by Dan Schipp

People have a lot of different names for what we do in fundraising. Many of them have a negative connotation. A few of these not-so-flattering phrases are: “getting gifts”, “collecting donations”, “holding out your hand”, “picking pockets”, “hitting up”. The first three phrases imply that there isn’t a lot of effort or thought or planning or strategy or time that goes into fundraising; it’s just a matter of “getting” and “collecting”. The second two expressions betray a view of development that has elements of deception, thievery and coercion.

I prefer more positive phrases for fundraising, like “seeking financial support”, “extending an opportunity to give”, or “inviting investment”. My personal favorite is the latter — “inviting investment.”

There’s a lot of meaning packed into those two words – “inviting” and “investment.” “Inviting” has the sense of offering an opportunity or asking one to consider an action, not forcing or coercing the action. It also suggests that there is some knowledge of or relationship with the one being extended the invitation. “Investment” implies taking a stake in an organization and realizing a return on that financial commitment. It conveys having a vested interest in both the present and future of the organization. Isn’t development, when it is done best, really about “inviting investment”? Isn’t it a matter of building relationships with prospective donors so that they want to become stakeholders in an organization, recognizing that their generosity will reap benefits for themselves, as well as the organization?
So . . . how are you approaching fundraising? Are you “hitting up” people or are you “inviting investment?”

by Angela White

In today’s economic environment, many nonprofits are struggling to raise as much cash as possible for their on-going operations and special projects. We know that cash is king, but I don’t want us to forget about the opportunity to explore planned giving options with our donors.

In tough economic times, planned gifts can often be the best option for our donors, and, in building strong donor relationships, we want to maximize their philanthropic impact on the organization today while strengthening the relationship for future gifts. Of course, bequests are an obvious option for gifting in today’s environment, but there is no cash associated with a bequest intention to assist with a campaign, for example. However, what about a gift of a paid up life insurance policy? Many people have multiple life insurance policies, and many of them may not need the coverage now (children are grown, business is sold, etc.) but still own the policies. A gift of a paid up life insurance policy is a cash gift to your organization. Or, what about asking current gift annuitants to relinquish their rights to all or a portion of their gift annuity income payments? This would allow an immediate additional tax deduction for the donor and make additional cash available for a campaign or project? These are just a few examples. What do you think? What has been your experience? This topic is on my mind as we work with clients and donors to creatively meet their philanthropic priorities.

by Kris Kindelsperger

Perhaps just returning from a week at the beach has my mind clouded with good feelings, but my conversations with clients and professional colleagues these past few weeks have also left me feeling cautiously optimistic about fundraising as we move into the critical second half of the year.

From much of the work we have done over the past year, fundraising has been impacted by at least two equally important forces, one primarily economic and one primarily psychological. The realities of the economy hit many philanthropists right in the solar plexus. Clearly many lost a significant portion of the assets from which they made their gifts.

As important though, was the psychology of what was happening. Normally confident entrepreneurs threw up their hands in feasibility study interviews this spring saying, “who knows what will happen?” The most charitable heads of family foundations were truly scared about the asset base of their endowments. Well compensated business men and women were genuinely questioning the wisdom of making gifts at a time they were freezing salaries and laying off workers.

Many believe that the fundamentals of the economy have still not changed significantly and that we are in for a long and slow recovery. But what does seem to have changed is a bit of the psychology of donors. Many seem to now believe that further decline is not as likely, and the recent upturn in the stock market has helped some recover at least a portion of their asset base.

My sense is that many who pulled their heads into their shells like the proverbial turtle, are beginning to peak out and look at the world around them in a more optimistic way. Will this impact philanthropy? Perhaps a little time off in July will help all of us gain a bit more clarity about our giving priorities for the fall.

by Meg Gammage-Tucker

One of the most frequent questions I have heard from clients this year is, “Why can’t we go public? We will raise so much more money by getting more people involved!” As a consultant and guide, my response has to be, “no.” We have to do it the right way: “Top-down, inside-out.

Hank Rosso, the founder of the Fund Raising School at the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, provides the best justification in Achieving Excellence in Fundraising, with his treatise on sequential fundraising. To paraphrase and quote:

Sequential fundraising is the process whereby prospects are classified by their giving potential and then solicited from the top down. Why is sequential fundraising important?

The ten largest gifts set the standard for the entire campaign.

A failure to adhere to the top-down pattern reduces giving sights across the board.

Extended solicitation and participation at lower levels will not offset major gaps in the upper ranges.

Once the big-gift-first sequence has been seriously violated, the entire program is in jeopardy (p. 128).

There are times when this message has been difficult to give, but we must continue to give it. Why? It is tried and true. And, to be honest, the vast majority of the best answers in our business are based on experience.

In this case, however, it is based both on experience and new data. Billions of dollars are given every year by individuals who are personally involved (inside-out) and who have the greatest capacity (top-down). The most substantial support consistently comes from those individuals are “insiders”. And, in this time of financial challenges and competition for philanthropic dollars, the research clearly shows that individuals invest in those organizations with which they are deeply involved and are letting some of those that they are less close to go (at least for the near term).

While it is always important to build your base and engage larger audiences, your focus, in this case, needs to be on those closest to you. Slow and steady will win this race.

by Ernie Vargo

Many of my clients are in the early stages of capital campaigns. They have planned, completed a feasibility study and recruited volunteers. Then the economy went south. This led to many discussions about the campaign. Should we defer it? Should we cancel it? How should we move forward?

