18 Jun 10

Are Millennials All That Different?

Our friends at Achieve and Johnson Grossnickle Associates recently published research on the giving inclinations of Millennials.  They surveyed 2,200 of the facebooking and twittering-set between the ages of 20 and 40 (75% were “Millennials”) and asked how they would like to engage with and be solicited by non-profits.

So, here are 3 key findings from the study:

  • With whom do they wish to interact? 60% would like access to board and executive leadership of the organization.
  • What do they wish to know? 86% want updates on programs and services that the organization provides.
  • How do they wish to be solicited? It wasn’t even close – a full 66% reported being likely or highly likely to respond to a face-to-face solicitation.  The second most preferred method?  Email at only 37%.

According to this study, the next generation of givers wants to hear from and interact with the organization’s leaders.  These donors want communications regarding the work of the organization and they want to be solicited face-to-face.

Ahh yes.  The more technology promises to change things, the more human nature keeps them the same. . .

0 Comments Posted in Fundraising by Jason McNeal
Tagged
15 Jun 10

The Indispensability of Multi-Year Donor Planning

Let’s say your portfolio has 150 prospects.   Most readers of this blog (because they are some of the sharpest development folk out there!) have a plan for how each will be solicited in the coming year.  It may be that you plan to solicit 40-60 during face-to-face visits with specific, major gift proposals.

Others in your portfolio will get some sort of personalized annual fund proposal based on a myriad of circumstances (e.g., they just completed the final installment of a recent major gift).  A minority in your portfolio may end up in the regular direct mail, e-solicitation, phonathon flow.

Whatever the strategy for each donor, you have an annual plan.  That’s good.

But what about taking it a step further.  Do you also build multi-year donor plans?  These are plans created for each donor in your portfolio which forecast a donor’s giving over the next five years.  Such planning introduces the strategic question of, “In 2015, at what level do we want this donor to be giving?”

I find some CEOs, VPs, DODs and MGOs who annually do this type of multi-year planning.  And while they don’t always hit their multi-year goals for each of the donors in their portfolio, I’m convinced they stretch the giving of those donors far more than those development professionals who do not plan similarly.

So why doesn’t everyone create multi-year plans for the donors in their portfolios?  My sense is that the biggest reason is the unknown.  I hear development professionals say, “There are a million and one things that can happen in a donor’s life or in our economic/financial world which will impact their giving over the next five years – it’s folly to try to create such a long-range plan when so much is unknown.”

And while this perspective is logical, it misses a bigger point.  As Dwight D. Eisenhower is quoted as saying,

“In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”

It’s almost never about the plan, it’s about the planning.

0 Comments Posted in Fundraising by Jason McNeal
Tagged
14 Jun 10

The 3 Meetings

As much as we may wish not to admit, meetings matter.  The types and number of meetings you hold is a key component of your development program’s infrastructure.  Too many meetings and the team doesn’t have enough time to visit with donors.  Too few meetings, or meetings with no understood purpose, and a team, within months, can dissolve into frustration and negativity.

I believe there are 3 types of basic meetings that every development team must implement in order to keep the program running smoothly and exceeding goals.  Before we get to the meetings, though, I want to list 4 key guidelines for all standing meetings.

  1. All meetings should be as short as possible while achieving their stated purpose.  Typically, this means no meetings are scheduled to go beyond one hour.
  2. All meetings should have a written, distributed agenda.
  3. All meetings should be “calendar sacred,” meaning that they are scheduled and only rarely skipped or moved.  They hold priority.
  4. Meetings should be scheduled together to occur during one part of the week.  Typically, having meetings grouped together at the front end of the week is most advantageous.  This allows for the remainder of the week to meet with donors.

If you follow these guidelines for each of your meetings, you will notice marked improvement in productivity during and beyond the meetings.

Now, let’s move to the types of meetings each development team should implement.  There are 3:

  1. General Information Meeting – The purpose of this meeting is overall team communication.  This is the meeting with the entire team (teams with over 25 people should divide this meeting up based on smaller work teams).   I encourage teams to hold this meeting once per week, preferably first thing on Monday morning.  Each team member reports on the top 2-3 items they will be working on during the week, with special emphasis on any projects/initiatives that involve others around the table.  The VP or DOD leading the meeting alerts team members to any organization-wide developments that are important for development professionals to know.
  2. Prospect Management Team Meeting – The purpose of this meeting is to discuss major donor strategy and outcomes.  This meeting is with every person on the team who is an identified Prospect Manager and manages a portfolio of donors.  I encourage teams to hold this meeting either every other week or monthly.   During this meeting, key successes (i.e., major gift commitments) are communicated and each Prospect Manager discusses her top 3-5 most recent activities with donors and her upcoming plans and strategies for 3-5 donors she will be working with next.
  3. Individual Meetings – The purpose of these meetings is to strengthen the relationship between individual staff members and their manager.  This meeting should occur once every other week.  The agenda should change each meeting based on the team member’s annual work plan.  This meeting gives individual team members an opportunity to discuss any professional as well as personal issues that may be challenging.  Mentoring and coaching happen best during this meeting.

