Author: Hank Lewis, MA, CFRM

A recent email described changes to the structure/function of the different departments in an organization’s development office, noted that a development office should function on the basis of “what’s best for the donor,” and asked that I comment (approve/disapprove) of what was described. I responded….

I understand/accept that the structure/functioning of your organization’s development operation is not the best, but if you’re asking me to comment on that structure and how it functions, I can’t.

For the audits of nonprofit development operations that I’ve done, I’ve had to be there, make the observations and do the interviews, to be able to suggest what if anything was wrong and how to correct it.

I’d be a fool to suggest changes in an operation with which I’ve had no substantive relationship.

Regarding your reference to a development office functioning on the basis of “what’s best for the donor,” that’s not exactly the optimum perspective for a development operation.

Of course an ideal development operation must take the needs of its donors into consideration … and do what it can to satisfy those needs. I have always emphasized that development (the building and maintaining of relationships aspect of the process) is about the needs of the donor.

Not everything in a development operation is about “what’s best for the donor.” Some things have to be about what’s best for the development operation and the nonprofit that it serves.

Determining what’s best for the development operation requires serious research and (sometimes) trial-and-error. And, no one (in this case, meaning me) can make a judgment about such an operation without that live-on-site research….

And, btw, there is no one-system-fits-all development organization. What works for one nonprofit may-or-may-not work for another.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating
or expanding your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’ve been posting these pieces for the last five years,
and we’re now at a point where, to keep this resource alive,
we need your questions/problems to engender further discussion.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Comments & Questions
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you’re reading this on-line, and would like to comment/expand on the above piece, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply.” If you’re reading this as an email, and you want to comment on the above piece, email Comments to offer your thoughts. Your comments, with appropriate attribution, could be the basis of a new posting.

A participant in a listserve observed that ”the realm of ‘planning’ is (often) made infinitely more complicated because different words are used to mean the same thing and the same words are used to mean different things.”

Indeed, there is great diversity in the use of terms like “visioning,” “mission” and “strategic planning.” So I go back to my basic training in development — 40+ years ago — to address the issue at hand.

Early on, it was explained that the term “campaign” came from the military, as do the terms/concepts of “strategy” and “tactics.”

Where “strategy” and “strategic” (as in planning) have come to common usage in business and development, “tactics” has yet to gain wide- (if any) usage.

Strategy is/was defined as “planning and directing large-scale military operations … of maneuvering forces into the most advantageous position prior to actual engagement with the enemy.” The common usage in the for-profit and non-profit communities is a derivative of that definition.

The military definition of “tactics” refers to arranging/maneuvering with reference to short-term objectives or immediate needs … and adapting to circumstances.

Strategy is a focus on the long view, and tactics looks at how to apply the strategies in the short term.

Leadership is responsible for formulation of strategy (strategic plans), using whatever resources needed for that process — including staff, in many (but not necessarily all) cases.

Staff then takes their “marching orders” from the strategic plan, and defines how they will make it work in the day-to-day reality. Where staff is not responsible for the strategy (Strategic Plan), they are responsible for the developing the tactics that translate the “concept” into “reality.”

Quoting another listserve participant: “My opinion regarding strategies and goals for a strategic plan is that they go out no more than 3-5 years. And I view tactical or operational plans (I actually call them “Action Plans”) as 1 year in length … at the most”

Part of the confusion is the use the term “strategic planning” to refer to both, long-range and short-term. I just thought that a different term could help clear the air.

I would add … that those who do not do Tactical Planning or “Action Planning” (no matter what they call it) are unlikely to achieve their strategic goals.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Want to learn more about The Basic Concepts of Fundraising?
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
are easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’ve been posting these pieces for the last five years,
and we’re now at a point where, to keep this “blog” alive,
we need your questions/problems to engender further discussion.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Comments & Questions

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question about starting, evaluating or expanding
your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On a listserve dealing with nonprofit-related legal matters, an attorney commented: “I can think of several of my law clients who have made very large gifts, and who would be horrified at the thought of having their names published on the Internet. They would feel that this was an invasion of their privacy, and that it would expose them to all sorts of unwanted solicitations.

“Of course, to be fair, I have plenty of other clients who want the publicity and would actually enjoy the wider exposure that the web brings.”

In Response:
The various Codes of Ethics impacting the nonprofit sector clearly state that donors have the right to privacy, and only they can give permission for their names to be publicized.

