But what about non-campaign major giving?  A primary indicator of a mature development program is the existence of an effective ongoing major gift program.  So that even outside of campaign years, major gifts continue to be received. To keep major gifts flowing every year, make sure the following 3 keys are implemented.

1.  A Case for Support – Do you regularly revise and ask major gift donors and prospects how they perceive your case for support?  Keep in mind that your case for support is different than your case statement.  Your case for support is the message.  It is why you are raising major gifts and how the identified major gift priorities will substantively advance your institution.  Your case for support is never about your needs.  It is about your mission, vision, and values and the priorities which will allow your institution to serve better.  Your case statement, on the other hand, refers to the document or vehicle you will use to deliver your case for support.  Some institutions still produce a multi-page, 4 color, case statement.  Others present their case statement using iPads.  You can have, simultaneously, a visually appealing case statement and an ineffective case for support.  To be effective, focus on crafting and seeking feedback on your case for support.

2.  An Organizational Structure That Encourages Activity  - How do you track and encourage ongoing activity with your major donor prospects?  How do you share information about donors and prospects among development team members?  Mature and ongoing major gift programs share similar organizational characteristics.  First, there are specific meetings that focus on prospect management and the upkeep of major gift officer portfolios.  These meetings occur at least monthly and are “command performances” for all development team members involved in major gifts.  The agenda for these meetings rarely deviates from discussions about prospects and strategies.  These meetings ensure that “getting out from behind the desk” happens regularly for all responsible for major gift donors.  Second, there is one person who is tasked with reporting on major gift officer activity. Regardless of the types of performance metrics you use, there is a staff member who reports regularly on the number of visits, solicitations, and gifts received (or other metrics) for each major gift officer. This structure helps to ensure accountability.  Finally, timely visit reports are completed after each substantive visit with a donor or prospect.  These reports are short but content-rich.  A rule of thumb is simple:  If you learned something during a visit that will be of value or will help explain the donor’s relationship with the institution 3 years from now, complete a visit report.  Anything less significant and it isn’t worth a major gift officer’s time to document.

3.  The Engagement of Institutional Leaders – Does your president participate in prospect management meetings?  Do your deans have portfolios that they actively manage?  Are governing board and/or foundation board members utilized during the cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship of prospects and donors?  The engagement of your institution’s leaders in the ongoing major gift program is key.  It signifies to donors and other constituents that major giving is important to the institution, even when the campaign is over.  Also, it encourages a sharing of information about donors and projects that can help both the major gift staff members as well as the institution’s leaders.  Finally, when institutional leaders are engaged, it helps ensure that major gift program progress continues.  If more resources are needed, for instance, there is a much better chance of obtaining them when leadership is involved.

When helping institutions assess their readiness to conduct a campaign, a typical weakness is the tenuous relationships between the institution and its top 100 donors.  ”We haven’t really continued the cultivation of our top donors since the last campaign,” is a common acknowledgment.  If you make the above 3 keys a priority, you will ensure that this won’t be a weakness of your institution.  And, most importantly, you’ll raise more money each year to help your institution transform lives.

For those who may not be aware of the specifics, here is how it works.  You play a GamesThatGive branded online game and GamesThatGive gives away 70% of the proceeds earned from ad revenue.  The amount you help raise for approved charities is determined by the amount of time you are on the site.  Needless to say, non-profits gladly steer donors to the gaming sites.  The ease of use and the quick return to non-profits make this gaming tactic very attractive.

But all that glitters isn’t necessarily gaming gold – or at least not the gold you really want.  While I understand the appeal of approaches like GamesThatGive, the concerns are significant.  Let me suggest two reasons why the gamification of giving may not be good for philanthropy and your institution.

1. Gamification Doesn’t Educate Donors – Effective development professionals understand that our real work with donors is about educating more than it is asking.  Before we ever ask, we help donors better understand and appreciate the plight of those we serve and how, with their giving, we can serve better.  In addition, we work to educate our donors on the joys of giving!  Giving is good for people and part of our work is to encourage donors to be their best through the act of being generous.  The gamification of giving doesn’t give us much of a chance to do this educational work.
2. Gamification Doesn’t Engage the Whole Donor – Of course, some might say the following:  ’Well, maybe we don’t educate the donors with gaming, but it is free and easy gift income, so that’s not all bad.’  Perhaps. . . but it ain’t very good, either!  Is money all you really want from your donors?  Really?  The vast majority of institutions that engage our firm want far more from their donors.  And I bet you do, too.  Whether it’s to call prospective students and encourage their enrollment.  Or, participating in  a donor thank-a-thon.  Or serving on a committee.  Or helping with an event.  Or a host of other volunteer activities.  Effective development leaders recognize the need to engage much more of the whole person than simply the pocketbook.  Gaming doesn’t focus your donors on how they can enhance their engagement with your institution.  Gaming focuses your donors on gaming.