In addition to our work with major donors, as leaders we should bring passion, creativity, and organization to our teams.   Implementing these 3 meetings, based on the guidelines above, provides us with the structure to achieve results, increase morale, and enhance the sense of synergy among all on the team.

0 Comments Posted in Uncategorized by Jason McNeal
10 Jun 10

A Bigger Share of a Bigger Pie – Reactions to Giving USA Data

So, the 2009 Giving USA data has been released and some people aren’t happy.

What does Giving USA report? Adjusted for inflation, year-over-year giving in 2009 declined by 3.2%.  Not surprisingly,  there was a decline.  But, here is what has some people confused and even upset:

Giving from individuals – which make up 75% of all charitable gifts (closer to 85% when you factor in bequests and family foundations) – was flat in 2009.

Yes, you read that correctly.  Individuals gave $227.41 billion in 2009 and, when adjusted for inflation, that amount is equal to the amount given in 2008.

But some are a bit disgruntled by this result.  ”How can this be?” some development professionals are asking.  ”Our organization experienced a 5%, 10%, even 15% decline in giving – and everyone knows that the economy has suppressed giving.  These numbers must be bogus!”

A glaring problem with this reaction is that the Giving USA study has historically been exceedingly accurate.  In the 50+ years of the study, Giving USA is rarely off by more than 1% when reconciled with IRS tax return data.  The study methodology is sound.

But let’s put aside the tradition of accuracy for a moment.   A larger concern for me is how we view “the pie.”  Here’s what I mean.

As I’ve read the reactions to the study from people who claim that the data is inaccurate, I sense a fatalistic disposition that I find sad and unhelpful.  Yes, times are exceedingly difficult, but last year saw Americans give away over $300 billion!  Think about that number for a moment – it’s huge.

So, if we view the $300 billion as a big pie, the people who believe that the Giving USA study is inaccurate are really suggesting that the primary driver of their organization’s success is the size of the pie – and they don’t have much control over its size.  If the pie gets bigger, they will, by definition raise more money.  If the pie gets smaller, they will, by definition raise less money.  The size of the pie is really all that matters.  In the end, nothing they do with their major donors, or in their annual fund program, or in their communications program will matter much.

I agree that the size of the pie is important.  But I view it very differently.

First, I believe that what we actually do in our development programs is the biggest determinant of our success.  I believe we can  enlarge our share of the pie.  I think, “wow, $300 billion is a large amount of money – the pie is huge!”  And then, “How can my organization get more of that pie?  What programs, activities, opportunities are there for us to enlarge our share of the pie.”

Second, I believe we can work to enlarge the whole pie!  Instead of believing that the size of the pie is out of my control and waiting on the data, I believe that all development professionals have a role in increasing the pie each year.  What are we doing to enhance the understanding of the importance of philanthropy in the U.S.?  What are we doing at our organizations to diversify our donor bases and reach out to new charitable giving prospects and pools of donors?  How are we educating our prospects and encouraging their giving?

As I have written previously, the Fatalists among us focus on the $300 billion and say, “see, it’s less than last year by 3.2%, so our giving is going to be down, too.”  But I know a different reality – that our work matters and our strategic efforts with donors are the primary reasons why our organizations achieve charitable giving goals.  I can’t imagine thinking and acting any other way – I like pie too much.

1 Comment Posted in Fundraising by Jason McNeal
Tagged
8 Jun 10

Lead Out of Control

The most common question I get regarding performance-based metrics is, “what should we be counting?”  Is it visits?  moves?  phone calls?  dollars raised? number of proposals submitted?  etc.  And while I can make a well-reasoned argument as to why a particular set of metrics will be more powerful in predicting success than another, I can also assure you that no particular set of quantifiable metrics is the best predictor of effectiveness and success.

What am I talking about?  It’s simple.  I’ve been a champion of performance-based metrics for almost a decade now.  When done well, they work.  And that’s the key phrase, “when done well.”  The one thing I can say for certain is that if, as a leader, you place too much emphasis on them you will get enhanced results.   But you won’t get the best results.

To get the best possible results from a development team, you have to be a little “out of control.”  Sometime back I came across a wonderful essay entitled, “Why Good Spreadsheets Make Bad Strategies,” by Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.   In this essay, Dean Martin (I just had to type it that way!)  discusses the fact that, as humans, we regularly try to control our work, our production, and our organizations.  Quantifiable measurements, like those on spreadsheets, provide us with the illusion of control.  And we bite on it every time.  We count the number of dollars committed, we count how many visits we’ve secured, and we count how many proposals we have submitted.  We count all kinds of stuff and, in many cases, stuff that doesn’t even matter!

