WorkingPhilanthropy.com

Along with most of the modern world, I, too, took it upon myself to create a New Year’s Resolution for 2012. OK – so I am also somewhat of an overachiever, so I actually have two. First, decluttering my house, in bite size chunks, became one of my missions for 2012. So much so I found a calendar with daily (except for Sundays) decluttering projects to guide me, encourage me, and hold me accountable. [Note: I found the calendar via Pinterest.] My first HUGE project (I did say bite size, but…) was weeding the pantry. First step was to assess what exactly was in the pantry – best way to do this? Remove all items from said pantry. This was the scene in my kitchen:

It only made sense to throw away expired items in the process of removing all items from the pantry. So, this had me thinking about how stale research (and/or prospects) can become when such has been “hidden” in a nonprofit’s pantry (um, I mean, database) for too long. Is it possible to declutter your prospect management and research operations and, in effect, declutter your organization’s mission? I pondered this as I desperately searched for an expiration date on this gem:

The Bee's Knees

This is a most excellent peanut butter and one of my son’s favorites. But alas, the date was a bit worn off! I think I could see a 2012, or was it 2011? Was that a sign to expel this PB from my pantry? I consult with a number of nonprofit organizations, including providing prospect research services, and I will identify major gift prospects for them, which of course results in a discussion regarding approach. There are times when the bee’s knees (i.e., a prospective donor) simply will not exactly mesh up with the mission of a certain nonprofit. Typically, this has to do with timing. Some nonprofits (and yes, I’ve seen this in higher ed institutions too) will feel the need to adjust their funding priorities in order to meet the interests of certain prospective donors. I’ve seen these organizations expend significant staff time and energy (MONEY) to create a program which may appeal to these prospects, only to not receive the major gift they had anticipated. I do believe through decluttering your prospect management and research operations one can do an amazing service to the overall organization, including cleaning out the organization’s programs. I offer to you the following insight and tips:

• Report, report, report. Depending upon the volume of research and fundraising intelligence you and your colleagues provide, run a report from your database (or wherever you are keeping track of the info you distribute – you do that, right?) of all research distributed for prospects for which no significant contact by a frontline fundraiser has been made within 6 months of distribution.
• Segment, segment, segment. From this report, review the tags or other descriptors for each prospect. Separate prospects into program, strategy, behaviors. Then further segment based upon assigned fundraiser. What patterns do you see? Is your frontline fundraiser colleague’s portfolio too full to take advantage of the information you’ve distributed? How can you reassign in consultation with your colleague? If you don’t have a plan for this, check out the best practices for prospect development over at the AASP website. [Note: you must be a member to access finalized best practices documentation, or if you are a member of APRA, you can view documentation there too.]
• Better vs. best by date. During my pantry project, I came across one item which had a BETTER BY date as opposed to a BEST BY date. Really? Could one really assign such? I believe we, as a group of professional researchers, are really good at documenting when certain information was compiled, but have we also recommended by when such research is still “good”? Is there a point in time at which a prospect becomes no longer approachable, given the information uncovered? And, would such a “best by” date ensure the research is utilized in a timely fashion?
• Teachable moment. Once my pantry (yes, it’s now MY pantry…) was organized, my whole family could clearly see what was, and what wasn’t, in the pantry. Once you go through a decluttering project, your organization should be able to clearly see what types of prospects are not being seen in a timely manner. You’ll be able to identify a strategy for change. You will have a teachable moment, not only for your prospect management, data management, and research colleagues, but also for your frontline fundraisers. [NOTE: As an aside, I suggest viewing this type of press as a teachable  moment as well.]
• Report, report, report. I know – I’m repeating myself. In this case, repeat the above steps but with a different approach. Which prospects were seen within 6 months of distribution of the research? What are the patterns? Do you see any correlation regarding incoming gifts from these prospects and the distribution of the research? How can you build on this success?
• BONUS. Does the addition of external data inform the patterns you see? [For instance, public company insiders vs. private company owners.]

How often you declutter is up to you and your pending assignments and tasks. When I worked for the FSU Foundation, we called this “Spring Cleaning” and so it was usually Springtime. There is extraordinary value in this type of clean up, and I do urge you to find the time to do this. If you have the luxury of having a prospect research department, assign these tasks as time allows (but with a due date, please).