Every day new technologies and social media apps create fresh opportunities for philanthropy.  I am very supportive of thinking through new ways to engage donors.  But as we digest all of these new opportunities we should regularly reflect on the real purpose of our work.  If it were all about fundraising, then gaming might make more sense.  But there is a reason we refer to our work as “development.”

The problem, though, is that we tend to think of creativity incorrectly.  We believe creativity is something that strikes unexpectedly (like lightning).  Or we believe creativity is an in-born characteristic – something that one either has or doesn’t have.  Or, we view creativity as the process of putting forth something completely new.  But all of these beliefs are inaccurate.

The first two views encourage us to believe that there really isn’t much we can do to enhance our own creativity – we either have it (or get it) or we don’t.  The third idea – that being creativity means putting forth something completely new – discourages us because it makes the creative process seem so capacious.  How in the world can I make something truly new?  That job is just too big.  So, I don’t even try.

The reality, though, is that creativity can be nurtured and cultivated.  And here are three simple ways for you to enhance your creativity:

1. Read Something That Stretches You – I’m not talking a magazine or a newspaper or a book of fiction.  I’m talking about a book of interesting ideas, a biography of an important historical figure, or an academic book in which you learn something new.   The truly creative person doesn’t create “new” ideas or things, they are inspired by what they learn, see, and experience and put together old ideas or techniques in fresh ways.  When we expose ourselves to new perspectives and experiences – and good books make this easy to do – we give our creative minds the fuel to operate.
2. Go Green – Do you have live plants in your office or cubicle?  Can you see trees out your window?  Research has repeatedly shown that having a potted plant or two near where you work increases creativity – by as much as 15%! And if you can get outside more often the results are even more impressive.  We were designed to experience our natural environments, not simply sit behind our desks in sterile office settings.  So, get some real plant life in your environment.  And just so you know, fake plants don’t offer the same increase in creativity.
3. Use Your Best Time – For most of us, our first order of official business each day is to sit at our computers and answer our emails.  As Seth Godin wrote recently, we are surrendering some of our best, most creative, and freshest time of the day to be reactive and not proactive.  Instead of doing something reactive when you first start your work day, use this precious time to work on that project that needs your best creativity.  When we are fresh, we give ourselves our best opportunity to be creative.

In our work as advancement professionals, we need to be more creative more often.  We need to be entrepreneurial and imaginative.  But being creative doesn’t have to be daunting.  By implementing these 3 simple ideas, you will give yourself the opportunities to be at your creative best.

I thought about our work as advancement professionals when Gad covered the “variety effect” and our consumption of food.   Essentially, research has shown, quite conclusively, that people will eat more when more choice or variety is offered.  It’s why you should stay away from buffets when you are watching your weight.  The more food choices on the menu or the plate, the more we are likely to eat.  He suggests this is an evolutionary choice based primarily on the reality that our species, for eons, had to worry constantly about caloric uncertainty.  We didn’t know when our next meal was coming, so if we had a chance to eat now, we took it.  And if we have the opportunity to eat A LOT now, we hoarded.  Hence, the variety effect.

This finding makes good sense.  The problem with commonsensical findings, though, is that they often get misued.  We do this all the time.  For instance, most take the “variety effect” out of context and apply it to all sorts of situations.  But it doesn’t always work.

For instance, with all else being held constant, the “variety effect” would suggest that more choices in the number of funds available in a 401-k retirement plan would mean more participation and/or more money held back for retirement.  However, studies show that each additional 10 funds made available to employees yield a 1.5 -2% less participation rate in the 401-k program.  In other words, more variety equals reduced participation.

So, we know that the variety effect doesn’t work in all situations.

Often I work with clients who attempt to apply the “variety effect” to fundraising.  Specifically, when putting together case statements, they think having many choices for where a gift could be made should be viewed positively by donors.  They want to include any number of capital and endowment projects, special programs, scholarships, and other ongoing annual support options.  The idea is, the more the merrier.  You even will hear advancement leaders use language normally ascribed to food when they say, “we want to give our donors a menu of options.”  More choice of where to put your gift should mean more giving by donors.

