Category: Finance

This is a follow up to last week’s post on “special event income.”

The person who asked the question that engendered that posting didn’t provide enough information for me to be able to address her specific circumstances.

So, I got another note, expressing disappointment … and maybe a little annoyance.

This time my correspondent wrote: “I was asked to develop a budget for a small project ($30,000 a year). We have designed and embarked upon a campaign of grant writing and solicitation of yearly pledges (from individuals and organizations) to fund the program. I believed that part of our campaign should also include fundraisers and special events because our clients are teenagers and we hope to involve them in such endeavors to teach them leadership skills, and to help them become materially involved in the maintenance of the project.”

I’ve already responded to that additional information – an edited version follows.

I do and will always object to “fundraisers,” but I’ll come back to that later.

The most important issue/concept noted above is that the purpose of the activities that will involve teenagers is to involve teenagers. If you call those activities “fundraisers” or “special events,” that’s of little importance.

Getting the kids involved in an activity supporting the organization’s mission is major. If the activity raises money, all the better, but that shouldn’t be the main objective … and you shouldn’t count on the income from that activity.

If you budget for the activity, you budget it as an expense, with no anticipated income … ’cause you haven’t done it before and you cannot put guesswork into a budget.

You cannot, in fact, include anything in a budget for which you don’t have firm evidence … specifically, income figures. And, before you can develop a budget that lists specific expenses and a total expense figure, you have to know if you’re going to have the money to engage in those activities that you’ve listed in the budget.

Reliance on “fundraisers” is dangerous, as there is rarely any assurance they will generate the same (or more, or any) income every year.

If a nonprofit organization is to survive beyond the first few years, there must be a solid plan — what you want to do and how you’re (actually) going to get the money to do that, but not wishful thinking.

A published budget (and everything a nonprofit does, except for client information) is or will become public knowledge. You can’t put a budget out there, then fail to do what you said you were going to do and/or fail to raise the funds needed to do it.

If that happens, the NPO loses all credibility and a great percentage of their supporters/donors, especially from foundations and wealthy individuals.

So, I have to add, again, there is no percentage of a nonprofit’s budget that should be based on income from “fundraisers” and/or untested “special events.”

And, if you are thinking about grants, I suggest you take a look at Lynn deLearie’s ebook on Grants & Grantsmanship. It’ll save you much time and effort, and probably some money.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Want to learn more about the basics of Special Events?
Take a look at the ebook, Special Events
Looking for some fundraising Guidance for the New Nonprofit ,
take a look at that ebook.
They are part of
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 recent email asked: “What percentage of a non profit’s budget should come from fundraising events?”

I have a problem with the word, “should.” That implies that all nonprofits should be raising money through events. That is so wrong!!

That is a question that is (so) often posed by people new to the nonprofit world, people who can’t see very far into the future of their organizations.

To ensure ongoing/continual levels of income, an organization MUST create/cultivate a constituency that will support it over the long term. And, a nonprofit MUST have a long term fundraising/development plan that sees those constituents as donors, not purchasers of candy or tickets to events, but people who will GIVE to the organization because they want to – because they believe in its mission and they get satisfaction from GIVING.

That’s what the nonprofit community is all about. Have we forgotten the word “charity”? Have we forgotten that people give because they want to help?

So, what percentage….: 100%, 0%, or somewhere in between??

First, to differentiate between “Fundraising Events” and “Special Events.”

“Special Events” are special !! Whether a Dinner, a Reception, working with the people who are served by an organization (such as the service line at a soup kitchen), or other activity that has an expense line item in the organization’s budget.

What makes an event special is a combination of three things:
1. The desire on the part of the (potential) attendees to be there, because
it is a prestigious event to attend and because being there satisfies one-
or-more of their needs;
2. The extent to which event activities support the mission of the nonprofit
… other than by raising dollars; and,
3. The extent to which the event is planned and implemented by people
connected to and who care about the organization. [That does not, btw,
preclude the use of outsiders to help with the planning and logistics.]

A well planned/organized/executed Special Event should take in more than the event costs, and many nonprofits have events that are special and raise big bucks; but, a fundraising event is designed with only that goal … with little that happens at the event that relates to the organization’s mission.