There are three common ways nonprofit organizations can make it easy for donors to clarify their preference:
1. (Preferable) By asking them to check a box on the forms they return with their gifts agreeing
    that their name may be used;
2. (Not as Preferable) By asking them to check a box on the forms they return with their gift
    denying permission for their names to be used; and,
3. (Least Preferable) By asking that donors check a box on the form they return with their
    gifts if they don’t wish their names published – and indicating that if the box is not
    checked, the assumption will be made that permission has been given.

Since not every nonprofit organization is yet asking donors for such permission, and not every donor reads all those forms as carefully as they should, NPOs should make the extra effort — especially when contemplating publicizing donors’ names as broadly as would a web-page — to adequately inform donors and to get specific permission.

It’s considerate, and it’s good donor relations.

And, publishing a donor’s name in an off-line/printed annual report, or in any other format in any medium, should engender the same kind/degree of consideration of the donor’s right to privacy.

Interestingly enough, most NPOs to which I’ve described this concept, and emphasized the ethics of complying with such rules of “consideration,” choose not to consider that concept to the degree it should be considered.

It points up the need for everyone (board, staff, volunteers) to be educated about the ethics of fund raising.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Want to learn more about The Basic Concepts of Fundraising?
Book One of The Fundraising Series:
The Basics: Perceptions & Realities
is for You, and it’s only $1.99
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’ve been posting these pieces for the last five years,
and we’re now at a point where, to keep this “blog” alive,
we need your questions/problems to engender further discussion.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Comments & Questions

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
are easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

To paraphrase a posting from a listserve: “If you are going to get someone to want to become a (major) donor to your organization, you have to start with ‘where they’re at,’ and ‘where you’re at.‘

[I put “major” in parentheses because I want to be sure that it is
understood that the concept applies to all potential donors …
more so the larger the gift being sought, but it does apply to all.
See previous posts on Donor Acquisition and Donor Retention.]

We each/all go about connecting with others by showing different parts of who (and what) we are. Different things are important to each of us, so we focus-on and talk-about those things that have significance for us.

In Development, the primary focus in the creation of the relationship (that will, ideally, lead to significant support of the nonprofit) is an understanding of the needs of the (potential) donor – where she/he ‘is at.’

On August 5th, I posted a piece on “Establishing the Right Relationships.” In that posting I noted that, “If you want the major gifts, there has to be a one-on-one relationship with the (prospective) donor; and that, typically, said relationship is with a current major donor and/or a board member.”

I also discussed the Cultivation (getting to know you) process that takes place between the “Cultivator” and the “Prospect.”

What was not discussed was the selection of the “Cultivator.”

In most cases you could assign almost any board member or major donor to be the point-person for the cultivation of a prospective major donor, but why leave to chance any factors that you can “control” from the beginning??

“Compatibility” is the key.

It would be best to pair up cultivators and prospects who have similar likes, dislikes, backgrounds, attitudes, etc. With the appropriate pairing, relationships are likely to “happen” more quickly than if just “any” cultivator is assigned to a prospect.

And, to state the obvious, you (should) already have all the information you need about the likes, dislikes, etc. of your board members and major donors. This is where “you’re at.” This is where you start.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Want to learn more about Major Gifts Fundraising?
Book Four in The Fundraising Series:
Major Gifts: Planning & Implementation
will provide the direction for creating/expanding Your Major Gifts Program
and it’s only $3.99
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

We’ve been posting these pieces for the last five years,
and we’re now at a point where, to keep this “blog” alive,
we need your questions/problems to engender further discussion.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Comments & Questions

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
are easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

A couple of weeks ago, in response to the posting “comparing” a Capital Campaign to the Annual Fund, I received the following, multi-part question:

I am part of a capital campaign now and we had a donor ask why the gift table does not change for a gift that comes in that is not listed on the gift table. For instance, if a gift comes in at $150K but the gift table lists $100K and then $250K next.

There isn’t one answer to that question.

From the “academic” perspective, once the Planning Study is over and the Gift Table is printed in various campaign materials, that’s pretty much it. No more changes to the Pyramid.

BUT, since development/fundraising is about the needs of the donor, looking at it from the perspective of a major donor, where the donor’s ego requires a change to the Table, You Change The Table !!

I’d expect that you can’t change the Gift Table in all the publications you’ve produced for the campaign, but the “Master Gift Table” in the Campaign Office, and the one on-line (if there are such) can/should be changed to reflect the “realities.”

It would not be very costly to create a 3’x4′ Table to hang on a wall – with boxes to fill in when a commitment is made for one/any of the listed amounts … and to have that chart reprinted if/when “required.”

I also think that it could be awkward or misconstrued if several donors have already seen the set table to have other versions floating around, no?

Whatever is decided, it must take the needs/sensitivities of your constituents/donors into consideration.