Oh, and here is a look at my finished project, which my lovely tween daughter said, “Mom, this will never last.” I guess there is always next year!

Pantry Sanity!

What are your tips for decluttering your mission? Please feel free to share in the comments section!

Like a lot of you, I subscribe to numerous listservs serving the nonprofit space. Advance-L, PRSPCT-L (and yes, every time I type that, I do sing it –in my head – to the tune of that Aretha classic), CFRNET, FUNDSVCS – the list goes on and on. And of course with Twitter, I have created my own listserv of sorts – following (including Twitter lists others have created) other Tweeps with similar interests to my own.

One aspect of listservs which intrigues me is the title contained in the posting – not the subject title, but the poster’s job title. This morning, someone posted with a question regarding database conversion and whether or not anyone had a calendar of events or a checklist of tasks they had found to be helpful in the process.  This person’s title? Director of Mission Advancement & Donor Stewardship. I absolutely LOVE the insertion of the word mission before the word advancement. David and I (along with numerous colleagues who we also are fortunate to call friends) have long said if you work at a nonprofit or any fundraising organization, you are a FUNDRAISER. Period. End of story. Your job at said organization is always to advance the mission of your organization. Now, I do understand, not everyone can have the title of “fundraiser” – would get a bit confusing internally in terms of management. We have always distinguished between frontline fundraiser vs. “behind the scenes” fundraiser. However, I do believe this title – Director of Mission Advancement – is onto something. Typically, the title would have been something like “Director of Advancement Relations” or “Director of Advancement Services.” Relations and services – nothing against these words – have the connotation of internal tasks. Perhaps even translated into function: Director of Making Sure Gift Acknowledgement Letters Go Out the Door Correctly and IT Plays Well With Others and Research Finds the Right Prospects to Meet Our Dollar Goal and the Gala Event Caterer Does Not Serve Mr/Ms/Miss/Dr Benefactor Red Meat. When someone has the title of “fundraiser” there is no guess work externally or internally. That’s pretty straight forward. The way in which Director of Mission Advancement and Donor Stewardship clearly articulates the focus of this person’s job is exactly where it should be – the organization’s mission AND its donors.

Mission Advancement – I believe this should be universal within a nonprofit. Each position plays a specific instrumental part in advancing the mission of the organization. As a manager of prospect research, this was my mantra, “How does what I am being asked to do contribute toward advancing the mission of my organization?”

How does your role contribute to mission advancement? Does every task you undertake work towards your contribution to this goal?

PS There is still time to sign up for our webinar! Give yourself the gift of learning additional techniques to advance your mission!

A list of companies most likely to go IPO came across my Facebook wall the other day, and this list was created by Goldman Sachs.

Now, most of you will say, “Well, so what, it’s another list.” But something caught my eye in this piece, as the companies listed are STARTUPS:

“So why hold a conference for early stage companies if you’re an IPO underwriter? Well, the event basically functions as an extremely foresighted form of lead generation. According to multiple people I spoke to, these are the 30 or so startups Goldman has designated as potential IPO candidates. And it wants to make a relationship as early on as possible, in case some of them actually do and need Goldman’s services in the process.”

Oddly enough, nonprofits might be able to learn a thing or two from GS…

What are your organization’s steps to identify who, amongst your constituents, members, and prospects, are most likely to go MGO (major gift offering)? Has your organization developed that type of analysis internally, and, if so, how are you watching your list (checking it twice…) (sorry, I couldn’t resist)? And does your organization see the value in starting the relationship as early as possible?

If your organization has not started this type of identification and subsequent watch list, what is holding you back?

If you’ve ever attended one of our conference presentations focused on “Where’s the Money Now?”, you may recall my mentioning the WSJ’s Next Big Thing, and how I believe every nonprofit, especially with a prospect research department, could create their own internal scoring and ranking of certain prospects, using the WSJ methodology, easily. Check it out here for some inspiration to create your own score and then don’t forget to make your most likely to go MGO list…check it twice…

When what has always worked stops working (or no longer works like it use to) you start to see innovation. I was reminded of that when I saw an article from Inside Higher Ed about Beloit College foregoing the usual 5-7 year comprehensive campaign. Instead they are are going to have a “modular” or “project based” campaign where the focus will be one or two projects over a short period of time.

