Archive for ‘General Nonprofit’

October 5, 2018

9 Hard Truths Every Fundraiser Needs to Face in the 21st Century

In the Oscar-nominated film A Few Good Men, Jack Nicholson’s character famously shouts, “You  can’t handle the truth!”

Well, if you want to be a successful fundraising professional, you better know the truth and be prepared to handle it.

If you want to be successful at anything, you need to face the core truths involved no matter how challenging. Ignoring reality is a certain pathway to failure.

One nonprofit development truth is that authentic, donor-centered fundraising results in more donors giving more money than would otherwise be the case. Penelope Burk wrote about this years ago in her landmark book Donor Centered Fundraising, available October 15 in a new second edition. I wrote about the subject in my own book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing.

Recently, Greg Warner, CEO of MarketSmart, released his powerful new book that reveals a straightforward, meaningful way fundraisers can embrace the concept of donor-centered fundraising.

In Engagement Fundraising, Greg passionately reveals the 21st century donor-centric strategy practiced by MarketSmart. Some people might be angered by or afraid of the core message of this book while others will find it to be simple common sense. However, one thing everyone can agree on is that Greg is a disrupter, and that’s a good thing. If it wasn’t for society’s disrupters, we’d still be riding around in horse-drawn carriages, and you’d be reading his book by candlelight. His fresh, technology-driven approach is a powerful way forward for those interested in engaging people to inspire more philanthropic support.

At the end of this post, I reveal how you can download, for free, the introduction and first chapter to Engagement Fundraising. But now, I want to share Greg’s additional insights with you as he outlines nine hard truths every fundraiser needs to face in the 21st century:

 

1.  Competition is fierce and everywhere. Nonprofits don’t only compete with other nonprofits. They also compete with private sector businesses and Uncle Sam (the tax collector) for every donor’s “share of wallet and attention.” Plus they want non-exclusive, polyamorous relationships with organizations. In other words, they will decide when they’ll cozy up to other charities. Of course, you can influence their decisions but you can never control them. You are at a disadvantage. Private sector companies and the government have deeper pockets. In order to win, you better be smart!

2.  Most of the time donors spend involving themselves with your organization happens without a fundraiser present. More than 99 percent of every donor’s time and energy spent involving themselves with your organization’s mission is done without you. You must accept this new reality and enable your supporters’ self-education and self-navigation of the decision-making process.

3.  The consideration continuum is open-ended. Donors are fickle. Their needs, passions, and interests will change. As they do, they might decide to give more, less, or stop giving altogether. They might involve themselves deeper in your cause or end their involvement (perhaps even by removing your organization from their estate plan). As a result, customer service (stewardship) is more essential now than ever.

4.  Your job is to make them feel good, not ask for money. In order to generate major gifts (including legacy gifts) and inspire high-capacity mid-level donors to give more, you must make your donors feel good by engaging them politely and persistently with offers that deliver value over time. If you do that, your donors self-solicit. They’ll step up to make a difference so they can find meaning in their lives. Then they’ll ask you, “What can I do to help?” Yes! Seriously! If you make them feel good, they will give, give more, refer friends, get more involved, become more committed, and make legacy gifts.

read more »

Advertisements
September 14, 2018

Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh My: Fundraising in Times of Crisis

As I’m writing this, Hurricane Florence is barreling toward North Carolina. Watching the news reports, I’m reminded that the best way to weather a storm is to prepare before one strikes. The tragic situation in the southeastern US can serve as a metaphor for coping with any type of crisis, even for the nonprofit sector.

The best way to deal with a crisis is to prepare for one before one strikes. 

Guest blogger Sophie W. Penney, PhD is a big believer in that axiom. Sophie is President of i5 Fundraising and Senior Program Coordinator/Lecturer for the Penn State University Certificate Program in Fundraising Leadership. As the co-editor and chapter author of the soon-to-be-released book, Student Affairs Fundraising, Raising Funds to Raise the Bar, Sophie will be sharing her insights at the CT Alliance 2018 Conference on October 2, 2018 where she will present a session about leading through challenging times, Lions, Tigers and Bears: Leading Through Crisis.