There are, of course, organizations that have perfected the Special Event. I can think of one that raises over seven figures with their Annual Dinner … but their event started small and grew carefully over twenty years.

A (relatively) new organization that looks to run fundraising events (or fundraisers) to support their activities and the services they provide, will probably not survive too many years. Not that there aren’t some new/small organizations that manage to live on income from fundraising events, but reliance on fundraisers limits their growth and the services they provides to their community.

So, again the question: What percentage of a non profit’s budget should come from fundraising events? What do you think ??

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Want to learn more about the basics of Special Events?
Take a look at the ebook, Special Events
Looking for some fundraising Guidance for the New Nonprofit ,
take a look at that ebook.
In fact, you should take a look at
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 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.

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 tool box. 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.

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

A recent communication asked: “I have a potential non-profit client that was approached by a for-profit corporation, with a similar mission, that wants to contribute to the non-profit all or some of the net proceeds from a Gala Anniversary Event organized by and for the for-profit entity.

The structure is not yet in place so the question is ‘How involved can the non-profit be in the planning, inviting, marketing, etc. of the Anniversary Event for an otherwise non-affiliated for-profit?’”

There are three issues suggested by that question:

1. The simple answer to “how involved can the NPO be…” is that there is no limit to that involvement as long as there is no conflict with issues #2 & #3.

2. For an NPO to do “anything,” there must be a budget line for that activity and sufficient funds for same. Since NPOs get much of their funding from charitable contributions, that money must be used in ways that are consistent with what the NPO told the donors to get them to give.

3. An NPO must be careful not to align itself with any entity that in any way actually opposes or suggests opposition to any aspect of the NPO’s mission. And, the NPO must consider the image/reputation of the entity/corporation in “risking” its reputation on an alliance. Two simple questions to ask are whether the nonprofit would accept a contribution from the corporation; and, would the NPO’s constituents approve ??

Having said that, the budget issue goes away if there is a donor who will fund the NPO’s participation in the event. Any efforts at fundraising (or ticket selling) for the event by the NPO’s staff and/or Board could be interpreted as a conflict of interest.

The NPO could, without fear of such conflict, contact their constituents and inform them of the upcoming event … and provide information as to where they could obtain more information. The notice could be in their regular newsletter and/or in the form of an “FYI,” not an endorsement.

I’d also emphasize one other thought … that the NPO must not share their constituent/prospect/donor lists with the for-profit corporation.

Part of the ethics of the nonprofit sector requires that information about/from constituents be treated as confidential. Those people have to be comfortable/ assured that their information will not be shared … without their permission.

That’s why the NPO should inform their constituents about the event, not provide the list to the for profit corporation, and let the NPO’s constituents decide for themselves whether they want more information and/or want to participate….

The best apparent relationship between the for-profit corporation and the nonprofit corporation is for the latter to be guests of the former at the event.

And, bottom line, the NPO’s Board Members must determine if their organization’s participation in/for the event is consistent with the NPO’s policies … if they have formal policies !!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Want to know more about Special Events?
Take a look at the ebook, Special Events
It’s one of 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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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.

(Continued from Last Week)

Surely, anyone can see that there is a huge difference between selling a Ferrari, and “selling” a nonprofit institution.

The automobile salesperson is responsible for selling cars.

In “selling” a nonprofit institution to its (potential) donors, the development professional has the dual responsibility, along with volunteer leadership, for helping to keep a community asset healthy and strong for current and future generations, and for helping the donor satisfy his needs through his giving.

It’s that simple. One is about the value of a “product,” and the other is about what we value in life.

I’ve been fighting this development-as-sales battle for many years, and I fear we are all losing ground with the growing trend of having boards of trustees believing that fundraising is someone else’s responsibility, and development staff too often willing, or forced, to take on the role of solely or mostly being “the” fundraisers for their institutions.

“Meet your goal this year, then see next year’s goal set arbitrarily higher.” “Make it, or else.” Burn out, high turnover, reduced opportunity for building long-term relationships, and a weakening of the profession, are but some of the long-term consequences when a development staff becomes a sales staff.

There are, of course, some who do star in their roles as institutional staff solicitors; but, when they leave … and they will in time, they almost always take with them their personal donor relationships, and other contacts and resources. This results in having the new staff person, their replacement, being in the position of starting from scratch.

