Author: Hank Lewis, MA, CFRM

Some time ago, I had a conversation with a group of colleagues about “expectations” in our relationships with clients – our expectations, and theirs !!

We all pretty much agreed that it really doesn’t make much of a difference what we spell out in our contracts regarding deliverables, as the client (who often won’t give the contract a thorough reading) has a vision of what s/he wants, that s/he believes the relationship with the consultant will provide.

For example, when I have a contract with an organization to “work with them to design and train them and their leadership to implement a major gifts program,” that contract will spell out my understanding of what (I believe) both parties are agreeing to do. No matter the wording, however, the client often sees the relationship as resulting in the acquisition of major gifts, not in the creation of any kind of a “program.”

Another common example: Where a consultant’s contract will spell out the fact that (in language required by many states) the consultant will never handle (have possession of) a client’s funds, and that the consultant will work with the client to plan/design (for example) a major gifts program and advise/train/direct the client in their fundraising efforts, it is so often the case that the client believes that the contract calls for the consultant to “bring in” those major gifts.

Even though I always spend some time discussing desired outcomes with prospective clients before I draft a contract, and even though we will discuss that contract a number of times … and may modify it each time before it’s ready to be signed, no matter how much discussion and re-writing precedes the signing of a contract, it rarely reflects the totality of what the client organization *really* wants … and what they expect to happen as a result of the relationship.

That doesn’t mean that they don’t get value for their money. Of course they do !!

But however the client benefits, it’s often not in ways they thought they would….

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 seen 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 work for a non-profit membership society as advertising and marketing manager, a position that falls under the umbrella of the development office. I am responsible for the advertising in our member publications and on our web site, and for selling sponsorships to local and national corporations.

I am having a difficult time separating out the difference between monies earned from selling sponsorships to a corporation and soliciting donations from them.

Should the two be recognized publicly as the same – such that all companies that sponsor and/or donate be grouped as Donors, or should there be a distinction between the two?

===================
The significant/functional difference between income from sales of sponsorships to corporations and contributions from corporations is that corporate expectations are different for both.

When a corporation buys a sponsorship, they expect specific visibility and recognition for the corporation and/or its leadership. In essence, selling a sponsorship is a contract between the NPO and the corporation — the corp. is buying what you told them they’d get for their sponsorship money.

If it’s an event, then there should be appropriate signage and/or visibility for the corporation on the event invitation and/or program.

Also keep in mind that the visibility you give to them, and to other sponsors, is part of how you are preparing for the next time you ask them to buy a sponsorship. It’s a case of “see what other corps got for being sponsors; you could get the same next time !!”

Sponsorships buy visibility and credibility and, therefore, help the corporations sell more of what they produce. Contributions from corporations “show” that they are “good members of the community” and suggest that community members should, therefore, “embrace” them and give them their “loyalty.” Corporations do give to support their communities, and to support the NPOs that provide services to their employees.

Corporate board members and executives also like to be recognized for their contributions, and they usually want to know beforehand what recognition they’ll get — a program listing, a listing in your annual report, a photo op — corp. exec presenting the check to your NPO’s ED or Board Chair.

Sponsorships and Contributions should never be “grouped” together, not only because they are obtained through different “processes” and come with different expectations, but also because they are perceived (by the corporations and your constituents) differently.

Bottom line, development is (at heart) marketing. It’s relationship building and enhancing — often on a one-to-one basis. It’s getting the prospect to want to do what it is that you want him/her to do — i.e., buying a sponsorship and/or making a contribution.

So, when it comes to corporations, the key to raising money is to first determine what their needs are — the needs of the corp. and the needs of the execs, then approach them with a plan (including either or both sponsorships and contributions) that will satisfy those needs.

Corporations that are buying sponsorships are not making donations. They are buying, not giving. Your record keeping (keeping the two income streams separate) will help you track which works best with which corporations. But, no matter which part of the corporate budget the monies come, the idea is that (for the most part) the sponsorship and/or the contribution will increase the corporate bottom line.