A crisis can affect any type of organization. The nonprofit sector is not immune. As I point out in “What is the Most Important Thing You Can Learn from Recent Nonprofit Scandals?” there are three broad types of scandals or crises: 1) self-inflicted scandals beyond your control, 2) self-inflicted scandals you could have avoided, and 3) guilt-by-similarity scandal.

I’m grateful to Sophie for her willingness to share with us a few tidbits from her upcoming presentation that will help us all become better prepared to weather any scandal or crisis as we continue to strive to raise more money:

 

Michael Rosen’s recent blog post, “The Dark Side of the Fundraising Profession,” was a clarion call to fundraisers. The piece served as a reminder that a profession designed to bring joy and result in great good can be fraught with challenges.

Fundraisers are pressed to raise ever-larger sums (and the sooner the better); as a result, it can be compelling to focus on fundraising tips, tools, and techniques that will bring in ever-bigger dollars. Yet a crisis, particularly legal or ethical in nature, can derail fundraising not only for a fiscal year, but for far longer.

Fundraising in times of crisis hit home for me in 2011 with the advent of the Jerry Sandusky Scandal. This child sexual abuse scandal toppled the Penn State University President, resulted in the abrupt firing of the University’s revered football coach, led to the sale of a nonprofit founded to serve the very types of children who became victims, and rocked a small community previously known as “Happy Valley.” What’s more, the scandal came to light in the midst of the University’s billion-dollar capital campaign, which was on the verge of going into a public phase. Yet, the Sandusky Scandal is just one of many such crises to rock the nonprofit world:

read more »

September 3, 2018

Remembering Karen Chizeck (1959-2018)

Karen Chizeck, a Philadelphia-based nonprofit and political fundraising consultant, died on August 31. She suffered from early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

She had a distinguished fundraising career. Before establishing her consulting practice, Karen worked for US Sen. John Heinz (R-PA), WHYY-TV 12, and Fox Chase Cancer Center. Her consulting clients included US Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), state Sens. Joe Rocks (R-PA) and Bruce Marks (R-PA), Philadelphia mayoral candidate Sam Katz (R), Republicans for Choice, Pennsylvania Ballet, Temple University Health Systems, and Friends of Old Pine Street. She also served as a Republican Ward Leader in Philadelphia.

I was fortunate to have been friends with Karen. Decades ago, we met when we both first got involved with the Association of Fundraising Professionals, Greater Philadelphia Chapter. We served on the same committee that happened to meet early in the morning, prior to the traditional workday. At the committee’s inaugural meeting, everyone was quite chipper, that is with the exception of Karen and me. We were the only non-morning people on the committee and, therefore, we developed an instant bond.

Karen Chizeck

Karen and I would always sit next to each other during the committee meetings. We would share side-jokes and, I’m sure, brilliantly witty comments; it kept us awake those early mornings. At one point, the committee chair jokingly threatened to separate us – at least I think she was joking.

read more »

August 7, 2018

Mega-Philanthropist with Profound Legacy:H.F. “Gerry” Lenfest (1930 -2018)

H.F. “Gerry” Lenfest, cable-television pioneer, mega-philanthropist, and civic leader, has died at the age of 88. His extraordinary generosity and wisdom will have a lasting impact.

I had the privilege of knowing Gerry. I was especially honored that he provided the Foreword to my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing. I want to share some of his astute words with you. However, I first want to tell you a bit about this great man and his exceptional life.

Gerry Lenfest (left) with Michael Rosen.

Gerry was not born into great wealth. He was born in Jacksonville, FL, and raised in Scarsdale, NY and later on the family farm in Hunterdon County, NJ. After his mother died when he was 13-years-old, his father sent him to the George School, a private boarding academy. A troubled student, he was invited not to return after just one year.

At his new school, young Gerry continued to be something of a juvenile delinquent, his own description. Finally, his father enrolled him at Mercersburg Academy where teenage Gerry began to excel.

Following high school, Gerry was directionless. He worked as a roughneck in North Dakota, a farm hand, and as a crew member on an oil tanker. Eventually, he attended Washington and Lee University where he received an undergraduate economics degree. He served in the U.S. Navy, rising to the rank of captain. In 1955, he married Marguerite Brooks, an elementary school teacher. Gerry went on to receive his law degree from Columbia University and, then, served with a prestigious New York law firm.

