1. Your donor database will always have more inaccurate or missing data than you think is acceptable.  You can still raise more money.
2. Your institution’s brand and messaging could always be more concise, clear, and compelling.  You can still raise more money.
3. Your case for support does not need to be completed for you to contact donors.  You can still raise more money.
4. Your annual giving and planned giving programs do not need huge investments in creative design to be effective. You can still raise more money.
5. Your major giving program will not stop producing because in-person visits are being curtailed by the pandemic.  You can still raise more money.
6. Your understanding of your major gift donors’ capacity will never be as transparently clear as you would like.  You can still raise more money.
7. Your focus on sharing data and numbers in an effort to “convince” prospective donors to give will not work.  You can still raise more money.

Donors give because they come to believe in the goodness of your mission to make the world a better place. They give because they develop an authentic trust in your leadership.  And they give because someone influential to them personally invites their deeper involvement.

Healthy adult humans give because we have a deep-seated need to help others.  Tap into that motivating factor – with trust, authenticity, and influence – and you will raise more money.

When we fail to remind ourselves of these truths, we can easily fill our time with interesting but debilitating distractions.

We talk often about “leaving legacies,” in development work.  Mainly, of course, we talk about this concept with donors who might have an interest in making a planned gift of some sort.

Another way to think of “leaving legacies,” though, is not nearly as future-casted and is focused on your choices as opposed to the choices donors make.  It’s the legacy you are leaving each day you toil in the philanthropic vineyard.

Through our work, we have more than an opportunity – we have the responsibility – to invite into action the most virtuous of human impulses.  We encourage generosity.  We promote caring for others.  And we advance causes that make our world more beautiful.

How we go about doing that work matters today and it matters to the broader legacy we leave for the organization we serve.

Will you choose to bring an attitude of eagerness and intensity to your calling?  Will you be the positive voice in the meeting that seeks to raise the aspirations of the team?  Will you be the colleague who goes the extra step to ensure success?

Your choice matters not only in that moment.  It also becomes part of a broader mosaic of choices that lead to the culture you help create and pass on.  A strong organizational culture of philanthropy is cobbled together over time through a collection of seemingly inconsequential decisions and always grows inside-out.

Regardless of our position, your title, or your role, you are serving a noble calling.  Your attitude as well as you aptitude matter.

Only you can choose how your legacy today will be remembered.

In any given year, most advancement shops that work smart and with effort will focus on increasing either gift income or donor numbers. Those two metrics – gift income and donor numbers – are, easily, the most important when assessing the success of any given fundraising year.

Occasionally, though, I’ll hear an advancement leader proudly lead with the proclamation that, “our average gift size increased this year!”  Typically, this means that they didn’t raise much more money (if any) as compared to the year prior and their donor numbers actually decreased – sometimes dramatically.

Average gift size is a not a direct nor a consistently accurate measure of effectiveness.  You can have an average to even poor year with donors and dollars and still see average gift size increase.

The truth is that most advancement teams do not implement specific strategies to increase average gift size – it simply fluctuates based on what happens with donors and dollars.

But. . .if you increased gift income and the total number of donors and increased your average gift size all during the same year, you’ve done something special.  When taken together, these results strongly suggest that your team strategically asked more donors for more money – a combination that, while sounding simple, is achieved by very few.

Programming Note:  For the last few years, my Gonser Gerber colleagues and I have talked about creating a more meaningful educational experience for higher education vice presidents.  I am pleased to announce that we’ve just started marketing the Community Colloquy For Private Higher Education Vice Presidents.  The Community Colloquy is designed as part support group, part reading group, part discussion group, and part professional cohort.  We will meet virtually for 3 days in 2021, and enrollment will be strictly limited to ensure group engagement.  Enrollment is on a first-in basis and is open now.

If you (or someone you know that serves as a private higher ed. vp) is interested in leadership growth and exploring a rich landscape of perspectives on important advancement leadership issues, this is the opportunity!

1. The Messenger
2. The Message
3. The Medium

Those are the 3 most important variables when inviting a gift.  In that order.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a modest annual gift, a major gift, or a planned gift.  That’s the order of importance.

Who does the asking is, without fail, more important than the message.  And the message is more important than the medium or channel.

But most development shops approach soliciting donors by answering these questions in the reverse order.  For instance, we spend countless hours in meetings and discussion about whether our direct mail solicitation letter should be one or two pages.  Or, whether picture A or video B is the most compelling for use in our upcoming email solicitation.

Simply stated, development professionals pay far more attention to the “hows” than to the “whos.”

And, while “how” is important, it isn’t even close to the most important variable.