We cannot continue to go this way and succeed (as per Willie Loman) with mostly a “smile and a shoeshine,” making the “sale” for today, but not being given the time and resources to build for the future.

I’ve had numerous communications with frustrated and frantic development professionals lamenting that they are not at all able, or desirous of being their institution’s fundraiser of first resort. Many of those professionals have become so, by order of their boards or by having it imposed upon them by their supervisors. If this continues, I fear we could be seeing the death of a profession, as we once knew it.

And, it all goes back to the Boards of Trustees and other volunteers. Volunteers are the lifeblood of a development operation, and board members are the most important volunteers of all.

My favorite mantra: “There is no greater strength in a fundraising campaign than a board ready and willing to lead. There is no greater weakness than a board that sees fundraising as someone else’s responsibility.”

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
You can Ask Tony.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
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.

Not long ago, I received an email from the CEO of a large nonprofit medical center. She referred to an article I had written that was completely at odds with what she was told by the president of a major fundraising consulting firm the hospital is going to hire.

The consultant was advising the hospital to only have their paid staff make all key solicitations. To reinforce his assertion, he said to her, “You would not send out an amateur to sell a Ferrari, so why would you put at risk a major donor in such hands?”

My response was to point out that selling a Ferrari is a completely different transaction than “selling” a nonprofit institution’s program, service, or project.

Coming from my nineteen year background of “selling” lighting for General Electric, and subsequently “selling” the music of The Cleveland Orchestra for twenty years, I have seen five key success qualities at work in both worlds, one way or the other, relative to the salesperson’s/solicitor’s shared position to that of the respective customer/prospect:

1. Career Status
2. Economic Status
3. Social Position
4. Interest In The Institution (Company)
5. Mutual Respect

The sale of a Ferrari involves an explicit selling and buying environment that customers understand and expect. It is a quid pro quo deal. The best professional salesperson will do the job well needing only to possess qualities No. 4 and No. 5. In fact, most of the time, those are the only two of the five qualities that the salesperson could possess.

When we are seeking a voluntary charitable contribution, we are not working in the same product-selling-transactional-environment. We are not selling to a prospective donor; we are presenting her with an opportunity to satisfy her own needs … by supporting/contributing to an organization that serves her community and her concerns.

The volunteer possessing all five of the qualities listed above would make the most effective solicitor. (Like the Ferrari salesman, paid development staffers also only possess No. 4 and No. 5.) Based on long experience, that informed/trained volunteer, meeting with a key donor prospect, cannot be so crassly dismissed as an “amateur.”

We must always keep in mind that we are not selling prospective donors an institution’s “product.” In the nonprofit sector, we ask prospective donors to consider making a gift … giving to something in which they believe … and that they want to support.

Next week, in Part Two, Tony continues his passionate cry for the rescue of the Development Profession.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
You can Ask Tony.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
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.

Get ready because they’re coming. Not only the Millennial generation, but their ideas. Thoughts about how to do things better, thoughts about incorporating new technology, crazy ideas with no grounding in past success or industry-wide best practices.

These folks want to make an impact – that’s why they’re working for your non-profit – and they have ideas for how to make it happen.

The upside is that you need new ideas. That’s right, if you keep doing things the way you’ve always done them, your organization will stagnate and eventually die.

The downside, however, is that there’s work involved in vetting ideas. Because let’s face it, some of the ideas your Millennial staffers bring to you will be good, some of them won’t.

But that’s why you’re in the position you are! You’re the boss because of your experience and good judgment.

I’m not here to tell you which ideas are good or bad for your organization. But, I do have some advice for listening to Millennials so they feel comfortable continuing to bring ideas your way. Remember, you need ideas.

This approach will also keep them engaged with their work. Want employees who care? Want them to be proactive? Learn how to receive ideas. Even from people younger and less experienced than you.

Here are four easy steps:

1.  Listen to the full idea before shutting it down. Don’t interrupt in the middle with a dismissive, “No, that will never work.”

2.   Remember that ideas beget other ideas. Even if the entirety of the idea isn’t exactly right, there might be some piece of it that is brilliant. After listening to the idea, point out the thing you like best about it. See if you can build on it. If it’s entirely dreadful, just go with, “first of all, I can tell you’ve given this some serious thought and I want you to know that I appreciate that.”