Walter Annenberg hired Gerry in 1965 to work at Triangle Publications, Inc., owner of Seventeen and TV Guide magazines, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News newspapers, television and radio stations, and several cable television properties. With the help of loans and two investors, he bought two tiny cable systems from Annenberg in 1974 to start Lenfest Communications. In 2000, Gerry’s company had grown from 7,600 subscribers to over 1 million to become the 11th largest cable company in the nation. That same year, he sold the company to Comcast, netting $1.2 billion in the deal.

Gerry always attributed his great success to the skill and dedication of his various teams and good fortune, whether in business or with the nonprofit organizations he worked with. Knowing he owed much of his success in life to others motivated him, in turn, to help others.

The Lenfests signed on to The Giving Pledge, a movement of wealthy individuals who commit to donating the majority of their fortunes. Over more than two decades, the Lenfests have donated more than $1.3 billion to over 1,200 nonprofit organizations. The top 10 recipients of support from the Lenfests are (source: Philly.com):

ORGANIZATION DOLLARS IN MILLIONS
Columbia University 155.0
Lenfest Institute for Journalism 129.5
Mercersburg Academy 109.0
Philadelphia Museum of Art 107.3
Washington and Lee University  81.0
Museum of the American Revolution  63.0
Curtis Institute of Music  60.0
Lenfest (Pew) Ocean Program  53.3
Wilson College  40.0
Lenfest Scholars Program  32.0

In addition to his enormous philanthropy, Gerry served on a number of nonprofit boards including Columbia University, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and the Museum of the American Revolution, which he helped create. In 2005, Gerry and Marguerite were awarded the Association of Fundraising Professionals Award for Outstanding Philanthropists.

You can read more about Gerry Lenfest’s extraordinary story by clicking here.

While I could say much, much more about Gerry and his tremendous, positive impact, I’d rather share some of Gerry’s own words with you. Gerry provides some sage advice for fundraising professionals about what they must do to secure significant contributions:

Knowing your prospects and understanding what motivates them are two critical steps in the [philanthropic] process. Quite simply, you cannot skip cultivation and relationship building and expect a successful outcome.”

Lenfest was also keenly aware that the fundraising process should not end when an organization receives a donation. He advises:

Do not make the mistake of forgetting about us once you receive our gift commitment. We may truly appreciate how efficiently and effectively you handle contributed funds so much that we entrust you with another [donation]. We are also in a position to influence others to do the same.”

As a strong advocate for planned giving, Gerry observes:

read more »

July 27, 2018

How to NOT Make a Mistake Worse

There is an adage, first published in The Bankers Magazine (1964) that advises wisely:

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

The Law of Holes suggests we should strive to not make bad situations worse through further unhelpful, counter-productive behavior.

Sadly, many people, including nonprofit managers and fundraising professionals, fail to heed that fine advice. Instead, when in a bad situation or when confronted by criticism, many folks make matters worse by reacting defensively, acting helplessly, remaining in denial, criticizing the critic, or ignoring the situation altogether.

Fortunately, many people handle criticism gracefully and, in the process, set a fine example for the rest of us.

Recently, I wrote about my wife’s failed attempt to donate to a local charity. While my wife and I have never supported the organization, we do agree with its mission. Therefore, it was with great interest that I noticed that the charity was hosting a fundraising event with a speaker I wanted to hear. My wife went to the organization’s website to buy tickets. However, due to a website glitch, she was unable to complete the transaction. So, she then called the organization during office hours. Not being able to reach a live person, she left a voice-mail message. No one from the organization returned her call. We ended up not attending the event.

After I posted about my wife’s experience and what fundraisers can learn from it, I sent the organization’s Executive Director an email and a link to my article. I sent the email on Tuesday evening at 7:01 PM. I expected one of two things to happen: 1) I thought I might receive a defensive response the following business day, or 2) I might not receive any reply, ever.

