And while our use of the word may not be snidely, on most occasions we use it to mean something less than positive.  In fact, the first definition for the word given by dictionary.com is strange, queer, odd.

Many of your major donors are peculiar.  They are different.  They have extraordinary wealth.  Why didn’t they have the same (or similar) financial success as 99% of the rest of the western world?  Sure, a few of them have “family” money.  But most of your major donors are self-made.

They made different choices in life and, in many instances, they have “strange” or “odd” personalities (I worked with a extraordinarily wealthy major donor who, at restaurant dinners, would ask for a “doggie bag,” and take every edible item off the table, including rolls, butter, and all of the packets of Sweet’N Low!).

Their strange choices, unique talents, drive, and eccentric personalities have been rewarded financially by our world.  They are not like the rest of us.  If they were, they wouldn’t be enjoying abnormal financial success.

So, each of our institutions has peculiar major donors.  And, it is these donors – these peculiar folk – who can make a huge difference for our institutions.  They make reaching our campaign goals a reality.  They make our annual fund numbers jump.  We need more peculiar major donors!  But how do we get them?

One way is to use the same path to success many of them have used – be peculiar!  What is “strange” about your advancement program?  What makes you “odd”?  Or, to put in language that may land more easily on your ear, “What makes your program distinctive?”

If your institution engages donors in a similar way to every other institution in your city, you probably will get similar results.  If your annual fund uses the same methods from year to year, you probably will get similar results.  If your development officers spend the “average” amount of time out of the office, you probably get average results.

But when you do something different, odd, strange. . . peculiar, you give yourself the chance to receive extraordinary results.

Peculiarity can be rewarding. . . just ask some of your major donors.

Is that it?  Is that all that happens?

Despite all the talk about “engaging donors,” I’m afraid to say that for many educational, healthcare, and non-profit organizations, the answer is “yes.”

So, what else should we be doing in response to a donor’s gift?  Here are 3 simple responses, which, when included in a letter with a gift receipt, could transform your organization’s relationships with its donors.  After expressing ample gratitude in the letter,  why not:

1. Invite them to join you at an event or other activity.  A student fine arts performance or an athletic event on your campus.  The concert by the Woman’s Choir that is being given during the Christmas season at your hospital.  A community festival or event important to your organization.  Or, if they live outside of your region, alert them to an outreach event that you are planning in their area.
2. Ask for their advice.  Let them know that your development office is seeking donor feedback on how your organization can make the donor experience more meaningful.  That you’d like to talk with them via phone for a 10-15 minute survey.  Develop questions if you don’t have some good ones and conduct a survey.  Imagine what you just might learn.  And imagine how many relationships you may strengthen.
3. Let them know you’d like to visit them.  Even if you already know them, a statement such as, “Our institution is enjoying such momentum currently.  I would welcome the opportunity to visit with you and share the many positive developments.”

Our work is about building purposeful relationships with donors.  Saying “thanks” in response to a gift is appropriate – but it is also the bare minimum of responses.  To generate the kind of engagement we say we want with our donors, we must stretch beyond extending gratitude and, instead,  extend ourselves.

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.

I have thought as much and have been working with clients specifically on strategies to deal with this issue.  What does it mean to ask prematurely?  Simply put, it means that we have not informed the donor properly, we’ve not involved the donor appropriately, and we’ve not gauged her interest sufficiently.

When we ask donors too early in the cultivation process, we shortchange and short circuit the cultivation process and run the risk of alienating donors or even insulting them.  Further, we run the risk of asking for the wrong projects, and, ultimately, receiving a smaller gift.

Development officers operate with ambitious goals, performance metrics, and real deadlines. If we aren’t careful, urgency to meet these goals and deadlines can dominate the development of donor strategy.  Instead of thinking, “what I can do next to strengthen the donor-institution relationship?” there may be misplaced incentive to think, “what can I do next to get the gift?”

When done properly, donor cultivation is a process that includes: listening, informing, involving, and inspiring.  Only when the development officer (and others) and the donor have thoroughly explored this process together can the most successful solicitation occur.  It takes time.  And when we ask donors at the appropriate time, we have allowed the cultivation to ‘breathe’ adequately and given the solicitation the best possible chance for success.

There is a saying that is helpful here: “We should only ask when we are reasonably sure we know the answer.”  Or as I say to clients regularly, “solicitation without inspiration equals frustration.”  Frustration for both you and your donors that can easily be avoiding by applying just a little patience.

However, when development leaders sort through their database they often find their gift “pyramid” looking more like an “hourglass”:

As this graphic suggests, many major gift pipelines are not as robust at the middle gift levels. Why is this the case? Two reasons: First, the annual fund serves as the donor acquisition program so there are many donors at lower amounts. Second, most organizations know their top donors and spend time strategizing on major gift donors and prospects. But many organizations don’t spend the same kind of time on the cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship of mid-level donors. So, what occurs is an hourglass pipeline.

What should a healthy prospect chart look like? I suggest one like this:

This “pyramid” shows evidence of a strong donor acquisition program (the base of the figure). As you move up the “pyramid” the only drop-off or “donor melt” occurs because some donors simply do not have the capacity to be at your top giving levels. In other words, to achieve this picture, you must have a vibrant mid-level giving program which identifies and cultivates donors from your donor acquisition program. Such a program keeps the middle portion of the graphic filled with prospects. It builds not a “pyramid” but an “isosceles trapezoid!”

What is the result? Simple – Donors at all levels who feel good about their giving to your organization which leads to more top donor prospects.

The Gift Pyramid is ok, but most organizations will take a Gift Isosceles Trapezoid any day. So, what will you do today to build your Trapezoid?