Except it doesn’t work.  The thinking is faulty.

After having conducted many interviews with major donors and prospects I’m convinced that the number of gift-giving options does not positively correlate with increased giving.  Instead, major donors want to see a clear connection between the institution’s strategic priorities and the campaign’s priorities.  In other words, “menus” of choices are viewed – more often than not – as institutional wish lists that suggest the institution hasn’t done the heavy lifting of strategic visioning and planning.  Menus suggest an attitude of, “we’ll ask for everything and see if we get something.”  This perception doesn’t encourage more giving, it retards it!

Of course, in most instances you need to have some variety in your campaign gift options.  Typically, you will want capital, endowment, and program priorities, as well as an inclusion of your annual fund.   But it is not the variety that is the key variable in encouraging more giving.  It is far more important to show donors how the particular priorities you’ve included in your campaign will strategically advance the institution.  The “variety effect” may give us bigger waistlines (if we aren’t careful), but it won’t give us bigger gifts.

But. . . .are they ready?

You answer this question silently by reviewing in your mind all of the materials you’ve sent to their attention.  They have shown up at more events this year than ever before so they know the case for support and the needs.  You have visited with them prior and you’ve had an opportunity to make the case and they have agreed that your institution is worthy of support.  Yes, they are ready, you say!

Well, maybe not.

When we ask ourselves the question, “are they ready to say yes to a gift solicitation?” we tend to answer it by reviewing a checklist in our minds of all the reasons why they should be ready.  They have heard the case – perhaps multiple times.  They understand our needs.  They attend events.  In other words, they know what they need to know to say ‘yes.’  We convince ourselves that they must be ready!

However, we often misunderstand a simple truth of the major gift giving process.  Namely, our role is not solely to get the prospect to better understand us.  Our role is to better understand them.

So, in answering the question, “are they ready to say ‘yes’ to a gift solicitation?” we should start by asking ourselves other questions.  Here are five of my favorites:

1. What other institutions do they support and why?
2. From whom did they learn to be generous?
3. What is it about our institution that draws their support?
4. How do they make decisions about where to give?  Who is involved in these decisions?
5. Where do we rank as a priority in their giving?  And do they have current major commitments already in place with other institutions?

Of course, there are other good questions we should ask ourselves to see if our prospects are ready to respond affirmingly to us.  But these are a good start.

Do you know the answers to each of these questions for your major gift prospects?  If not, you probably aren’t ready to ask them.  Because what really matters is not what they know about us.  It’s what we know about them.

Recently, I read an article on Mashable entitled, “7 Surefire Ways to Increase Your Klout Score.”  Here are the 7:

1. Build a network.The key to increasing a Klout score is similar to finding success on the social web in general: Build a targeted, engaged network of people who would be legitimately interested in you and your content.
2. Create meaningful content. Adopt a strategy to create or aggregate meaningful content that your network loves to share with others. Provide links!
3. Engage. Actively engage with others in a helpful and authentic way. Ask questions, answer questions and create a dialogue with your followers.
4. Don’t scheme. Any gaming behaviors that fall outside the basic strategies will eventually catch up to you. For example, specifically targeting conversations with high Klout influencers will probably be more annoying than successful. If you keep focused on your network strategy and your content strategy, you’ll succeed.
5. Interact with everyone. Don’t be afraid to interact with Klout users with lower scores – it won’t hurt your own score. In fact, it helps build their score and in turn makes you more of an influencer.
6. Publish. Remember, you don’t have to make a movie or be elected to office to have power now. All you need to do is publish. Access to free publishing tools such as blogs, video and Twitter have provided users with an opportunity to have a real voice, so take advantage of these many platforms.
7. Keep at it. Don’t be discouraged by your score. It’s more important to just enjoy your social media experience and let the chips fall where they may.

Here’s an interesting development take on the above:  Look at the list again.  Change the title to, “7 Surefire Ways to Increase Success with Donors,” and replace the concept of “publish” with the idea of “communicate” – in which you use all available vehicles to communicate with your donors.

Now, instead of thinking only about social media and the online world, think about working with donors in the flesh-and-blood world of human-to-human contact.  Each of the above steps will make you a more influential development professional in the “real” world!

