Fundraisers love to fight over who “owns†a donor. In the nonprofit world the battle is between direct response and major gifts with some organizations throwing in membership to liven things up. Behind the castle walls of education there is the eternal struggle pitting friendraising (alumni relations) and fundraising (advancement).
I have found in working with people who give of their time and/or treasure they don’t like the term donor (makes them think of missing kidneys and blood loss), so I’m thinking the idea of being “owned†would not go over well either.
Sears once thought if you wanted appliances, toys or hardware they owned you. GM and Ford at one time were so thoroughly convinced of their ownership of car buyers they treated Japan more as a novelty than a competitor. Home Depot, Toys R Us, and Toyota are among the many companies born in no small part because of the arrogance of the former leaders of their industries.
As fundraising bumps...
When your father is a fundraiser, and that fundraiser is Doug Lawson who wrote Give to Live, you are definitely going to have a bias towards major gifts. I don’t believe it is just pride talking that my father is one of the best face-to-face askers on the planet, and I’m sure as you read this he is either asking or on a plane to an ask. In this environment I grew up thinking if you needed a million dollars for your cause then you found a person with a million dollars to support it. This simple idea led me to create a series of donor profiling and screening companies the last 25 or so years.
Early in my career I met Roger Craver who can write direct mail copy which almost puts the money in the envelope all by itself. For Roger if you need a million dollars get 50,000 to give $20 each. Then you have 50,000 supporters who...
The 90/10 fundraising rule of thumb has been broken (more like shattered) by my good friend Peter Wylie who provides some incredible data and insights on the CoolData blog. I was fortunate enough to receive an early look at the data, so I have had some time to ponder the implications. There is a wealth of data to explore, but here is the chart that really caught my eye:
This means that 1/10th of 1% of alumni donors to this school account for 60% of all giving (the top 1% represented nearly 96%). And Peter only looked at alums who gave. If he had factored in non-donor alums then the number would be even more dramatic if that is even possible.
Before I continue I want to tip my hat to the amazing donors who are willing to underwrite such a large percentage of an institution's needs. I also want to say "well done!" to the fundraisers who worked with these philanthropists,...
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...