Campaigns: Public, Quiet, Silent? What’s the difference?

/in , /by

woman holding finger to mouthIn working with non-profits who are in campaign mode, the only thing that causes more angst than whether they will reach their goal is “when to go public.”

“Going public” is a function of both the calendar and the campaign thermometer. And it is different for everyone.

Here are a few observations to consider in planning the public phase of your campaign.

  • Your campaign is in the public arena the moment your board approves it. It’s unwise to think otherwise or to try to control the flow of information. Milestones along the way, such as the announcement of major gifts or accomplishments, will gradually nudge it into the public consciousness.
  • The quiet/public distinction is mostly an internal one among your board, staff and campaign leaders. There are so many campaigns in process at any one time that your casual observer, even one who regularly supports your organization, really could care less.
  • The quiet/public distinction also is largely a function of campaign staff and priorities. It just makes sense to tackle the larger gifts first because: a) your campaign won’t succeed without them; b) they take the longest time to come to fruition and c) they provide the needed momentum to carry a campaign through.
  • Unless you have limitless staff resources, the folks managing the leadership phase are also the folks who will be managing the public phase. They can’t do both at once. So the best time for them to devote their energy to securing the $100-$1,000 level gifts is when the $1 million gift potential is pretty much exhausted.
  • Ideally you want to be toward the end of the campaign when turning your attention to the “y’all come” portion. It’s just good psychology to ask people to fill the last $500,000 or so of your $10 million bucket with smaller gifts than it is to fill the last $5 million with gifts of that size. It makes their gifts appear larger and their participation more meaningful.
  • To sooth the angst of your leaders wondering about when the campaign will go public, it would be wise for staff to spend some time early in the campaign developing a plan for what the public phase will look like (i.e. a major event, direct mail, a phone campaign, etc.) and inform said leaders that this will be implemented when the campaign reaches 90 or 95 percent of its goal. Often, their angst is less about when the public phase will be launched than what it will look like when it is launched.

The public phase is the costliest, least effective (from a pure fundraising) portion of your campaign. It is less about raising dollars than it is building awareness and leveraging the campaign to build excitement and participation and, hopefully, begin nurturing those donors for the next campaign!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Board Giving

/in , /by

graphic representing six board members around a tableBoards don’t give money to the non-profit organizations they govern. Individuals who serve on boards do.

Why the distinction?

Because it creates the correct paradigm for how development professionals should be approaching their board members for philanthropic support and measuring outcomes.

If I ruled the non-profit universe, I would ban the term “board giving” from our lectionary when it refers to the total dollar support from the board from one year to the next.

Here’s the problem: Say collective board giving jumps from $90,000 to $110,000 in a given year. Success, right? But what if that jump is attributed to a new board member stepping up with a gift of $30,000 and the remaining board members, who last year collectively gave $90,000, deciding they are now off the hook and dial it down to a collective $80,000. Would you say that your board giving is moving in the right direction?

The reality is that the “board” is not a single-brained collective moving in some sort of unified philanthropic direction. They are individuals, each differently blessed with financial assets and each grappling with the same life challenges, such as aging parents, financial setbacks, divorce, kids in college, as everyone else. And, as the illustration above shows, board composition is constantly shifting. This makes a strictly dollars-raised criteria not very helpful in gauging whether you are maximizing the philanthropic potential from each of your board members.

What would be some better tools for measuring board giving? How about these:

  • Each board members needs to give a gift annually. This tried and true measurement must be a stated criteria for any person asked to join a non-profit board in the 21st Century.
  • Each board member commits to including the organization in his/her will or through another planned giving vehicle.
  • Each board member commits to placing the organization they are serving within the top three of all the non-profits they support. Again, this provides a great place to have that intentional conversation board memberz about where your non-profit ranks on their priority list and what it will take to move it up the ladder.

Develop benchmarks accordingly. Let’s say currently only 75 percent of your board members give annually; 10 percent have a planned gift in place; and 25 percent have your organization in the top three of their philanthropic priorities.

A three-year benchmark might be 100 percent annual support; 20 percent with a planned gift and 35 percent in the top three. A five-year benchmark might be 100-30-50. An every-year benchmark is to commit to having a one-on-one, personal conversation with each board member about her or his philanthropic support.

These benchmarks (tailored and scaled to the size of your non-profit and sophistication of your development program) can be pursued and realistically attained regardless of the relative wealth of your board members and regardless of the composition of the board at any point in time. It also will maximize giving for the board you have now, not the one you had last year or five years ago.

Stop looking at your board as a single entity. Start looking at the individuals who comprise your board and begin approaching the task of “board giving” from this perspective.

In doing so, you will get the greatest support possible from your board as a collective and move much further toward your ultimate goal – creating a strong culture of philanthropy within all levels of your organization for generations to come.

Data-Driven Campaign Planning

/in , /by

A new, data-driven approach to campaign planning

The time-honored campaign feasibility study is designed to help nonprofits test whether their aspirations and campaign dollar goal are achievable. Done well, it is in effect the “soft launch” of a campaign and sets you up for success.

But the process most consultants use in executing the study is backwards. It usually goes like this.

  1. Client wants to raise money to support a new program, endowment or physical space
  2. Client makes a “guess” about how much they can raise
  3. Consultant helps client build a case for support based on the “guess” goal
  4. Consultant tests case with client’s top donors
  5. Consultant facilitates a wealth screening of client’s donors to determine capacity
  6. Consultant gathers all the appropriate data and delivers recommendations for campaign goal, case and next steps.

When you look at this, immediately a few process questions come to mind.

  1. How does the client derive at the “guess” for a campaign goal? What data is that based on?
  2. Why doesn’t the wealth screening come at the beginning to help inform the goal to be tested?
  3. Why are we testing a dollar goal with key donors before we know whether they have the capacity to actually realize that goal?

Instead, the campaign planning formula at JP Fundraising Solutions looks more like this:

  1. Client wants to raise money to support a new program, endowment or physical space
  2. Consultant/client conducts a wealth screening to determine capacity within existing donor pool
  3. Consultant and client review the data and supplement with potential sources typically not included in a wealth screening (e.g. public funding, grant support, “outlier” donors) and set a target campaign goal base on those inputs.
  4. Consultant shapes case for support where items add up to target goal.
  5. Consultant tests case with top donors
  6. Consultant gathers data and delivers recommendations for campaign goal, case and next steps.

The benefit of this approach is that once we have a realistic range for a campaign goal, we can focus our energy on building a compelling case and determining whether donors who we know have the capacity to support that goal are willing to buy into this vision. If they don’t, then we have a case problem; not a goal problem.

The second benefit is that by doing a statistical analysis first, the nonprofit leadership, including staff, board and volunteers, can proceed with confidence that its goal is attainable. Getting everyone bought into the goal at the outset drives momentum and helps eliminate fear and anxiety, the two most dreaded enemies of motivating campaign volunteers.

For a deeper dive of how this approach can be put to work for you, contact James Plourde at JP Fundraising Solutions for free 30 minute consultation.