So, Dean Martin stresses the need for a qualitative assessment to come alongside quantifiable assessments.  It is not enough to simply know the numbers.  We must have a much better understanding of what the numbers mean and how those meanings impact human behavior.  Speaking of the smart people and quantifiable metrics that completely missed the economic collapse of the last 2 years, he writes,

The fundamental shortcoming is that all of these scientific methods depended entirely on quantities to produce the answers they were meant to generate. They were all blissfully ignorant of qualities (emphasis added). My colleague Hilary Austen, who is writing a fantastic book on the importance of artistry, describes the difference between qualities and quantities in the latest draft:

Qualities cannot be objectively measured, as a quantity like temperature can be measured with a thermometer. We can count the number of people in a room, but that tells us little about the mood — upbeat, flat, intense, contentious — of the group’s interaction.

And herein lies the secret to outstanding development team effectiveness.  Yes, you need to measure the important quantifiable process and outcome variables.  But that is not enough, nor should it be the primary focus of development leadership.

Instead, development leaders should focus more time and energy on the qualitative aspects of our work.  Think and behave more like artists and artisans.  Like designers.  In short, use quantifiable metrics to establish expectations, but give up the illusion of control and meaningfully engage your staff. Engage them at all levels in donor strategy, hiring, annual fund planning, planned giving program communications, etc.

Ask your staff questions about their work.  Listen to their answers.  Grow them.  Let them run the show.  Encourage them to own their work.  Be out of control and let them be more in control.

The truth is this:  We don’t control much beyond our own behavior – and sometimes we wonder if we really control that.  Yes, expectations and goals need to be established and quantifiable metrics are important.  But the only way to achieve long-term excellence is by letting go of the illusion of control and empowering your colleagues to be the best possible development professionals they can be.

0 Comments Posted in Fundraising, Leadership by Jason McNeal
30 May 10

In Vitro vs. In Vivo

Science has educated us on the term “in vitro” – which means to conduct work not in a living, whole organism but in a controlled, sterile environment.   “In vitro” became part of our lexicon because of its use in reproductive science.  The so-called test tube babies.

On the other hand, we have heard less about the opposite concept – “in vivo” – which means to work with the whole, living organism or to become part of and better understand the whole, living organism.

Qualitative sociological case studies are regularly conducted “in vivo,” so that the researcher can better understand the individuals and groups which make up the study population.  Using this methodology, the researcher may live among the study population and adopt their habits and cultural themes.  It’s immersion.

Here’s the point:  Leaders and development professionals do their best work “in vivo,” – really getting to know their donors.  But, unfortunately, I find too many who wish to do their work “in vitro” – an arm’s reach away from the “whole, living organism.”

“In vitro” development professionals depend too heavily on electronic wealth-screens, rely too much on passive communication mediums, and have only a surface-level knowledge and understanding of donors in their databases.

“In vivo” development professionals spend time with donors outside of normal business hours, are expert question askers, and know about the personal lives of their donors (i.e., family and business situations and what other organizations they support and why, etc.).

“In vitro” may be the phrase that is much more well-known.  But “in vivo” is the more effective concept for development.

0 Comments Posted in Fundraising, Leadership by Jason McNeal
Tagged
23 May 10

What if. . .

What if. . . instead of spending the time, energy, money, and effort on developing the “right messages” and the “best marketing practices” for our organizations we focused on becoming a more helpful resource to those we aim to serve.

What if. . . instead of “telling and selling” our donors, we listened to their interests and passions and facilitated their giving to our organizations in ways that serve our needs and theirs.

What if. . . instead of focusing on our growing “to-do” lists, we focused on growing the staff members of our team.

What if. . . instead of everyday being a day focused on our individual work, we took at least one day each quarter to pause, think about, and plan with our colleagues.

What if. . . instead of being “always connected,” we started having face-to-face meetings where smartphones were turned off and emails couldn’t be answered.

What if. . . instead of increasing our email communication flow, we worked to increase the number of face-to-face and phone conversations we have each day.

What if. . . instead of saying that our work is about building relationships, we actually built them.

0 Comments Posted in Leadership by Jason McNeal
20 May 10

10 Characteristics of Authentic Development Pros

We all know the negative typecasts we struggle against:  Development professionals are posers.  Development professionals are paid to party and play golf.  Development professionals don’t really do anything.  And, of course, there are some development professionals who, unfortunately, fit these typecasts (although none who read this blog I feel sure!).

But most development pros are interested in performing at high levels and doing quality work on behalf of their organizations.  They are the anti-typecasts.  They are authentic.