While I do not discount the many gifts to nonprofits from corporations that (really) want to support their communities, the basic approach to corporations must be with the consideration of how their bottom line will be impacted.

Of course all income goes to support the mission, but income of various types must be reported to the IRS in different categories. If you’re not familiar with IRS form 990, ask your organization’s leadership for a copy of a recent filing. If you wade through all the details, there will be some info that will address your questions.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 seen 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.

There is a philosophy, widely subscribed to in the n-p sector, that views nonprofit start-ups as having a responsibility to the sector and to society to prove themselves viable before looking to raise funds from (too far) outside of the founding group.

Just because they may have a valid purpose, and may come to serve a real need in society, doesn’t mean that they are viable. The broader community should not be asked to fund a start-up until the founders have proven that the NPO can-and-will survive.

Many (most) foundations operate on the premise that there are too many needs and too many needy people to waste resources (money) on those NPOs that can’t survive.

Unless a new NPO has a “guarantee” of sufficient income from government support, fees-for-service and/or a huge endowment, there will, at some point, have to be a reliance on fundraising.

If a group of “founders” can’t or won’t (financially) support and get those people close to them to support their own organization, why would any individual or foundation want to risk their resources on an organization that’s not proved its viability?

There have been too many organizations where the “founders” have bragged about giving of their time, effort and heart; but they steadfastly refuse to commit their own funds.

That is the stage in the life cycle of an NPO where they are most likely to fail — where they (the founders) won’t give, but expect others to support what they consider important !!??

There’s no rule that says that every NPO has to survive, or should !! As “rich” as society might be, there are limited funds available for NPOs, and only those that prove themselves viable, should get some of society’s resources.

An NPO that cannot prove its viability (probably) shouldn’t be seeking broad support … and probably shouldn’t survive.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 seen 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 question was asked, “Can anyone tell me what characteristics make a publication a good development tool? What can I do to begin to pull together the various publications so that they help garner parent, student and donor support and further the continued growth of the school?”

First must come the understanding of what development is all about !!

By definition, it’s the building/enhancing of relationships that, eventually, lead to fundraising. But, what many people in the n-p sector forget is that development is also (much more) about the needs of the (prospective) donor than it is about the needs of the institution.

People give because something about their relationship with an institution makes them feel good; and, just as important, because the actual giving makes them feel good. If you think about it, if it made them feel bad, they wouldn’t give !!

So, the role, then, of publications is to market the “good feelings.” Tell the world how Mr. X and/or Ms. Y felt good about being part of a program, about volunteering, about giving.

Sure publications must provide information, but to support development and public relations activities, they must do so in the context of “how people benefit.”

The emphasis being on “people.” Write about how students benefit from giving programs and how parents feel good about seeing their kids benefit.

Don’t write about how the school needs this or that. Write about how “your support will allow/permit/enable student to get this wonderful benefit” — don’t ever phrase it as: “without your support the kids won’t/can’t have this wonderful benefit.”

A poster above your desk would help to stay focused — i.e., “It’s about the Needs of the Donor!!”

Another mistake that many NPOs make is the need to produce/include a brochure for every need/circumstance. No one reads them; they take up space and detract from your message about people. Brochures, full of dry information, might be good to have on hand as supplements — for when they are requested.

Finally, the most important document a NPO can have is their Case Statement — an internal (narrative) document that discusses the institution’s history, accomplishments, current and planned/desired activities — with rationale, and what will be needed (in the way of funding) to make that future stuff happen.

Once you have that (sometimes cumbersome) document, and update it periodically, you never have to reinvent the wheel. Anytime you want/need to write another publication/solicitation, you already have a clear statement of who, what, when, etc. etc.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen 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.

Every nonprofit must have its own set of policies that cover all areas of service and operation; and, those policies must be written based on the circumstances and needs of that organization.