“Administrators hope the approach will set them apart from other institutions, motivate faster giving, and excite donors who can see a quick turnaround on their investments. In total, administrators believe the new approach will raise as much money, if not more, for the college than a traditional model.”

I think they are onto something. Surveys have shown donors are tired of long, drawn-out campaigns which are followed all too soon by yet another campaign. One of Beloit’s donors said, “You can see evidence of what you’ve done and that it’s helping the institution advance, as opposed to the longer-term thing.”

This approach also encourages segmentation driven by interests rather than wealth. This will create deeper affinity as donors feel their unique giving interests are being acknowledged and respected. Another benefit will be full funding for projects and programs that might have been lost within a comprehensive campaign. Every fundraiser knows that hidden behind every “successful” campaign are unfunded areas that never received the attention given to the new stadium, science building, scholarships or other more attractive (and let’s face it – easier to raise money for) aspects of the campaigns.

The article points out this is actually not a new idea. In fact, this is how money was raised before the advent of mega-campaigns. Is it time to take another look? Leaders in the field commented they don’t think so, but they also said it might be the best answer for Beloit.

My feeling is the comprehensive mega-campaign can still be effective for the bigger organizations and institutions with the brand, staff, prospect pool, and financial resources to raise money across a broad spectrum of projects and programs over a long period of time. Fundraisers involved in these campaigns need to be sensitive to the growing demand from donors to not just listen, but respect what they are saying.

For the rest of the fundraising community I believe a more focused approach will yield better results both in the short and long terms.

Let’s all give Beloit our thanks for blazing a new campaign trail (or is it rediscovering an old one?). It’s not easy going against conventional wisdom, but it is that pioneering spirit which helps all of us move forward.

What do you think of this approach, and would you consider it at your organization or institution? What are the obstacles you face in terms of changing your fundraising plans?

It warmed my heart (and it was extremely cold here this a.m., in FLORIDA, so I needed that warmth) to hear a piece on NPR regarding math degrees and BIG DATA. Reportedly, mathematicians can make sense of this data for businesses. No doubt this is true, and “intense curiosity to understand what’s behind the data is a common trait amongst such mathematicians.” I would argue people with BIG LOVE of research (like us – that is, a love of prospect research and data mining) all have this trait as well, with or without math degrees. How many nonprofits and higher ed foundations look for (and hire) mathematicians? Perhaps you should share this NPR story with your HR department, to adjust the requirements for certain development positions. Hey, I’m not suggesting you stop hiring those of us with library science, information studies, history, and/or English degrees. Read on and see why math majors should be included, too.

McKinsey released their results of a study earlier this year about the impact of big data across many different industry sectors. Among their findings, a retailer using Big Data to the full could increase its operating margin by more than 60%. Another – “access to data is critical – companies will increasingly need to integrate information from multiple data sources, often from third parties, and the incentives have to be in place to enable this.” I know, you might be saying, “Lori, we are not a retailer” (I could argue that point, but that’s another discussion) OR “Lori, we are not a company” (and I could also discuss that point too…). So, instead, take a look at Big Data for the Common Good. Or take a looksee at Geoff Livingston’s piece on Big Data.

OK, you’ve waded this far in. Now let’s define big data. Well, go ahead – use Bing or Google. I’ll wait…

One piece about which I think everyone can agree: to handle Big Data, your organization, in addition to the appropriate personnel, needs a scalable solution. Business Intelligence (aka fundraising intelligence) will rely upon your organization’s ability to handle the explosion of data that has already happened not to mention the data being created right now as you are reading this. All you have to do is take a look at the conferences across the globe regarding Big Data. Take a look at the speaker lineup – notice the company names. What pattern do you see? You’ll recall David mentioned in an earlier post about unstructured data. Big Data solutions should be able to take into account the unfielded data all organizations (whether nonprofit or for-profit) capture. Think about those free text fields in trip reports. Think about those prospect profiles and thumbnail sketches.

If I still worked within a higher ed foundation, I would find my way – fast – to the math department. Your prospect research department, if your nonprofit is fortunate enough to have one, could learn a thing or Fk, k > 2: O(1/e2 m1-2/k).

So, here it is, two days post Thanksgiving weekend – yes, we’ve successfully prolonged this one-day holiday into an entire weekend, and if your school system is like ours, it’s a 5-day weekend, according to my teenage son, which made yesterday quite the rude awakening for said teenage son. In reflecting on our holiday, and writing this blog post, I came across my dinner preparation to-do list, as follows:

• Make cranberry sauce

•  Start turkey

•  Put turkey in oven no later than 2 p.m.