During the fourth quarter of 2008, I traveled across the country and back conducting interviews for feasibility studies. Nearly all interviewees said, “do not ask me for a gift today.” That is certainly no surprise. However, those individuals were bullish about the economy in the long term (next three years). They were willing to think expansively about philanthropic support in the future. And they all wanted organizations that they supported in the past to continue to contact them.

These results were a bit surprising. It was anticipated that interviewees would have said, “I cannot make a gift, leave me alone!” Instead they opened the door for on-going cultivation. Some donors even talked about how organizations have not communicated with them at all during the recession. They assume all the organization cares about is their money. “If I cannot make a gift I must not be important to them.”

JGA has encouraged our clients to enter in a period of active cultivation. In many ways, this may very well benefit them in the long term. They are developing deep relations with their donors. This has enabled them to learn more about the donor’s interest. Many times in campaigns, there isn’t time to properly cultivate prospects. These times have created those opportunities.

These campaigns will be successful. They are developing deeper relationships. And as the economy improves, organizations that have continued the cultivation will be the first to receive gifts. In fact, several clients are either beginning to solicit prospects or are in the process of soliciting them. Gifts are slowly happening.

Now is the time to have patience. Move forward with campaign planning. Cultivate as many prospects as possible. It will pay dividends in the near future.

by Dan Schipp

Recently, in the midst of a gift solicitation training session, someone asked me, “Won’t I offend the prospective donor if I ask for too much?” That question prompted me to recall an experience I had years ago before I began working in development.

Early on in our marriage, during those days of living from paycheck to paycheck, my wife, Patty, and I made several small gifts – $10, $20, $25 – to a seminary where my brother had studied. When that seminary embarked on its first ever capital campaign, we were solicited in person for a campaign gift by a volunteer, a local business leader whom we highly respected. To our absolute surprise, he asked us to consider a gift of $1000. I don’t recall our exact response but I suspect it was something like, “We’ll have to think about that.” What I do recall – vividly – is turning to Patty after the gentleman had left and saying, “Wow… we have arrived! He thinks we can make a gift of a $1000!”

Getting “the number” right is important. Before soliciting someone for a gift, we as solicitors need to do our homework. We need to do our best to determine the appropriate “stretch gift.” But we will never know for sure what that “right” amount is. We have to trust our preparation and instincts and venture forth. As long as we make “the ask” in a courteous, respectful manner, I don’t think we have to worry too much about offending the donor. We may even flatter her!

In the end, Patty and I ended up making a $500 gift to that seminary’s campaign – far larger than we would have made if we had not been asked to consider a gift of $1000.

by Ted Grossnickle

Last week, I was asked by a long-time friend and professional in Advancement to help him think about his current search for a new senior leadership post in our profession. He asked me to read some of his materials and letters and to ask hard questions of him. I know he is a person who will hear what I say, even if he doesn’t agree with it. You have to respect that.

Later in the week, I was asked by a colleague if I’d ever heard of a certain professional in our field. I had indeed and knew of their work over many years. This person has moved from position to position – many of them – over a twenty year period. I know this professional will interview exceptionally well for whatever opening is there and will likely “wow” the search committee. I’d be incredibly surprised if they are still there in eighteen months. This is a person who “knows the answers” and believes it a weakness to ask for advice.

After more than three decades in this profession, I’ve come to the conclusion that the thing which separates the good from the mediocre is the willingness to be vulnerable and to ask and hear authentic, sometimes critical advice about your work and your management style. What a dangerous thing it is to risk our egos and self deceptions. And what an incredibly liberating thing it is to do it and learn lessons from it. You have to respect that.

Today’s irregular economy, technological advancements, and ever-shifting stocks demand a lot from students entering the workforce. An ideal candidate might be a techno-savvy, morally-sound problem solver with knowledge of everything from business to science to psychology.

Augsburg College recognizes that today’s young people will enter a workplace where they’ll be asked to wear many hats. So much, in fact, that they’ve designed their newest building around that idea.

For JGA’s July 2009 podcast, Senior Consultant Ernie Vargo asked Augsburg President Paul Pribbenow about the college’s campaign to build the physical manifestation of this idea—what they’re calling the Center for Science, Business and Religion.

Click here to listen to the July 2009 JGACast.

by Angela White

It is 10 p.m… do you know the status of your inbox?

I admit that checking my email is the last thing that I do at night, and the first thing that I do in the morning. In fact, I am so ‘attached’ to my email (OK, some would say obsessed) that I check it at 5:15 a.m. as I am headed out of the house to my local YMCA for a workout before the work day begins. I won’t even talk about how many times I check during the day—reaching for my iPhone as soon as I leave a client meeting and even sneaking a peak at stoplights.

I am guessing that I am no different than many of you reading this blog. On the positive side, I believe that one of the best ways that we meet our client needs at JGA is to be responsive and highly engaged in the daily issues of our clients. I feel better knowing that I am checking my email frequently and that I can respond in a timely fashion.

However, one of my clients taught me a very important lesson—sometimes a quick response is not the best response. She taught me that you do not have to answer an email immediately—sometimes it is better not to respond but to watch the email traffic on a certain topic and then make a more informed comment. Or, better yet, sometimes it is best to pick up the phone and discuss a situation rather than trying to have an email dialogue.

This is a good lesson—but it probably won’t stop me from obsessively checking my email, but it might stop me from obsessively responding!