3.  Don’t feel pressured to make a decision right away. There’s a vast ocean between “yes and “no,” including:
•  Let me think about it
•  Research this part and come back to me
•  Present this at this next meeting and we’ll talk about it as a group

4.  Be honest about aspects of it that give you pause. And give your staff member and opportunity to respond to your concerns. Maybe they’ve already thought them through.

5.  Give credit where credit is due. If your Millennial staffer brings you an idea and you run with it, make sure to acknowledge where it came from.

If you follow these steps, you’ll be a lot more likely to harness the entrepreneurial spirit of the Millennials on your team. Ignore these steps and you’ll lose people. They’ll get bored with their jobs, spend more time at work checking Instagram, and eventually leave for a place where they feel valued.

One final thought: If a nonprofit organization is to survive over the long term, there must be a cadre of younger staffers in the learning/growth process who will be able to effectively replace the older staffers when they move on !!

Next Week Tony Poderis offers the first of a two-part impassioned discussion as to, “Who should be raising the money for nonprofit organizations.”

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
K. Michael Johnson is a major gift officer at a large research university
and the founder of Fearless-Fundraising.com .
You can contact him at K. Michael Johnson.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
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 couple of weeks back (on January 28th) Tony Poderis addressed his concerns about the evolution (or devolution) of the fundraising field. Where I agree with Tony, wholeheartedly, I want to address the distinction between the two concepts … as in the title of this piece.

All professions, by definition, involve some level of special training/education and, often, a period of “internship” (however that’s defined). No one can decide to be a professional in any field, without learning the rules/practices of that field. No one can be a development professional their first day in legitimate fundraising.

Until about forty years ago, a person became a development professional by working for one of the old hands … being taught about the meaning of “development” and its rules, and being mentored for a period of years. Then, in the early 70s, a number of universities, in collaboration with many of those “old hands,” began offering intensive training programs for future development professionals.

The basic rule of the “profession” was an ethical balance of the needs of the nonprofit organization and those that it served, and the needs of (potential) donors.

Sometime in the 1980s, if I recall correctly, the “ethics of the profession” were formally codified. And, as I also recollect, codes of ethics seem to be part of what it means to be a professional.

So, again, by definition, a Fundraising/Development Professional is someone who has been educated, has trained for the role, has demonstrated an understanding of the principles of development and an ability to apply them, and abides by a code of ethics.

Just because someone has been hired by a nonprofit organization to be their director of development, or their grants writer or special events coordinator, doesn’t make them a Development Professional.

Development as an activity is defined as the process of establishing relationships with potential donors (individuals, foundations, corporations) with the purpose of learning their needs and how the satisfaction of those needs can/will correspond with the satisfaction of the needs of the nonprofit organization.

The Development process involves the education of the prospective donors as to the mission, programs, successes and needs of the nonprofit organization and the people it serves. The term “donor cultivation” refers to the “getting to know you” process – the donor getting to know the NPO and the appropriate people at the NPO getting to know the (prospective) donor.

It is only after the relationship has been formed, the parties have gotten to know each other, and how the needs of both could be satisfied, that the “solicitation” of the donor can proceed. “Fundraising” is the next-to-the-last-step in the development process.

Next Week K. Michael Johnson assures Development Directors/Managers that Millennials may have worthwhile ideas to offer.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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.

What would we do without Shakespeare’s quotes to fit any occasion or mood? Thus it is with my seeming futile battle against the ever-mounting rise throughout the non-profit sector where development staff members become nothing more than paid solicitors.

Whenever I’m impelled to remind anyone who the fund raisers should be in their organizations, keeping in mind that there is often some energetic (negative) pushback, there is one of the Bard’s quotes that comes to mind:

“What’s gone and what’s past help, should be past grief.”
— Paulina in The Winter’s Tale

 

What’s gone and what’s past help seems to be true with how the development process has evolved over the past several decades, but my grief remains.

I’ve been fighting the development-as-sales battle for too many years, and I fear we are all losing to the growing trend of having boards of trustees believing that fundraising is someone else’s responsibility, and to development staff too often willing, or forced, to take on the role of solely, or mostly, being “the” fund raisers for their organizations.

