program side.

The focus of development/fundraising is and must be to create the relationships that will produce the funding to support the programs. (And, by the way, I held the CFRE credential for twenty years … and taught preparation courses for the CFRE exam.)

As a development officer, your focus must be on the needs of the donor, and how satisfying those needs will result in the funding needed to satisfy the needs of your clients. If you can’t show a donor how, by making a gift to your organization, s/he will be satisfying his/her own needs, then you can’t come anywhere near reaching your fundraising potential.

Everyone at a nonprofit should be an “expert” in the areas in which they function: program officers, those who provide service to clients, must have the experience and insight to be able to deal with the needs of client’s … and how to satisfy those needs. That is not the role of the development officer.

A development officer does not provide direct service to a nonprofit’s clients. A development officer provides “service” (cultivation/stewardship) to an NPO’s (potential) donors.

The attitudes/perspectives you describe for yourself and your executive director don’t deal with all of the realities. From what you said, above, there seems to be a lack of understanding of the role/purpose/focus of development (see: “Development” and “Fundraising” Are Not Synonymous

Also, in the CFRE process, there is no discussion to the effect that all major gifts should be restricted to capital/emergency purposes. Major gifts are, very often, part of an organization’s unrestricted operating support. (See: “What Is A Major Gift?”)

That your organization relies solely on grants for program support is, at the least, shortsighted. With a proper development program, you could likely identify other potential clients who would benefit from your service … and provide them with that service.

And, finally, that you believe that your donors are wary of making major gifts suggests that they are not motivated to do so – that their needs are not being identified/considered/addressed.

To readers of this blog, let me add one additional thought. The CFRE credentialing process is available to those with a minimum of five years in the field. The credential is designed to be “evidence” that the holder has demonstrated (by passing a written exam and meeting other criteria) an understanding of the basic principles of development. “CFRE” does not equate to “expert.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Click this link to find descriptions of all the titles in The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

The following is an excerpt from a listserve discussion regarding the ethics of donor confidentiality:

I can’t imagine someone saying, while they’re being interviewed for a development position, “Well, I know Mr./Ms. Gotbucks, but I can’t make the initial contact with him/her if you hire me because I met him … a few years ago while I was on the development staff of a different nonprofit.” It would seem to me, that the ethical standard exists to keep people from stealing lists and intellectual property – not to keep a fundraiser from calling someone they happened to meet while working somewhere else.”

==============
Of course the standard exists to keep people from stealing lists and intellectual property, but the major focus is the protection of the donor – and his/her right to privacy/confidentiality.

The Code* was designed (over time, and with much revision) to protect NPOs, their constituents and (primarily) their donors.

If the (Gotbucks) reference is to an officer of a foundation or corporation, there is no conflict implied in your scenario. If it is an individual donor, you’d have to ask whether there was a relationship between that donor and the development person, outside of the donor/org relationship.

If, in fact the two people became friends, then there’s no prohibition in the code to prevent a friend from calling a friend. If, however, the contact was limited to “official” transactions, then the development officer can only take with him/her that which is common knowledge in the community. Ideally, the “relationship” is between the donor and the organization, not between the donor and the staff person.

If it is known that the person has a passion for and likes to give to cultural institutions, then a contact from another such NPO would not be inappropriate. But, if that information was not commonly known, and was known to the development officer only as a consequence of his/her former position, then that officer is obligated to “forget” that information.

One of the purposes of the code is to protect the donor’s right to have information gathered by an NPO maintained as confidential. It is also to recognize that the NPO made an investment in the research/education/cultivation process, and to protect that investment.

If this were merely a philosophical discussion, the bottom line would be that the development officer couldn’t/shouldn’t do anything that would violate the rights of others — individuals or corporations.

But, since it is a common question in fundraising, all of the “rules” were designed to protect NPOs, their constituencies and their ability to serve their constituencies. They were not set up to protect development officers or other staff of the NPO.

(*The AFP Code of Ethical Principles and Standards can be found at: http://www.afpnet.org/Ethics/EnforcementDetail.cfm?itemnumber=3261)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Click this link to find descriptions of all the titles in The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

When I saw a line in a listserve posting referencing that phrase, it took me back to my early days (30+ years ago) in fundraising.

Back then, the phrase, “Give ‘Til It Hurts,” was part of the lexicon of the capital campaign. It was a simpler time, folks were a lot less self-centered than people appear to be today, and many capital campaigns (depending on circumstances) could get away with that language.

The idea, back in the “old days,” was that, if the campaign was to fund an “urgent” need in the community, then members of the community were “obligated” to sacrifice in order to satisfy that need.

My first few years in fundraising was as an itinerant director-of-capital-campaigns for (small) hospitals. In those communities, it was usually accepted, without question, that the “need” was “urgent,” and that, in order to provide for the health-care needs of the community, members of that community had to give “sacrificially” – ‘til it hurt.

The line, “Give ‘til it hurts,” was eventually replaced with, “Give ‘til it feels good.” But both lines have become trite, and tend to be difficult to say or hear without a grimace.

These days, major donors are just too sophisticated and too experienced in the nonprofit sector, phrases like the above are (hopefully) no longer in use.

Of course, in a community where there really is a sense of community, people are still making sacrifices … even (sometimes) in their giving. The focus, now, from the donor’s perspective, is most often not on what’s best for the community, but how their giving will satisfy their own needs.

Now that’s not necessarily bad. For too long nonprofit organizations felt/thought/believed that people should support them just because of the wonderful things they did. It was always about the needs of the organization and the people it served.

Today, if an organization wants people to support it, they have to think in terms of how a donor’s gift will satisfy BOTH the needs of the organization and the needs of the donor.

And, the reason why that’s not a bad thing…. If a nonprofit can show/help a donor understand how his/her gift will satisfy his/her own needs while helping others, then the donor is more likely to continue supporting that nonprofit.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Click this link to find descriptions of all the titles in The Fundraising Series of ebooks.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.