That’s actually my answer to most issues in development 🙂

Realistically, if your Gift Table was constructed based on the results of a Planning Study, then the commitments at the top of the pyramid would have been fairly well assured, and adding another level shouldn’t bother/annoy/impact those other major donors … especially since, for most major donors, this would not be their first ride on the carousel.

And, if anyone asks, you can always respond that the Gift Table was modified based on information received after the Planning Study was completed and after the initial Gift Table was constructed.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’ve been posting these pieces for the last five years,
and we’re now at a point where, to keep this “blog” alive,
we need your questions/problems to engender further discussion.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Comments & Questions

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating
or expanding your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you’re reading this on-line, and would like to comment/expand on the above piece, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply.” If you’re reading this as an email, and you want to comment on the above piece, email Comments to offer your thoughts. Your comments, with appropriate attribution, could be the basis of a new posting.

Unlike all of the other planned giving mechanisms, a bequest program doesn’t require major technical expertise and specific financial instruments. It’s easy, it’s fast, it can pay off substantially, and the dollars from bequests comprise close to 90% of all planned gifts.

Many non-profit organizations refuse to get into planned giving because of the perception that it’s all about technical wording and/or complicated financial instruments. That’s a misperception.

Most planned gifts mechanisms do require some degree of technical expertise, possible registration/approval by States, and a legal contract between the donor and the non-profit organization, BUT NOT BEQUESTS!!

Bequests are simple, and should be a standard item in every organization’s development toolbox. Simply worded, a bequest is a gift left to you in someone’s will.

A “donor” can leave you a specific dollar figure, a percentage of their estate, a percentage of what’s left over in their estate after other gifts/provisions are executed, a specific gift depending if anything is left in their estates after other gifts/provisions are executed, or the entire estate. The actual wording however, is a topic for discussion between the prospective donor and their attorney.

Your job is to get those who might name you in their wills to want to do that.

What do you have to do?
1. Reach out to folks and get them involved with you and what you do.
Involvement means working on committees, being asked for advice, helping to provide service
2. Be creative, think of how to get people so excited about being part of who you are and what you do that they’d want to help continue that work, even after they’re gone.
3. Let them know how easy it is to leave you a bequest.
4. Let them know of the recognition they’ll get — the appreciation they’ll be shown — while they’re still here.
5. Create a named “society” just to honor those who name you in their wills.

Recent figures show over $16 billion in bequests given to non-profit organizations in just one year. Do you want some of that !?

Consider, those who (first) name you in their wills are more likely to make major and planned gifts to you while they’re still with us. And, many Board Members find it easier to ask someone to name an organization in their will than they do to ask someone to write a check.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’ve been posting these pieces for the last five years,
and we’re now at a point where, to keep this “blog” alive,
we need your questions/problems to engender further discussion.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Comments & Questions

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating
or expanding your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you’re reading this on-line, and would like to comment/expand on the above piece, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply.” If you’re reading this as an email, and you want to comment on the above piece, email Comments to offer your thoughts. Your comments, with appropriate attribution, could be the basis of a new posting.

A question was asked:
I know that charitable organizations often have phone banks or door-to-door canvassing where the workers take a percentage of the funds they raise. Likewise, supervisors on such giving programs often also get a percentage. What is the difference if the ED also gets a percentage?

In the sense that it is unethical for all three individuals to get a percentage of the funds they raise, there is no difference.

The question of ethics in percentage compensation in fundraising relates, in part, to whether the donor is first informed that the solicitor (and others) will be getting a piece of their contribution or whether the donor is allowed to believe that all of his/her gift will go to advance the mission of the organization.

The ethical question refers to the donor being able to make an informed decision and knowing that his/her gift will be used as s/he intended — to help people in need.

If the donor is first informed that a percentage of her/his gift will go to the solicitor (and others), and s/he still elects to make that gift, then there is no conflict.

Chances are, however, that donors, if so informed, will choose not to make a gift.

Any NPO whose employees and/or representatives receive a percentage of gift income, and do not inform donors “up front,” are depriving a donor of the right to know and are, therefore, being unethical — and possibly fraudulent.

Nonprofit organizations and their treatment/use of their income is different from that of for-profits because the “assumption” is made that any money given to an NPO goes to advance their “good works.”

This is also a good circumstance to which to apply the “Washington Post test” — as previously described. Would an NPO want their donors to learn from their local news media about the “misdirection” of their funds ??

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’ve been posting these pieces for the last five years,
and we’re now at a point where, to keep this “blog” alive,
we need your questions/problems to engender further discussion.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Comments & Questions

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating
or expanding your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you’re reading this on-line, and would like to comment/expand on the above piece, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply.” If you’re reading this as an email, and you want to comment on the above piece, email Comments to offer your thoughts. Your comments, with appropriate attribution, could be the basis of a new posting.