Here’s the reality:  Whether we use face-to-face visits, phone calls, emails, text messages, Twitter, facebook,  Google+, LinkedIn, videos, letters, cards, sign language, or smoke signals — engaging humans and encouraging them to act with generosity involves a similar process.

The communication platforms and environments may change.   But the human need to be heard, understood, and valued do not.  The ways to become more influential online don’t differ much from the ways to become more influential offline.

Now, go gain more klout (in both your virtual life and your real one)!

On the other hand, there are those who focus on a craft, developing skills and aptitudes, and endeavoring to grow their competence in a given set of activities.  They work at their craft when others lounge.  They create when others aren’t watching, practicing their craft happily in obscurity.  In some cases – many cases – for years.  They are driven and fulfilled by the process of creating something, not by the approval of others.  These are artists.

Of course, in some instances, artists gain fame and become celebrities.  The masses take to their work and the artist becomes known.  But becoming famous and a celebrity is never the goal.  Doing the art is the goal.

Artists who become celebrities are acknowledged based on their talent,  efforts, and accomplishments.  Think Frank Sinatra, Pablo Picasso, Katharine Hepburn, or Aretha Franklin.  We respect the effort they make to hone their craft and recognize their talent.  We pay attention to what they create.  We recognize their authenticity and call them professionals.

But those who scramble to attract attention without the mooring of accomplishment garner scorn.  We don’t respect them because they are perceived as not having put forth unusual effort to achieve anything of value.  We view them as faux celebrities, having earned the mantle dishonestly.  Think Kim Kardashian.

Similarly, the most effective development professionals share characteristics with artists, not celebrities.    They work at being active listeners.  They practice the art of inquiry and work to become cheerfully persistent.  They enjoy the process of building authentic relationships with donors and engaging others in a cause.   They toil in the philanthropic vineyard, sometimes very quietly, for years.  They don’t seek the spotlight.  In fact (like many artists), they can be very uncomfortable in the spotlight.

In short, they focus on the work, not the “reward” of the gift.  Like becoming a celebrity for the artist, receiving a gift for the development professional is not the driving force.  It is simply a by-product of good work and lots of practice.

How can facebook, Twitter, Google+, and other social media help us raise more money?

Truth is, we are spending more time with our social networks – keeping content fresh, moderating discussions, etc. – and the energy and resources we are using to “do” social media can add up.  We need a social media ROI that makes sense.

The promise of all social media is that it allows our institutions to converse with and to engage a mass of individuals quickly and relatively easily.  If we ask good questions and develop ways of online listening, we have an opportunity to tap the interests, desires, values, and energy of large numbers of our constituents.  Additionally, we have the opportunity to spread our institution’s message to an ever-broadening group of prospects who may share our values and resonate with our mission.

But, there is so much “noise” (as Seth Godin likes to say) already out there.  Every company, every educational institution, every non-profit, every group, is tweeting, updating, and enlarging their stream.  But much of it is just “noise.”

“Noise” is all of the content, data, stories, communications, etc., that does not interest us.  Think of all of the stories that show up on your iGoogle homepage. Think of your Twitterfeed.  Think of your facebook feed.   Sure, some of it is interesting, but to keep up with all of it would be more than a full-time job.  And, the reality is, a lot of it – a whole lot – is not of interest.  It is just plain noise.

A key mistake that institutions make with social media, then, is that they contribute to the “noise.”  The push every news release via social media.  They link to other stories that mention the institution.  They re-tweet everything tweeted by another constituent.  They “communicate” without asking questions and listening.  They treat their social media fans and friends to a steady stream of “noise” – the electronic version of a bullhorn.  And you know how annoying a bullhorn is.

Instead, I think institutions would be far better served developing a “point of view” that resonates – not with everyone in the known universe because that is impossible – but that resonates with people who are aligned with the mission, vision, and values of the institution.  And once you develop a point of view that furthers the institution, you stick to it.  Daily.  Every tweet.  Every facebook status update.  Every Google+ stream addition.  Stay focused on your point of view and don’t deviate.

The value of social media is not that it gives you a platform to be a louder town crier.  People walk right by the town crier and do their best to ignore him.  The value of social media is that it allows you to publish, listen, and engage people from a specific, important viewpoint.

Staying true to a “point of view” social media strategy creates an environment in which people choose to come back for more.  That’s how social media helps you raise more money.

They surveyed 1,400 married couples and found that the level of generosity – or the amount of give and take that goes on in the relationship – is a key predictor of marital happiness.  Fifty percent of women and 46% of men who reported “above average generosity” in their marriages also described their relationships as “very happy.”

Ok, that’s pretty easy to understand.  My wife is happier with our union if I give to her.  Got it.

But there is more to the story.  Couples who reported “above average generosity” also reported high levels of sexual satisfaction.  And wives were more likely to report higher levels of sexual satisfaction if their husbands pitched in and were generous in doing household chores.  All husbands should take note – if you want a sexually satisfying marriage, start with emptying the dishwasher every now and then!

Granted, this research doesn’t answer the question of causation.  So, generosity may lead to better sex.  Or, better sex may lead to more generosity.  But that’s not the point.

Here’s the point – generosity is a powerful motivator.  In marriages and in any relationship.  Generosity is powerful because it is evidence to another person that we value them.  That we care.  That the other person is important.

And generosity begets more generosity, especially if we are generous in ways that others value.  The results of research completed at Stanford and Harvard confirm that people actually think of you more positively when you give them what they have asked for instead of what you think they will want.   So, the next time your mother-in-law puts “slippers” on her Christmas list, don’t get her a lovely necklace.  If it ain’t what she asked for, she probably won’t think you (or the gift) are all that special.

Why?  Because when we give something that someone has asked for it shows we listened to them and we cared enough to give something that they value.  They appreciate the giver of those gifts more than when they receive something unexpected.

Remember both of these research findings the next time you are generating major donor strategies.  If you want their gift, the first step is to extend generosity toward them in ways that they find meaningful.

Our art collector’s only son had decided to join the U.S. Army and ended up in the Middle East during the first Gulf War.  Unfortunately, as the ground forces moved in to liberate  the country of Kuwait, the young man was fatally wounded.  However, before he passed, he was able to help another soldier from a vulnerable position and into a place of safety.  The art collector was distraught at the death of his only son.

One day, the man welcomed a visitor into his home.  It was the soldier who had been saved in the Middle East by his son.  They had been friends, having met 6 months earlier.  The soldier knew that the man was an art collector from talking with the son and, soon after his rehabilitation, he used charcoal to sketch a picture of the man’s son.  He was not an accomplished artist by any stretch, but he brought the picture to give to the man as a gift.

The father was overwhelmed and had the picture framed and hung it conspicuously in his home.  He loved this picture of his son done by the amateur soldier-artist and regularly would break-down when showing the picture to friends.

Some years after his son’s passing, the father died of a sudden heart attack.  It was completely unexpected.  It was a massive attack and he was dead before his body hit the floor.  With no other children and no wife (he was divorced a number of years ago and never remarried), the man’s extensive art collection was set to be auctioned.  Art dealers, collectors, and inquisitive onlookers came from across the country to bid on the collection.

At the beginning of the auction, the auctioneer brought out the charcoal sketch of the man’s son.  The seasoned art collectors and dealers in the room knew instantly it was not worth much.  In fact, many grumbled about the need to “get on” with the “real auction.”  They wanted to see and bid on the expensive and famous works the man owned.

The auctioneer started the bidding on the sketch of the man’s son and there was silence as he attempted to get $250.  He lowered the opening bid to $150.  Then to $100.  Finally, in the back of the room, one of the man’s friends said, “He loved that picture of his son, I’ll spend $100 for it.”  And with that he bought the amateur charcoal sketch.

Now, thought everyone else in attendance, the real business can get started.  Anticipation grew to see some of the famous works owned by the man.  And then, unexpectedly, the auctioneer banged his gavel and announced that the auction was over.  The crowd was, at first, stunned and then angry.  ”What?” came the cry.  ”We demand to bid on the expensive pieces of art.  We have come from all parts of the country!”

The auctioneer pulled a document from the breast pocket of his suit and read from the man’s will.  He quoted, “As for my entire collection of art items, including every painting, sculpture, sketch, and other artifact, whoever shall successfully bid and purchase the charcoal sketch of my son shall receive all remaining pieces.  For whoever takes my son, can have it all.”

It’s easy for development professionals to focus on what we can “get” from our donors.  Every day we feel the pressure to produce more gift income.  So, it makes sense that we can get focused, misguidedly, on how much our donors can give to us.

But, when we focus on what is important to our donors we are more likely to receive much more than we could ever imagine.