Get Emotional

/in , , /by
Arm holding a heart and brain in balance

Image: Pxhere

Think about all the nonprofits in the world and the number that you personally support. 

Did you do a detailed analysis using a cost v. value matrix to make an informed, rational decision about where to donate your hard-earned money?

Unlikely. It’s much more likely that you support nonprofits with which you feel a personal, emotional connection. 

Emotion is the driver, but logic does help navigate. If I asked why you support the nonprofits you do, I bet your answer would contain a kernel of logic. You’d want to know how the organizations are making investments to eradicate societal issues such as finding affordable housing for our unhoused neighbors, providing care and services for people escaping intimate partner violence, or eradicating cancer.

When it comes to money, we use logic to keep our emotions in check. We want to convince ourselves (and others) that we are being smart about our donation–we aren’t giving money away willy-nilly to just anybody who asks. 

When asking someone to support a cause we love, what kind of approach will be most effective? An emotion-oriented pitch or a logical “best bang for the buck” logic-filled argument?

If your cause doesn’t activate something in your donor’s heart, chances are slim they will go down the logical path with you, even if you make a great case. Why? Because they are already going down that heartfelt path with the nonprofits with which they DO have an emotional connection.

How do we find out if that emotional connection exists between a donor and your cause? Research can determine if someone gives to similar-type organizations. The best way, however, is to just ask.

The beauty of asking, “Tell me, what nonprofits do you support and why?” is that you will get anything but a simple response. You will learn all kinds of things about why a person cares about what they do, their successes and failures, life influences, mentors, family dynamics, etc.—and whether any of that lines up with the work of your organization.

Here’s an example from my career: Why would a group of predominantly Jewish donors give more than $2 million to a private Christian college? 

Because that college was establishing a chair in Holocaust Studies.

And naming it in honor of their first Jewish board member. 

Who was a Holocaust survivor. 

Raising that $2 million was an act of love and respect. Any kind of cost/value calculation was secondary.

At year end, The Chronicle of Philanthropy writes about the donors who made the top charitable gifts that year. I’ve yet to read a story about one of those donors that didn’t contain an intensely personal story related to the cause(s) they support.

Donors are people. Foundations are run by people. People have rich and complex emotional lives. Mining that emotional landscape for the “why” that lies beneath the surface is the most important first step in creating an honest, thoughtful bond between the donor and your organization.

 

Learn more about getting emotional in Chapter 2 of my new book “Finding Funding: How to Ask for Money and Get It.” 

Righteous Indignation

/in /by

The glow of righteous indignation

In a way, it was so darn satisfying: the wave of condemnation heaped upon those Seattle-area hospital systems for allowing large donors to jump to the front of the Covid vaccination line as way of thanking them for their past support.

As a fundraiser who has made his share of boneheaded decisions over his storied career in the service of his employers, I could both wince at the news and muster empathy for my peers in the line of fire.

Don’t get me wrong. This was unquestionably a boneheaded move of epic proportions. And, by now, no one knows that better than the development folks who said at some meeting, “Hey, I’ve got a great idea to thank our most loyal donors….”

But is taking our high horses of righteous indignation out for a well-deserved romp the only thing to be gained from this saga?

As I understand it, the hospital systems recruited these donors to be volunteers to help with the “dry run” of the vaccine administration process, which included giving them with an early shot (no word about who among this group would qualify for the vaccine anyway because of their age or life circumstances).

Albeit ill advised, it was not a quid-pro-quo situation (as far as I’ve been able to tell, no one “bought” a vaccine in exchange for a specific donation). It was a cultivation move.

Cultivation is one of the pillars of the development process. It means doing nice things for the people that help fund our missions. The greater the funds, the nicer the things. EVERYONE in the development field does it.

And now might be a good time to look at what we do, why we do it, and the implications of it all. To wit:

  • Do we arrange special access to the Presidents and CEOS of our institutions at fancy cocktail parties to the people who we feel could offer the best insights and perspectives, or to those who give at the President’s Circle level?
  • Do D-1 Powerhouse football programs reserve the best seats for disadvantaged families whose sons help lead the team to victory or to their most generous boosters?
  • When a performing arts group brings a celebrity into town, do they reserve a meet-and-greet time to their “participation donors?”

To be sure, the Seattle hospitals crossed a line.

But I hope the only lesson we learn from their transgression isn’t that people with lots of money get things that people with little money don’t.

Otherwise, it will indeed be a missed opportunity for some badly needed introspection on the lessons of privilege, wealth and access, and how we blindly go about leveraging those things to do our work.