• Mix together mama’s sweet potato casserole

• Take rolls out of freezer

• Start Brussels sprouts

• Start pumpkin soup when turkey is resting

• Open pinot noir

• Make turkey gravy

• Put in rolls and sweet potato casserole

Of course, as with all cooks, the recipes were tweaked to the tastes of the cook (moi) and the family members. We enjoyed our Thanksgiving meal in the evening, which is unlike my traditional family T-day schedule, a noonish feasting so one may graze the rest of the day. Why, you ask, did we break from tradition? David and I ran a 10K early that morning. We ran in the annual Turkey Trot. Several well-deserving charities participated, which may be unique (I think, typically, one specific charity is THE event charity). One could donate money at time of registration or bring items to the race to donate. It did make me wonder if these events are making the most from these dedicated participants. My mind tends to be nonprofit data focused, so I wondered, “Are runners more charitable than the walkers?” From what I can tell, only those who donated cash during registration would be able to be analyzed in such a way, if the software used to capture the donations allowed for such, and only if registrants were asked to specify if they would be running or walking. (And, hey, if we are all wearing chips in our racing bibs, hmm…) And does it really matter? (I would argue, why, yes, it does matter, and it could matter ahead of time if the nonprofit knew the participants in a deeper way.)

As one can imagine, and rightly so, these race events are a huge undertaking, employing dedicated volunteers and community partners. The to-do list for this type of event must be incredibly detailed, so everybody involved is working from the same recipe. As the holiday season in now upon us, do you have your to-do list for your organization’s holiday giving campaign, and is everyone at your organization following the same recipe? As nonprofits, you can put on an excellent engaging event. What about the post event to-do list? Keeping the engagement going after the event is over, after the holiday season, also needs its own to-do list. What are your holiday giving plans? What has been your recipe for success? Will your organization be breaking from tradition? I invite you to share what has worked for you in the past, what you will be tweaking this time around, and your organization’s plans (or challenges) for further engagement.

(BTW, we did have dessert – it was brought by my wonderful brother-in-law and niece. But my sister had to fight me for the turkey leftovers – yes, it was THAT good. From our home to yours, we hope your Thanksgiving was full of love, hope and peace.)

When it comes to data most fundraisers would just like their queries to be faster and their reports on time.  Sadly they are often disappointed on both fronts so it’s no wonder they are not asking the most important question: “Are my queries and reports accessing all of our data?”

The answer is “No!”

Before you send this to your intrepid database administrator let’s take a quick trip in the tech time machine to when donor management systems started to proliferate. It is the 80′s and entrepreneurs are beginning to use relational databases to create software to store information on donors. Contact information and gifts are the first to be digitized and fundraisers comment that this is not much better than the 3×5 cards that had served them so well before the Jobs/Gates era.

Over the next 25 years data fields grew like kudzu and so did the size of our databases. It is understandable then that users assume when they ask a question it is accessing all of their organizations accumulated data.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Despite all of the incredible technological advances since those first donor systems they are still based on the premise that data must be placed into a field in order to be accessed. This is known as structured data.

According to IBM 80% of all data is unstructured which means that your imaginative queries and carefully crafted reports are basing their answers on only 20% of the available information.

What makes up that 80%? Primarily text found in documents and e-mails. Have you ever put something really important about a donor in an e-mail or somewhere other than your database such as a Word document?

And what about all that social media activity that mentions your organization? And what about the information found on the blogs and websites of companies and funders you are soliciting? And don’t forget all the videos which are quickly becoming searchable based on every word spoken.

Think for a moment about the value of knowing how many of your campaign prospects are talking about you on social networks or discovering that deep inside a colleague’s trip report is the fact that a current major donor is good friends with the person you have been trying to get an appointment with for the last six months.

The race is on to figure out how to turn the enormous amount of unstructured data into actionable intelligence. Database administrators and vendors know that making decisions based on 20% of the picture is not going to cut it going forward, and simple text searching is a stop-gap measure at best.

In future posts we will look at some of the innovative ways companies and information professionals are working to bring together structured and unstructured data so that your questions benefit from 100% of the available answers.