Who matters more.  And who matters because people give to people.

Maybe its your president.  Maybe its another well-known (to your community) donor.  Maybe its a recipient of your institution’s services.  Maybe it’s a national or international individual with influence.  Maybe it’s person employed at your institution.

We are moving quickly to a moment in history when influence and tribe matters most.  Who is compelling to your tribe of donors and supporters?  Who do they trust?  Who will they believe?

Spend the bulk of your strategy time answering those most important questions.

If you want to raise more major gifts – especially during our disrupted world of 2020 – the path is simple:

Invite more prospective donors to make them.

That’s it.

Sure, you can fret all you’d like over the impacts of the pandemic. You can spend your time commiserating with colleagues about the disruptions caused by social justice protests.  You can worry yourself and others sick by projecting potential negative impacts of our current and very divisive election cycle (at least in the U.S.).

Or, you can embrace the concept that your work is not to solve those concerns directly and recommit yourself to inviting more donors to give generously.

Even with all the headwinds of today’s environment, the institutions that are continuing to raise significant major gifts are those with gift officers continuing to grind – even from a distance.

Yes, they are being creative with outreach and engagement.  Yes, they are using technology in ways none of us really were just 8 months ago.  Yes, they are working from home while trying to educate children and manage daily life differently.

But, the simple fact is that they haven’t stopped personally inviting donors to give generously.  And the results and research are clear:  They are being rewarded for their perseverance.

(Inspiration credit for this post goes to my longtime friend, consulting colleague and business partner, Chad Jolly.  Chad remains one the sharpest minds in the advancement field today and I always come away from interactions with him feeling just a bit smarter.)

A class I had in graduate school still resonates with me.  It was a research methodology class and we had just completed reading a series of research articles about educational leadership that, seemingly, didn’t provide many fresh or new insights on the topic.

In class one evening, a classmate of mine spoke up to our professor and stated, “This research is fine. But all it does is confirm what we already know.”

Our professor took a moment and then responded:  “You think you know.  But the work these researchers did provided evidence. They actually did the work.”

It can be tempting to reflect on someone else’s efforts (a colleague, another institution’s advancement program, etc.) and opine on how easy or simple it was for them.  We can look at their work and suggest that they had some built-in advantage that we don’t possess – they are bigger, more resources, different giving culture, wealthier donors, etc.  We can even promote the idea the work didn’t really accomplish much or wasn’t worth doing at all. Or that, “it wouldn’t work for us.”

Or, we can cast aside our defensive and envious tendencies which keep us beholden to the status quo.  We can commit to learning from others.  And we can roll up our sleeves and do the work ourselves.

Every day is a choice.

When each was recruited to serve, what percentage of the members of your institution’s governing or Foundation Board were invited into a conversation about the giving expectations associated with Board membership?

How many of your institution’s major donors have affirmingly stated, “we will continue to be supportive,” after finishing their most recent major gift with no invitation to talk further about what that specifically means?

How many prospect management meetings have you attended in which a gift officer said confidently, “Oh, they will make a gift,” with no follow-up questions asked about how she came to that conclusion about that donor couple?

As advancement leaders, it isn’t enough to get the initial, vague “yes,”- to Board membership, to the next major gift, or to a first gift.  In many ways, that’s the easy part of our role.  We happily accept a broad, fuzzy response onto which we immediately place an undeserving dollop of optimism.

No, the real work occurs when we clarify with the donor what comes after the initial “yes.”

At first glance, these follow-ups can seem like difficult conversations.  But, the reality is that they are not.  The initial “yes” has opened the door.  All we have to do is walk through it.

“When might be a good time for us to talk further about some of the expectations regarding Board membership?”

“I’d love to hear more about how you are thinking of making an impact next. . . .”

“Have you given thought to making a gift that. . .”

Clarifying expectations (both the donors and yours) is a key skill of effective advancement professionals.

Because more often than not, hearing a definite “no” from donors or volunteers is not nearly as frustrating as wondering why unstated expectations were never met.

The very best, most successful advancement folk never confuse what they do with how they do it.

You aren’t a fundraiser.  You aren’t a gift officer.  You aren’t a relationship-builder.  You aren’t even a development professional (whatever that might mean!).  Those are all examples of how you do your work.

When you work exceptionally well, what you do is far more important than any of those titles.

Fundamentally, you promote the joys of giving.  You make our world better by encouraging everyone you come into contact with to be more generous.  You operationalize caring for others.

You are a broker for hope in a world that surely needs more.

Embrace that role and your job becomes a calling.  And your work becomes a cause.