There are, of course, some who do star in their role as staff solicitor for their organizations, but when they leave – and everyone leaves eventually – they will likely take with them their personal relationships with donors … and other contacts and resources, resulting in having the individual taking over their role in the position of pretty much having to start from scratch.

I have, and continue to have, ongoing communication with frustrated and frantic development professionals, people who are lamenting that they are not at all able or willing to be their organization’s fund raiser of first resort, but are de facto in that role by order of their boards or their supervisors.

I know I am mixing literary metaphors here, nonetheless I think it apt to bring in Arthur Miller, looking to his “Death Of A Salesman” as a perilous parallel to our formerly glorious fundraising “family” becoming more and more populated with despairing and failing Willy Lomans. As such, I fear we could very well be seeing the “Death Of A Profession,” as we once knew it.

I tell anyone within reach that we cannot continue to go this way and succeed with mostly a “smile and a shoeshine,” making the “sale” for today, but not being given the time and resources to build for tomorrow.

And, it all goes back to the Boards of Trustees and other volunteers. Volunteers are the lifeblood of a development operation, and Board Members are the most important volunteers of all.

There is no greater strength in a fundraising campaign than a board ready and willing to lead. There is no greater weakness in a campaign than where the board sees fundraising as someone else’s responsibility.

But, those formerly true and highly successful fundraising principles are now being abandoned in favor of the quick fix, using paid outside- or staff-solicitors.

And while there are some proven and workable aspects to social media, micro-giving and crowd fundraising campaigns, far too many organizations are all too willing to put all or most of their effort to those mass-media appeals made to mostly temporarily-caring audiences for the smallest of contributions.

The tried-and-true development process to ensure future financial stability is all but being abandoned for today’s limited vision and an annually renewed urgency to meet (mostly) arbitrarily-set quotas.

“How poor are they that have not patience!”
— Iago, in Othello

 

Next Week, our millennial, K. Michael Johnson, talks about how he’s ticked off some of his older colleagues with his so-called “new ideas.”

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
You can Ask Tony.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
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.

Every time I sit down to write a fundraising letter, or one of these posts, I suffer a period of anxiety. I’m worried that readers will reject my writing. Reject me.

At first my writing is flat, a collection of information and phrases with no life or meaning.

But after a little while I get over myself and start thinking about my reader: You!!

Of course, I don’t know you yet, but I can imagine you because I know so many people working for nonprofits and facing the challenges of fundraising.

Chances are that you are generous, intelligent, curious and conscientious. Also, probably, pressed for time, short of resources and at least a little less knowledgeable than me about direct mail. (If you know more about it than me, then I want to read your posts!)

Now I’m feeling better. We care about some of the same things and we’re here together so I can help you. You’ve made a little bit of time to hear me out, but I need to get to the point.

And the point is “You.” It’s the most powerful word in the English language, the word that names us, the subject of most of our waking thoughts.

You’ve heard the advice that inserting the word “you” into copy makes it more engaging to readers. This actually works, but the practice may strike you as a rather mechanical, even a Pavlovian trick.

But, the interesting thing is this: it’s a trick we play on ourselves as writers as much as on our readers. We can’t address our words to a person called “you,” without imagining that person.

If I’m writing for an environmental organization, I’m likely to imagine “you” as a healthy, active older married woman with an advanced education and broad interests in addition to a passion for sailing.

Now that I’m holding an imaginary conversation with an imaginary reader, my writing starts to read like speech, the words I would use to inform and persuade someone at my kitchen table.

You don’t know me, I think, but I know something you’ll be interested (perhaps shocked) to hear. I see my reader looking at me skeptically over her glasses.

But she’s listening, so I keep talking, building my story and showing how her informed monetary support can make a big difference in the outcome of my story. She’s nodding. Now I’m feeling persuaded and passionate myself.

It can take many more hours to complete final revisions, but that’s the beauty of imaginary conversations – unlimited do-overs. Meanwhile, I’m on my way to a complete first draft.

Thanks to “You.”

Next Week Tony Poderis discusses … Who Should be an Organization’s Rund Raisers.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jon is Vice President of Cause & Effect, Inc.
He has helped nonprofits develop successful direct response strategies and
effective donor communications for more than 25 years.
Contact Jonathan Howard or
visit the Cause & Effect website
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
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.