First, you need to have policies in place to “regulate” what your organization will do with all gifts – cash, stock, in-kind, bequests, etc. — whether all or only certain (types or percentages of) gifts will go into endowment, capital needs and/or operating expenses.

Then, for naming opportunities, you need policies for what you would be willing to name, and what you wouldn’t – and whether the namings would be permanent and/or if some/all would have terms of a specific number of years.

Organizations should also have in place policies specifying from whom the organization will/will not accept support; who you would (not) honor or memorialize; and, a statement as to how you’d decline gifts that include elements or restrictions that would conflict with your other policies.

Once the policies are in place, and there is a list of naming opportunities approved by the board, they shouldn’t need to be involved in approving each naming. Typically, the Development Committee of the Board, in conjunction with the Chief Development Officer, make the decisions as to who will be offered which “opportunity” … at what “price.”

“Namings” for support of operating expenses tend to be of the names-on-a-list or on-a-plaque variety. “Opportunities” for endowment, depending on the size of the gift, can be names-on-a-list, names-on-a-plaque, or the naming of a (part of a) program that the gift endows.

Those for capital projects range from names-on-lists, names-on-a-plaque, names on equipment to names on (parts of) buildings.

For bequests, since an NPO doesn’t receive the gift until the donor has died, namings must be discussed/negotiated with the donor while they’re still with us !!

Those discussions/negotiations tend to be very business-like, and focus on what’s important to the donor. After all, s/he is not going to name you in his/her will unless:

  1. S/he already feels strongly about your organization (or one of it’s programs);

  2. Through the process leading to naming you in his/her will, s/he develops
      that strong feeling for your organization (or one of it’s programs); and/or,

  3. Your organization can offer him/her the (kind of) naming opportunity
      that will satisfy his/her needs.

If you’re going to “sell” a naming, just be sure that the price is commensurate with the value of the “opportunity.” Remember, the “price” of a “naming” is based on the market value of that naming – a price that has little-or-no relation to the cost of creating, building or purchasing whatever is being named.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If 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.

“Give, Get or Get Off” has long been a part of the lexicon of fundraising. It was and is still used most often and most appropriately with boards of NonProfit Organizations that were designed with that concept in mind. If that sounds circular, it is….

There are certain types of NPOs whose boards are specifically designed to be giving and getting boards — institutions of higher education and medical centers are prime examples, as all planning, benchmarking and evaluation are the responsibilities of professional staff.

Governance, in the context of those organizations takes on a somewhat different meaning. Of course those boards are still legally responsible (and liable) for decisions/actions of the institution, and most of them do approach their responsibilities with due diligence, but fundraising is a major responsibility.

One consultant (rhetorically) asked, “Why else, when comprehensive campaigns are conducted, do we do (planning) studies and expect that a major portion of the funding will come from board members?”

The answer is that, for specific kinds of institutions (higher education, cultural, hospital/medical center) most board members have been selected on the basis of the 3-Gs; BUT, for the vast majority of NPOs, there has been (hopefully) a process to determine what is needed from board members to be able to “govern” appropriately and effectively.

Some boards are more involved in governance than others; and, often, that level of involvement depends on the NPO’s current stage in its life cycle.

For the vast majority of NPOs, policy making, fiduciary oversight, long-range and strategic planning, etc. are (should be) their ongoing focus.

Ideally, board members should make (at least) an annual gift to their NPO — but that’s the ideal. Realistically, if we can get board members to take their governance role seriously, and get them to do an effective job in that context, we’d be way ahead of the game — even if they never gave a cent.

And the idea that others espouse, that board members must give or get a specific dollar amount each year … sometimes that works, sometimes not.

We can only hope that fundraising consultants know when to lay that GGG line on a NPO board, and when not. For some boards, it has good shock value, and can have desired results — like the resignation of “dead wood,” or the commitment to setting an example in a major campaign.

But not every NPO gets into major campaigns, not everyone defines “dead wood” the same way, and not every board must be of the 3-Gs type.