That was the first part of a question … that continued to ask:
“I believe the answer to be a hard drive at research of prospective large gift donors, cultivating these prospects and obtaining a commitment or large gift. Where do general corporate and community direct mail efforts come in? Are there specific procedures for direct mail (donor-base expansion), or is there no specific correlation between the two. In other words, where do the Direct Mailing efforts come into play during a capital campaign?”

First, comparing the activities of an annual fund program with a capital campaign is like comparing apples and watermelons — both are fruit, but….

It has often been said that capital campaigns are a synthesis of everything else we do in development. It is also true that the skills and experience required to design/implement a capital campaign are so much greater than those needed for annual fund activities; and, that a comparison of the two isn’t realistic.

To fully understand what a Capital Campaign is, it would be best not to approach the concept from the AF-CC comparison. That would be misleading. It would just be better to define/discuss capital campaigns.

1. It is important, to be able to understand what CCs are all about, to understand the purpose and structure of the (CC, MG [Major Gifts]) “Pyramid” – see: “How To Use The Gift Table”. Since it would be insane to think of attaining a million dollar CC goal by obtaining 1,000 gifts for $1,000 — think of the number of solicitors you’d need, the leadership structure, the volunteer training, etc., etc., — the “pyramid” is a visual representation of the numbers and sizes of gifts you’d need to attain your goal.

The ideal capital campaign would identify, cultivate and (successfully) solicit the one person who could/would make the one (large enough) gift to satisfy campaign needs. Failing that, look for two gifts that would fill the bill; or three; or four; etc. Eventually, for most campaigns, you wind up with the “pyramid.”

The million-dollar CC should be able to attain its goal with relatively few gifts — fifty to one-hundred-fifty. The larger the goal, and some of today’s campaigns range into the billions, the greater the number of gifts would be needed to achieve it … but the “pyramid” will always apply.

2. The case for a CC is substantially different than that for an AF. The former looks at bricks-and-mortar, equipment, real estate, architects, etc., and the latter covers program, salaries, supplies, etc. The case for the former tends to be of the preparing-for-the future type, the latter focuses on the present.

3. CC (or MG) gifts may require months/years of cultivation; and, you need to know much more about your prospects than you would/do for the AF. If you’re planning on asking someone for a $1m gift, you’d better know enough about that prospect to show him/her how making that gift will satisfy his/her needs.

4. A CC usually relies on the prospect identification, cultivation and solicitation activities of volunteers.

5. Referencing #1 (above), the focus is on MGs for capital purposes, and rarely do such gifts come from corporate sources.

6. Referencing #1 (above), the focus is on MGs for capital purposes, and solicitation by direct mail (or other mass approach methodology) cannot and should not be relied upon.

If the smaller gifts are sought, it will only be for the public relations and/or constituent building value, not for their help in attaining the goal. Traditionally, the General Gifts Phase of a CC is implemented (if at all) only after the campaign goal has been (pretty much) attained; and, the purpose of that phase (although not public stated) is to allow the whole “community” the opportunity to be “part” of a successful campaign.

A capital campaign is not an annual fund that has been “expanded.”

To go back to the original question — and the way it was framed/worded, it gives the impression that what’s being asked is, “Why couldn’t an AF person run a CC ??” Answer: A CC requires a larger, more sophisticated set of skills, a different mind-set, a whole level of complexity, experience and training above what is needed for the AF.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’ve been posting these pieces for the last five years,
and we’re now at a point where, to keep this “blog” alive,
we need your questions/problems to engender further discussion.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Comments & Questions

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating
or expanding your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you’re reading this on-line, and would like to comment/expand on the above piece, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply.” If you’re reading this as an email, and you want to comment on the above piece, email Comments to offer your thoughts. Your comments, with appropriate attribution, could be the basis of a new posting.

Development Program Evaluation is not limited to comparing the dollars raised “this” year to previous years’ totals. It’s about being sure that each/every element of your “program” is performing as desired/required … to ensure adequate funding for your services, now and in the future.

The performance of a Development Program is evaluated based on Donor Acquisition, Donor Retention, Donor Cultivation, Donor Stewardship, Leadership and, of course, Dollars Raised.

The reasons for Donor Acquisition fall into two general categories – to expand your donor base, and to replace the donors you lose through attrition. Among the questions you should address are: (1) How productive are the lists you are using; (2) How effective are the letters you are sending to the different prospect groups; and, (3) Are you mailing too often or not often enough.

