A recent conversation with a colleague prompted me to think about “norms” in fundraising. We hold assumptions about who succeeds in the profession, the ways we expect donors to behave, the most effective ways to raise money, and so much more. This month, I’d like to explore and challenge some of these beliefs.
It’s important to note that I am not asserting that these tactics don’t work. Many do, and this leads them to become established practice. But at what cost? What opportunities for creativity and engagement do we miss if we continue to do things the way they have always been done? Are we doing the right thing or merely falling in line because it’s easier than having a tough conversation? Are we treating staff and donors appropriately?
I have been thinking about and challenging these fundraising norms:
- Hiring: We know the hiring market is tight these days and that there is tremendous turnover. Traditionally, I have seen organizations seek to hire individuals who performed a slightly more junior role at a more prestigious institution. The thinking is that a more prestigious institution has more successful and sophisticated fundraising efforts and therefore, the candidate will bring those experiences to their new role.
Let’s break down this assumption. First, what does it mean to be a more prestigious institution? In my university fundraising days, we used rankings and size of the annual campaign as indicators of prestige. Are these factors meaningful? We can debate the value of rankings (I am personally paying less and less attention to rankings) and campaign size. But, just because a fundraiser works at a highly-ranked university that raises big dollars each year does not mean that they are personally effective or successful. Instead of focusing on these external factors, let’s dig deeper to understand the fundraiser’s own experiences and keep in mind what makes a successful fundraiser. Some of the most extraordinary development professionals I have worked with came from lesser-known institutions. Don’t assume that credentials indicate excellence. - Boards should be your fundraisers: Every organization struggles with engaging boards in fundraising. You can read my observations and suggestions here. Let’s challenge the assumption that board members should be our best fundraisers by reminding ourselves that fundraisers are hired for this very role. Much of the strife over boards and fundraising arises from unrealistic expectations. Both staff and board members become frustrated when expectations aren’t met. Time is wasted and the process of prodding board members to fundraise obscures the wealth of skills that board members can bring to their service.
There is so much value that board members can add. They bring perspectives and experiences that both complement and support the role of staff. Let’s leverage those experiences and really lean on board members to help with engagement and stewardship efforts with donors. Unlike fundraising, board members are often the experts in how to connect with and engage their peers. - Major gifts and annual fund gifts: When I worked in higher education fundraising, there was a big focus on soliciting donors for a major gift and an annual fund gift. Many organizations adopt this practice. I recall meeting with donors who were making significant gifts (over $50,000) to various programs across campus. I was expected to both retain and increase those gifts year after year, and also solicit the donor for a gift to the annual fund. The assumption was that a major gift was a targeted gift for an area of personal passion and that a gift to the annual fund was smaller—a nominal gift to support the Athletics program or scholarship fund.
Without a doubt, there is a need for unrestricted gifts. But it does not make sense to solicit a major donor for a significant gift and then tack on a small annual fund gift. In fact, it’s somewhat insulting to a donor who has made a significant investment to either follow up and ask for a small gift to “check the box” on annual fund attainment or scramble at the end of the year to ask for an annual fund gift to meet an arbitrary metric.
Let’s do away with the assumption that major donors need to give annual fund gifts. Let’s build in the annual support needed to keep a program running as part of a major gift—and be transparent with a donor about the real costs of programs. Then, build out asks with this information in mind. Better yet, begin to think about the annual fund as unrestricted gifts. Structure an overall giving program to ensure that donors understand why unrestricted giving matters and proactively solicit these gifts. Of course, we should follow donors’ passions, but often there are donors who are willing to give and allow organizations to use the funds as they see fit.
I have many more assumptions I want to challenge and will be writing more on this topic in the months ahead.