It’s like any other concept in development — that may or may not have application in all circumstances.

To provide the NPOs we counsel with the best advice/direction, we must be able to “think outside of the box,” and recognize that all of the old expressions “aren’t chiseled in stone.”

And even if you accept/insist that giving and/or getting is a role of the board, they can exercise that role by authorizing the creation of a separate fundraising “board” – with whatever name you’d care to give it.

NPOs in the early stages of life have “working boards” that do it all — except, very often, giving and getting. And, if you insisted that they restructure for that purpose, you stand a chance of destroying what’s best in that NPO.

As NPOs “mature,” boards are less involved in the “day-to-day” and more concerned with policy making, governance and (yes) fundraising. But don’t insist that all boards must be alike.

For any consultant who’s been in the field for more than a couple of years, flexibility (not rigidity) is one of the qualities with which we (best) serve our clients. We need to be committed to the needs of the people served by our clients — to an end result, not to any specific process of getting there.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 email exchange….)

I recently took over as President with the Xyz Dance Company. It is a very unorganized, 501(c)(3) volunteer (parents of dancers) organization.

I have recommend to the group we seek professional assistance to get “organized” with a development plan, create proper manuals to help keep us on track, and have sought out a local grant writer who is willing to assist us at an economical rate.

The first steps in getting organized, making sure that:
• Your bylaws clearly describe the role/function of the Board
• The Board includes people (not necessarily parents) who bring needed skills and perspectives to ensure effective and business-like functioning
• Your bylaws provide a method for evaluating Board Member performance
• Your Board Members are limited to two consecutive terms of three years
• Your number of board members is divisible by three — so that one-third of those members are up for election each year
• You have a detailed narrative of how your group came into being, what it has done, what it’s doing, what it’s planning on doing, and what future need$ will be
• You have a detailed budget that delineates all sources of income and all categories of expenses
• The grant writer, who should be able to help you put together the above narrative, is paid on a flat fee or an hourly basis … never commission/percentage
• You understand that foundation grants only account for 14% of all charitable dollars
• You understand that 80% of all charitable dollars come from individuals
• You understand that “fundraisers/events” may raise immediate dollars, but don’t result in long-term supporters
• You understand that other potential donors (including foundations, individuals and corporations) won’t be motivated to give to you if your Board Members and other parents have not set the giving example

That said, I truly feel, that because the organization is parent based, with a volunteer board, we simply are not able to put the time into fundraising that we need to. The parents find themselves transporting children, going to do other siblings activities, don’t have the comfort level to approach people for money and a host of other reasons we will fail to generate funds.

I am convinced to have a hired professional serve in the capacity, as a full time fundraiser is essential. A couple questions on that subject:

1. Do full time fundraisers work like a rep (i.e. – golf, sporting goods) where they may be working for more than one company at a time?

The phrase “full-time fundraiser” can be misleading. You have to be sure what it is that you want that person to do.

To hire an “outsider” to be your “fundraiser” raises ethical questions:
1. Do you have the cash on-hand to pay someone’s salary/benefits/taxes for an extended period … while they get up to speed?
2. Do you understand that it’s unethical for a person who raises funds for a nonprofit to be paid a commission/percentage?
3. Are you ready to explain, up front, to a potential donor that the person doing your fundraising is not a staff person?

2. What is the salary range for this type of person?

Keeping in mind that this would be a staff person, not a “rep” type, and depending what you want/expect from this person, in skills and performance, the salary would range from $40,000 to $100,000 – plus taxes & benefits.

But, you are no-where near ready to hire someone !!

3. Are there grants available that would cover or could be applied to the hiring of a full-time fundraiser? If so, where would one look to find such a grant?

Some foundations do fund the creation/support of such a staff position, but your organization must be ready to make effective use of that person. Keep in mind: Foundations typically provide initial funding for “projects.” They don’t want to adopt you.