There are two aspects to Donor Retention; one relates to the percentage of donors acquired “last year” that contribute “this year; the percentage of donors who are “regular” contributors; and, the percentage of your donors that “lose interest” in your organization. These are fairly easy to determine … mere arithmetic. And, if you’re losing more than you’re acquiring, that raises a number of significant questions.

The central aspect of Donor Cultivation that requires examination is whether you have a sufficient number of (potential major) donors being cultivated, so as to maintain a steady stream of major gifts. Again, this is a numbers game. You have to have a large enough number of leaders who are working to identify , cultivate, solicit and maintain relationships with (potential) donors.

Donor Stewardship is your ongoing contact, and the substance of that contact, with your current and PYBuNT (Prior Years But Not This) donors. You should be keeping records as to how often you (that’s a generic “you”) are in touch with your donors, what recognition/visibility they get for their support, what information you are providing to them, and how you are providing that information.

“Leadership” is how many new leaders have been recruited, how many have been trained, how many are involved in the cultivation/solicitation/stewardship of donors, and how enthusiastic those leaders are.

A Grants (gov’t, foundation and corporate) Program would be evaluated based on the number/percentage of grant proposals that actually get funded, the size of those grants, and the number of grantors that “regularly” support you. A Grants Program is not about how many proposals you submit, but about your reputation/credibility with the grantors.

And, the success of your Special Events Program is measured by leadership participation, the number of new donors acquired, whether an event will draw a crowd (again) next year, and the extent to which each event enhanced your organization’s reputation/credibility. And, where it would be great if all your events were extremely productive, dollar-wise, that’s not always a measure of success.

I’m sure you noted the overlap of the elements, and that to evaluate a Development Program there is a lot of information to be gathered (on an ongoing basis) and evaluated.

One last item to consider: What is the cost-per-dollar raised for each element of your Development Program, and for your Program, overall?

The bottom line in doing your annual evaluation is having goals against which to compare your reality.

If you don’t have a Fundraising Plan with specific goals for each segment of the development process, you can’t evaluate whether or not you’ve reached your goals.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’ve been posting these pieces for the last five years,
and we’re now at a point where, to keep this “blog” alive,
we need your questions/problems to engender further discussion.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Comments & Questions

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating
or expanding your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you’re reading this on-line, and would like to comment/expand on the above piece, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply.” If you’re reading this as an email, and you want to comment on the above piece, email Comments to offer your thoughts. Your comments, with appropriate attribution, could be the basis of a new posting.

As previously noted, Donor Acquisition, requires an investment … often, a significant investment. But with many nonprofits finding finances a little tight, the question often is, “Where do we get the money?”

I’ll start by examining the components of a donor acquisition mailing – the package: The carrier envelope, the letter, the return envelope and (occasionally) an insert – a brochure or flyer. Each of those elements can be used to raise the funds needed to produce and mail the package.

The letter can come from, and be “signed” by, a donor who will fund the mailing; and, the carrier envelope can have that donor’s return address – assuming that the donor is well known enough to get people to want to open an envelope with his/her corner-card.

An insert can bear the statement that it was funded by “Donor Name;” and, the return envelope can be addressed to the donor in-care-of the organization’s address.

In fact, different batches of letters can be signed by different individuals; the same for different batches of inserts; and, the different batches of return envelopes can be addressed to different donors….

That way, donors lend/add their credibility and reputation to that of the nonprofit, and the nonprofit adds to the donors’ visibility and position in the community.

A Planning Study is also an activity that can be funded by one-or-more donors.

One of the early steps in a Planning Study is to send potential interviewees a note describing the process and asking that they agree to be interviewed. A letter that comes from the right person can impact the likelihood of that participation. Then, when the potential interviewee is called to set up an appointment, the caller notes that s/he is calling on behalf of “Donor Name;” and, the “Thank You” note, for participating in the Study can be signed by a donor.

Each of these opportunities, like the Naming Opportunities in a major campaign, is “priced” at what the market will bear. The cost of mailings, of printing flyers, or of any element (or elements) of an activity, should bear no relation to what you might ask the donor to pay for the “Opportunity.”

One last thought: When you think of who might be the right people to approach to help with this kind of funding, don’t forget corporations.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’ve been posting these pieces for the last five years,
and we’re now at a point where, to keep this “blog” alive,
we need your questions/problems to engender further discussion.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Comments & Questions

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating
or expanding your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you’re reading this on-line, and would like to comment/expand on the above piece, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply.” If you’re reading this as an email, and you want to comment on the above piece, email Comments to offer your thoughts. Your comments, with appropriate attribution, could be the basis of a new posting.