Instead, my guess was happily wrong. That very evening at 7:21 PM, I received a message from the Executive Director. We can learn much from the tone and content of his response:

Dear Michael,

Your email was both upsetting and instructive. I appreciated the spirit of the message and have already begun to think about how to use it to create change and improve. Also I read your blog. I’m curious if you are a professional fundraiser? Either way you and your wife have my apologies for this unfortunate experience. It is clearly our loss when customers and potential friends are turned off. It’s contrary to the purpose of running these events and clearly counter productive.

In addition to my apologies you have my gratitude for bringing this to my attention.

Sincerely,

(name withheld here)”

Here is what we can learn from the email response:

read more »

July 16, 2018

Jerold Panas (1928-2018), He Will Be Missed

When I opened my email inbox this morning, a profoundly heartbreaking news item jumped out at me. Legendary fundraising professional Jerold Panas died over the weekend. The email from Jerry Linzy, Executive Partner at Jerold Panas, Linzy & Partners reads:

It is with sadness, Jerold Panas, Linzy & Partners announce that Jerry Panas, Founder of Jerold Panas, Linzy & Partners and long time Chief Executive Partner died quietly in his sleep, Saturday, July 14, 2018.

Jerold Panas (1928-2018)

A private, family service is planned. A Memorial Service to celebrate the life of Jerry Panas will be scheduled in the future. Condolences may be sent to Felicity Panas in care of:

Jerold Panas, Linzy & Partners

500 North Michigan Avenue, S-1035

Chicago, IL 60611

Jerry Linzy, Executive Partner, Emeritus will serve as Interim Chief Executive. Business will continue as usual. All questions should be directed to Jerry Linzy, jerrylinzy@panaslinzy.com., or by calling 312.961.3221.

Felicity and the family want to express their appreciation for all who have been a Friend of Jerry. A complete biography of Jerry Panas’ life and his vast contribution to the world of philanthropy will be forthcoming.

All of us at Jerold Panas, Linzy & Partners share the loss of our leader, Jerry Panas. He was a colleague, friend, mentor, and innovative, philanthropic icon.  He will forever be, to use Ernest Hemingway’s salute:

‘The winner and undisputed champion.’”

Since Panas started it in 1968, his consulting firm has served over 3,800 clients around the world. Panas wrote 20 books including such classics as ASKING, Mega Gifts, and Born to Raise. He also shared his knowledge in countless professional presentations. By directly helping charities to raise more money and by educating fundraising professionals, Panas has touched the lives, both directly and indirectly, of countless people around the globe. His impact on the nonprofit sector and on the lives of people in general has been profound.

read more »

July 6, 2018

One of the Most Important Questions You Should Ask

Two recent mainstream news items, and one tweet about a charity, remind me of a powerful lesson I once learned from my father-in-law, Malcolm Rosenfeld. He taught me to ask myself the following important question before opening my mouth or taking action:

What is my objective?”

Now, before I illustrate the value of that question by reflecting on some news stories, I must warn you that the following examples include vulgar language. If you want to bypass the examples, you can skip down to the next boldfaced sentence several paragraphs below.

At The 72nd Annual Tony Awards (2018), actor Robert De Niro walked out on the stage after being introduced. He then said, “I’m gonna say one thing. Fuck Trump. It’s no longer ‘Down with Trump.’ It’s ‘Fuck Trump.’”

What was De Niro’s objective? If he wanted the approval and praise of the Tony audience, he succeeded when his remarks received a standing ovation. However, if he wanted to convince some Trump supporters or independent voters to support the political positions of the Democratic Party rather than President Donald Trump, I doubt he moved anyone. To the contrary; he may have actually strengthened their resolve.

Comedian Michelle Wolf voiced her displeasure with Ivanka Trump in a recent episode of Wolf’s Netflix series The Break. She said, “If you see Ivanka on the street, first call her Tiffany. This will devastate her. Then talk to her in terms she’ll understand. Say, ‘Ivanka, you’re like vaginal mesh. You were supposed to support women but now you have blood all over you and you’re the center of a thousand lawsuits.’”

What was Wolf’s objective? If she wanted to solidify her base of liberal viewers, I suspect she might have succeeded. With the publicity she received for her comment, she may have even attracted some new viewers who share her liberal views. However, if she wants to use her humor to change the political policies of the Trump Administration or to drive independent voters to support Democratic Party candidates and positions, she probably failed.