Before you can even think about hiring a staff person, you must have a study done to determine your potential for fundraising — for sources of volunteer leadership and potential donors.

A properly done study would be an investment that would save you lots of money. Once you know what your fundraising potential might be, and who your potential leaders and donors might be, you can then design an effective fundraising program.

PLEASE NOTE: Do not think that if you hire a full-time fundraising person that s/he will raise all the money. An effective full- or part-time staff “development” person should be the organizer, trainer, and director of a fundraising program. S/he will need a cadre of volunteer leaders who will do the actual prospect cultivation and solicitation.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 is an update/revision of a posting that appeared in October, 2010

In my 30+ years as a fundraising consultant, I’ve seen corporate fundraising done by staff and/or volunteers, with a consultant advising/teaching/guiding; and, I’ve seen a “consultant” doing the fundraising from the corporations on behalf of the NPO. In both cases, it always created a conflict of interest if the consultant was to be compensated on a commission/percentage basis.

In the first circumstance, the relationship is between the NPO and the corporation. The consultant may make the initial contact with the corporation, but the discussions are between the NPO family and the corporate people. In this case, the consultant actually consults. S/he is paid for her/his time/effort/expertise, with no consideration as to how much money the NPO may or may not raise.

In the second scenario, the relationships are between the “consultant” and the corporations, and the “consultant” does little or no consulting. In this case, the “consultant’s” role is to “show” the corporation how their support of the NPO will benefit that corporation. Again, the “consultant” should be compensated on the basis of the time/effort/expertise that goes into making “it” happen, not on a percentage/commission basis.

Many corporations (especially those who are frequently asked to support NPOs) are aware of the “rule*” (see * below) prohibiting commission/percentage compensation for those raising money for a non-profit organization. Many of those corporations agree with and accept that concept. Some don’t!! Some don’t care!! The question is whether you want to risk appearing ignorant of “accepted practice” and/or seeming not to care??

There is, of course, a third option, one in which the consultant/event planner working with you on your organization’s event has the relationships, the ability and the willingness to contact and solicit corporations to get them to buy tables or sponsorships. Where this person is usually paid a flat fee for their event planning work, s/he may (not) take an additional fee for this work … and may simply use the opportunity to cement their own relationships with the nonprofit organization and the corporation(s).

Always remember, once the consultant/planner has created the relationships for you with the corporations, then it is up to you, the NPO, to follow up to use this introduction wisely. Depending on others to continue to garner corporate support for you shows a lack of “how-to” in developing relationships/partnerships. The consultant who brings the corporations to the table (so to speak!) has given you a gift. What you do with it is up to you.

(*Conflict-of-Interest issues tend to become public information, and have hurt many nonprofits and their ability to raise money. It is, therefore, with good reason, that all of the major associations of nonprofit organizations and those of charitable-fundraising professionals accept and endorse this “rule.”)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 seen 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, provoked by questions to this blog, is a revision of a posting from April, 2010.

Development is the process of creating and enhancing relationships with (potential) donors … hopefully leading to the solicitation/acquisition of (contributed) income.

“Development” directly references the relationship between the donor and the nonprofit, and how that relationship satisfies the needs of both.

It is, ideally, the introduction of (prospective) donors to a nonprofit organization, building their interest in the organization’s mission/services, developing in them a passion for the mission and a commitment to the organization’s future, getting them to make-the-gift, and maintaining the relationship so that they will continue to support the mission … and continue to give.

Development may also have little-or-nothing to do with the NPO’s mission, and may focus primarily on the needs of the donor. If, for example, the (potential) donor has no interest in the organization, but wants/needs to see his/her name on (a wing of or the outside of) a building, the relationship that is built is designed to get the donor to want his/her name on your organization’s building.

Very often, a person may give because they want to please the person who is “asking,” or because they want to see their name listed alongside the names of recognizable personalities. That is fundraising, but not necessarily “development.”

“Fundraising” only addresses the “income generation” aspect of the process. It can include fee for services, product sales and so-called “fundraisers,” as well as the generation of contributed income not based on a relationship between the donor and the organization.

People give to satisfy their own needs. If the (relationship building) process results in having an individual want to give … feeling good about giving because his/her needs are being satisfied, and having that giving advance the organization’s mission and services, that’s a desired result of the development process.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 seen 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 Pair of Postings from two of this blog’s regular contributors)

Fund-Raisers are not Friend-Raisers
by Tony Poderis.

I have always held that special event fund-raisers must/should be just that, fund-raisers, not friend-raisers. There may be exceptions, but we cannot count on the exception for successful fund-raising.

To my way of thinking, it is poor fund-raising strategy to put on an event with the expectation of having attendees become good prospects for future giving. This is not very likely when those in attendance often have little real interest in the organization’s mission; are attending an event held at a site other than the organization’s location; and are eating, drinking, and socializing.

Relationship building is further limited by the added distractions of cocktailing, dining, auctions, other spending opportunities, and entertainment. Even if informational handouts are supplied, a video of the organization’s services is shown, or some other display of what the organization does is presented, the exposure is fleeting at best and has little lasting impact.

Just two weeks ago my wife and I were at a non-profit’s Gala to inaugurate its new performing home. While eagerly waiting to dig into the tantalizing dinner, two or three of the organization’s officials took center stage to tell us how the new facility came about, who made it possible, and the added value of what the organization will bring to the community. We were seated at a table for ten, and I can state with no exaggeration that there was a steady, though perhaps rude, rolling of twenty eyes as the “education” and “cultivation” efforts of the evening droned on and on.

From the hard lessons we learned over time with our orchestra’s fund-raising events, we finally realized that event attendees were there only or mainly to make social and business contact and have a good time. They just wanted to have fun.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Every Event Should Be An Opportunity….
by Natalie Shear

It is not often that I feel compelled to respond to one of my fellow bloggers, but Tony struck a nerve.

Based on my 30+ years as an Event Planner, I must disagree with the idea that it is “a poor fund-raising strategy to put on an event with the expectation of having attendees become good prospects for future giving.” To the contrary !!

As with anything else, the right event at the right time with the right motivation can be a good way to gain prospects for the future. Keep in mind that people love events and love to socialize and network as part of the “in crowd,” not to mention having their pictures taken with some of the other “important” guests … strong reasons for spending another night at another fundraiser!

Obviously an event is not the best place for a long-winded spiel about the nonprofit, but it is and should be the place for a very brief, cleverly produced video that makes the audience sit up and take notice – it’s a lot harder to ignore a visual presentation than to ignore a speaker.

And, forget the handouts, unless you like to see your materials strewn across the ballroom floor when the place has emptied-out. There are, however, more effective alternatives to handouts — alternatives designed to make an impression well after the “tantalizing” dinner memory is long gone.

You might, for example, send a photo of the person (prospect) with some of the other guests along with a lovely note thanking them for attending. That little warm and fuzzy photo can be followed up at a later date with an invite to a briefing, or to a small, intimate gathering at someone’s home to hear a speaker, or meet an author, or enjoy a special dinner prepared by a new chef in town!

Look around your community and see what you can offer that is new and different and enables you to woo the prospects.

And, while you’re wooing, your development staff is busy researching each likely prospect to learn about these people’s interests, what other groups they support and, most important, what-or-who got them to attend your event.

In other words, any event can be a cultivation opportunity and just because people are having fun does not mean they have no interest in a bit of education (presented appropriately of course). If the exposure time at the event is fleeting, then you had best find a way to making a lasting impact even after the fun is over.

Just don’t lose the opportunity to identify and cultivate potential new constituents.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You can learn more about Tony, and find many in-depth fundraising articles on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
To read about Natalie, check out her website: Natalie Shear Associates, and take a look at Natalie’s ebook on Special Events
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If 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 one-or-both of the authors of this posting.