So, what is it exactly that identifies these authentic, effective development folk?  How can one discern between the faker and the producer?  For some time, I’ve been thinking about a list of qualities or characteristics of what I term, “authentic” development professionals.  These are the people who have head and heart aligned wonderfully with the mission of the organization they serve.  These are the people who lead regardless of title and make significant impacts over long periods of time.  They are producers.

Until recently, I hadn’t had much success in figuring out how to articulate a list of characteristics with clarity.   I liked the concept of the Authentic Development professional, and as the old adage goes, “I would know them when I see them,” but I wasn’t easily finding the words to explain the concepts.

Then I ran across a list of 10 Characteristics of Servant Leaders, as adapted from Robert Greenleaf (if you’ve not read Greenleaf’s books on Servant Leadership please do so).  And as I read through this list, I thought they were exceptionally appropriate for my list of Authentic Development characteristics.

Here, then, is my list (which is really Greenleaf’s list).

Authentic Development Professionals are:

  1. Listeners – they are exceptionally adept at listening to all that is being communicated, verbally and non.
  2. Empathizers – they understand and embrace the circumstances of others.
  3. Healers – they heal spirits through encouragement and truth.
  4. Aware – they are keen analyzers of social contexts and individual preferences and interests.
  5. Persuaders – they have achieved results which has earned them the respect of others and the ability to influence.
  6. Conceptualizers – they think about ‘what could be’ and are skilled at encouraging others to do the same.
  7. Anticipators – things rarely happen to them, they are proactive and have keen foresight.
  8. Stewards – they meet short-term goals while at the same time, strengthening the ability to reach longer-term goals.
  9. Committed to the growth of others – their ego is not tied to self, but rather to the successes of those around them.
  10. Builders of community – they create environments in which people are attracted.

Posers won’t fit on this list.  Nor will professional partiers.  And these characteristics are rather transparent.  One cannot pretend to be driven by these characteristics and remain effective for long.

If you work with someone who personifies these characteristics you are most likely instinctively drawn to them.  Extend your gratitude to them today for their good work and for strengthening your organization.  And if you strive regularly to abide by these characteristics as you practice our craft, please accept my heartfelt thanks.  Our work is better because you are in it.

1 Comment Posted in Fundraising, Leadership by Jason McNeal
Tagged ,
18 May 10

Lift the Moratorium

Recently, the Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that the calendar year is off to a strong philanthropic start.  According to a survey of selected large charities, the median increase in giving during the first quarter of 2010 as compared to a year ago is 11%!  Not bad.

I’m not an economist, so I can’t say with authority (or conviction) that the recession is over.  However, what I can say is that visiting with clients and donors around the country has provided me with enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that most folk no longer believe the economic sky is falling.  The Chronicle survey supports this general sense of optimism.

During the past couple of years, most expert advice-giver types suggested that organizations should engage major donors but not necessarily follow-through with plans to ask them for gifts.  The timing was simply all wrong.  If your organization has not already moved away from a self-imposed moratorium on asking your major donors, I suggest you do so immediately.

0 Comments Posted in Fundraising by Jason McNeal
Tagged ,
17 May 10

The Side Effect of Impulse Giving

Recently, I was talking with a friend – a younger, thoughtful donor with capacity (a HENRY, actually). Here was his message to me: “My wife and I are getting overwhelmed by all the solicitations from non-profits – world tragedies like earthquakes, to education institutions, to health-care organizations – it’s just too much. We used to give to everything, but we’ve decided we are going to plan our giving better and give larger gifts to a few important causes.”

I believe this is a trend that is occurring with more sophisticated donors who have (or will have) the kind of capacity to make a significant impact with your organization. In fact, yesterday, I read a column by Linda Stern on Reuters entitled, “Smart guide to charitable giving.”

Linda’s suggestions to help donors “give smartly?”

  1. Give bigger gifts to fewer charities
  2. Make your golf tournament/charity walk/silent auction giving only a small part of your charitable gifts
  3. Think about the organization carefully – how much impact can they really have?
  4. Consider the organization’s mission
  5. Consider the organization’s management and efficiency
  6. Consider establishing a charitable gift fund
  7. Give local

Following Linda’s list leads to anti-impulse giving.  As donors become more sophisticated, they want to see important impacts achieved through their giving.  They respond less to impulse approaches and become more strategic.  They plan.  They study.  They do all the things Linda suggests.

And this is what my friend was suggesting.  All of the impulse giving in the past led to more solicitations from those organizations and others.  They felt like they were on every direct mail list.  And the side effect of all those solicitations was a realization that he and his wife wanted to establish a plan for their giving.

So, here, then,  are the questions for development and organizational leaders:  What are you doing to help your donors build these kinds of donor giving plans?  And what are you doing to build the kinds of relationships needed to ensure that your organization is on the “fewer charities that receive bigger gifts” list?

0 Comments Posted in Fundraising by Jason McNeal
Tagged

« Older Posts

Newer Posts »