Whether you’re pro-Trump or anti-Trump is not the issue. What the two examples above demonstrate is the importance of defining objectives. If De Niro and Wolf wanted to diminish Trump’s political support – and I recognize that might not have been their objective — they flopped even as their fans cheered and laughed.

Let me explain. In 2016, I participated in a focus group involving independent voters. It was clear that personal attacks on Trump led many participants to be more likely to support him. By contrast, discussion of specific issues led people to thoughtfully consider which candidate better aligned with their own thinking. Based on my experience with the focus group, I wasn’t surprised when I looked at recent poll numbers.

Despite recent harsh comments by De Niro, Wolf, and countless others in recent weeks, the RealClear Politics polling average shows that Trump’s disapproval rating continues to oscillate just above 50 percent, where it has been consistently since March 15, 2017.

While celebrities leave me wondering about their objectives, many nonprofit organizations also have me scratching my head. I recently read one puzzling example from The Whiny Donor (self-named) on Twitter:

read more »

May 22, 2018

New Research Proves Cash Is Not King in Fundraising

If you want to raise significantly more money for your nonprofit organization, you need to diversify the types of gifts you seek from individuals. That’s what successful charities do to raise significantly more money each passing year. Conversely, relying solely on cash contributions will likely stunt your organization’s growth.

Those are the key conclusions of a newly released study by Prof. Russell James III, JD, PhD, CFP®, philanthropy researcher at Texas Tech University. The study examined more than one million filings with the Internal Revenue Service by nonprofit organizations.

The following chart reveals that, from 2010 to 2015, nonprofits that consistently received gifts of stocks or bonds grew their contributions six times faster than those receiving only cash:

James’ study found the results are not limited to just those years. When looking at three-year rolling averages, organizations consistently receiving non-cash gifts grew much more quickly than those receiving only cash contributions. The study identified the same general growth pattern regardless of the starting size of the charity or the type of charitable organization.

James observes:

Beyond simple opinions or war stories, the previous results conclusively demonstrate that organizations raising non-cash gifts experience dramatically greater growth in total contributions, both contemporaneously and over the long term. Why? This is likely due in part to the effects of mental framing.

First, it is important to understand that wealth is not held in cash. Census bureau estimates suggest that only about 3% of household wealth is held in cash and checking accounts. When fundraisers ask for cash, they are asking from the ‘small bucket.’ This makes a psychological difference because it changes the reference point for the gift. The same gift may seem ridiculously large when compared to other checkbook purchases (elective expenditures from spendable income), but quite small when compared with total wealth (other non-cash assets). Donors who have never made a gift from assets may simply never have considered giving from wealth rather than giving from spare income. This is particularly important considering findings from experimental research demonstrating that people are much more willing to make charitable donations from irregular, unearned rewards (such as might occur with an appreciated asset) than from regular work earnings.

[Second,] gifts of appreciated assets are also cheaper than gifts of cash because the donor avoids capital gains taxes. This special benefit is particularly important under the new tax law, because it applies to all donors, even non-itemizers who can’t use charitable deductions.”

Intuitively, most fundraising professionals have already known what the James study now proves. So, if fundraisers know they should be seeking cash AND non-cash gifts, why do so many ask for only cash or merely make a feeble attempt to get non-cash donations?

James answers:

read more »

May 18, 2018

Thank You For Your Support!

With this post, I want to thank you and share some practical information about plagiarism.

Last week, I revealed how I was the victim of plagiarism. Someone lifted a portion of one of my recent blog posts, altered the intention of my words, and purposely misattributed them to someone else in an article he wrote attacking the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

Now, I would like to thank you and everyone who supported me with blog comments, tweets, emails, and phone calls. Professionally speaking, the support confirms that my confidence in our profession is well placed. Personally speaking, the support warmed my heart and let me know that I am not alone.

At times, such as in last week’s example, plagiarism is an intentional act. At other times, plagiarism is accidental.

When I spoke with a friend, a college faculty member and former fundraising professional, he confirmed that what I had experienced was clearly an act of plagiarism. He also told me about a website that provides the academic community with useful information for good people who want to better understand what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. The website Plagiarism.org says:

Plagiarism is a common (and often misunderstood) problem that is often the result of a lack of knowledge and skills.”

By creating a better understanding, the website seeks to reduce incidents of plagiarism in schools and throughout society. “What is Plagiarism?” an article at the website, tells us:

read more »

May 9, 2018

Setting the Record Straight about Jimmy LaRose

Jimmy LaRose, founder of the Inside Charity website and co-founder of the National Association of Nonprofit Organizations & Executives, continues to be a controversial figure in the nonprofit sector. However, I have refrained from addressing his statements that trouble me.

Until now.

LaRose recently copied portions of one of my recent blog posts, altered their intention, and purposely misattributed them to someone else in an article he wrote attacking the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

When I confronted him with what he had done, he admitted to and defended his actions. Furthermore, he refused to apologize or delete the article at issue. In his last email to me, despite the fact that I never mentioned NANOE in my communications to him, he wrote, “NANOE’s Board of Directors has directed our staff to forward all your communications to counsel.” Do you think he might have sent me that message in an attempt to intimidate and silence me?

Well, you deserve the truth. Therefore, I will not be silent.

I published my blog post “Are Donors the Hidden Enemies of Charities?” on April 16, 2018. On May 6, 2018, the LaRose article “Is There a Secret Reason AFP (Association of Fundraising Professionals) Is Hating On Donors?” appeared at Inside Charity.

In my post, I reported on the findings of The Harris Poll survey report conducted for AFP and The Chronicle of Philanthropy. While I recognized that most donors are good people, I did point out that some donors do bad things. The Harris survey found that 25 percent of women and 7 percent of men, who are members of AFP and who were surveyed, report having been the victim of sexual harassment. In the cases cited, 65 percent of the perpetrators were donors.

In his article, LaRose attempted to discredit the survey report though he offered no evidence of his own.

Neither AFP nor I are demonizing all donors. We are simply giving voice to the survey respondents who have said that donors sexually harassed them. This is a real problem that some of our fellow fundraising professionals have faced. It’s something that we should not ignore.

Toward that end, I suggested some actions that individual nonprofit organizations should take:

1.  Have the organization’s board adopt a sexual harassment policy. If a policy already exists, it should be reviewed with an eye toward improving it. The policy should define sexual harassment (regardless of the source), map the reporting process, and explain the consequences of harassment. The policy should also make it clear that no donation is worth mental or physical harm to staff or volunteers; people should be clearly valued more than money.

2.  The senior management team or board of the organizations should set policies regarding meetings with prospects and donors. The policy should include answers to several questions including:

  • Where is it appropriate to meet with a prospect or donor?
  • When should more than one person from the organization meet with a prospect or donor at the same time?
  • When dining out with a prospect or donor, who should pick-up the check?
  • What prospect or donor behaviors should not be tolerated?
  • How should misbehavior be treated in the moment and following an incident?

3.  Procedures should be adopted for providing feedback to prospects or donors who misbehave so that they understand that their missteps are inappropriate and unacceptable.

4.  Staff and volunteers (including board members) should be provided with the policies and trained to ensure they understand all of the provisions of the policies

5.  As part of training, make all staff and volunteers aware of the problem. For example, share the Harris Polling report with them along with a printed copy of the organization’s sexual harassment policies.

6.  Re-assure staff and volunteers that they will be fully supported, and that they will not be penalized or lose their jobs for filing a legitimate complaint.

In LaRose’s article, he lifted the questions I asked in item two above. He then mislead his readers when he introduced the questions by writing, “In response to The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s ‘poll’ AFP’s IDEA Committee (Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Access) has just announced another set of provisions they’re going to burden you with after they determine the proper answers to the following questions.”

To the best of my knowledge, the AFP IDEA Committee has not adopted my questions to guide its discussions. The questions I posed were clearly mine and mine alone. As I stated in my post, the questions are just some that should be addressed as nonprofit organizations discuss their own policies and procedures. I did not ask AFP to impose such a requirement on nonprofit organizations. It would have been foolish to do so because AFP has no mechanism for such an imposition even if it wanted to issue such a mandate.

By twisting the intent of my words and by providing incorrect attribution, LaRose has erected a straw-man.

LaRose writes:

read more »

%d bloggers like this: