Valentine’s Day Holds the Secret to Fundraising Success

As I write this post, Valentine’s Day has arrived once again. Originally a religious feast day, it has evolved into also being a cultural and commercial celebration of love.

So, what does that have to do with fundraising? Everything!

Think about it. The very word philanthropy means love of humankind. Passion, caring, and relationships are essential to romantic love. They are also vitally important to the fundraising process.

If you treat your donors like an ATM (cash machine), they likely won’t be your donors for long. By contrast, if you understand and tap into their philanthropic passions, show them you care about their needs, and develop a relationship with them, they’ll be more likely to renew their support and even upgrade their giving over time.

When volunteers, and even fundraising professionals, are fearful of asking for contribution, it’s probably because the organization is placing too much of an emphasis on asking and focuses too little on relationship building.

Let me be clear. Fundraisers who fail to develop relationships are simply beggars while those who build relationships, as well as ask for gifts, are development professionals.

When it comes to major-gift and planned-gift fundraising, relationship building is particularly important. Gail Perry, President of Fired-Up Fundraising, recently addressed this issue artfully in a terrific #Gailism that she has allowed me to share with you:

Developing relationships with major and planned-gift donors and major and planned-gift prospects allows us to:

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 21^st 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.

Stop Ignoring This Amazing Source of Contributions

There is a funding source that donated $12.5 billion to charities last year. Sadly, most nonprofit organizations ignore this massive opportunity for support with only 23 percent saying they are “very familiar” with how this funding source works, according to a report from Vanguard Charitable.

I’m speaking of Donor Advised Funds.

Donors create a DAF by opening an account with charitable organization equipped to manage it. Donors then make irrevocable donations of cash or appreciated assets to their DAF account to receive current year tax benefits and deductions. Donors can choose how their contributions are invested creating the potential for tax-free growth that can fund larger charitable grants. Donors “advise” when and how much to grant and to which organizations.

Unfortunately, many fundraising professionals overlook DAFs. They think DAF donations will either automatically come in or won’t. Some fundraising professionals simply complain about how much money is going into DAFs rather than to charities.

I think there are five myths about DAFs that we need to debunk before we review how you can secure DAF grants for your charity:

Myth 1: DAFs don’t generate enough total contributions to deserve attention.

In 2014, DAFs contributed $12.5 billion to charities, a 27 percent increase over 2013, according to a report issued by The National Philanthropic Trust. That’s 3.5 percent of all charitable giving in 2014!

Myth 2: DAFs might give a lot of money, but there are not that many of them.

The reality is that 238,293 DAF accounts existed in 2014. While some donors have created multiple accounts, the number of DAF donors is nevertheless large and growing. To put this into some perspective, there were just 107,000 Charitable Trusts created in 2014.

Myth 3: The average DAF does not contribute very much money.

The average size of each DAF account grew from $260,626 in 2013 to $296,701 in 2014. DAFs had a payout rate of 21.9 percent. This is much higher than the five percent payout rate required of private foundations.

Vanguard Charitable, one of the largest DAF managers, reports accounts valued at $100,000 or more granted an average of $13,841 while accounts valued at less than $100,000 granted an average of $3,422.

Fidelity Charitable, the country’s largest DAF manager, reports its average DAF account granted $4,138 and the average account made 8.3 grants in 2014.

Myth 4: DAF granters prefer to remain anonymous.

Vanguard Charitable reports that 95 percent of its grantmakers share their name with the charities they support. Schwab Charitable, another large DAF management organization, says that 97 percent of its grantmakers share their name. Fidelity Charitable reports that 92 percent of its grantmakers provide information for nonprofit acknowledgment. This means that charities are able to continue to cultivate and steward these donors.

Myth 5: DAFs can be ignored as a passing fad.

DAFs have been around for 84 years. Following the creation of the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund in 1991, DAFs really began to gain popularity. In 2014, DAFs held $70.7 billion in assets, an increase of nearly 24 percent compared with the previous year. DAFs are not a fad; they are a growing form of philanthropy for those interested in endowed giving but who do not have the resources or interest in establishing a private foundation.

So, what can you do to dive into the DAF pool? Here are six tips:

It’s Shameful to Shame a Major Donor

Would you publicly shame a generous philanthropist who just contributed $100 million?

Dylan Matthews, a writer at the blog site Vox, has done just that in his recent post: “David Geffen’s $100 Million Gift to UCLA is Philanthropy at Its Absolute Worst.”

David Geffen

The post came after David Geffen, the billionaire entertainment mogul and philanthropist, announced that he is donating $100 million to the University of California, Los Angeles, to build a private school aimed, in part, at serving the families of UCLA’s faculty and staff, according to a Los Angeles Times article.

Geffen and UCLA Chancellor Gene Block described the new school, in part, as a recruiting and retention tool for faculty and scientists who may be worried about the cost of living in Los Angeles and the quality of the Los Angeles education system, the Times reports.

The gift to create the Geffen Academy was not the philanthropist’s first donation to UCLA. He has already contributed $300 million to what is now UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. Through his gifts to UCLA, Geffen told the Times, he wants to help the medical school “to be competitive with Harvard and Johns Hopkins and the very best in the world.”

While many might think Geffen’s generosity is noble, Matthews clearly feels otherwise:

Music mogul David Geffen is very, very bad at being a philanthropist. His past donations have mostly taken the form of massive gifts to prominent universities and cultural institutions, rather than to poor people or important research or even less famous, more financially desperate universities and arts centers.”

In short, the Vox blogger says that Geffen is a “ very, very bad” philanthropist because he does not give to causes that Matthews believes he should support. This is a perfect illustration of holier-than-thou liberalism (not to be confused with liberalism).

Matthews calls Geffen’s philanthropy a “grotesque waste.” He adds, “This gift is actually worse than no charity.” He disparages Geffen’s desire to have UCLA compete successfully with Harvard and Johns Hopkins. He even insults the students who will be attending the Geffen Academy by dismissing them as “faculty brats.”

Interestingly, I discovered one reason why Matthews might really be opposed to the Geffen gift. Geffen wants UCLA to be able to compete more effectively with Harvard. Well, guess what? Matthews is a Harvard alumnus, something he neglected to point out in his blog post. That conflict of interest aside, I also noticed that most of the charities that Matthews thinks would be worthier of Geffen’s support work in the developing world. Could it be that Matthews believes in white paternalism and/or keeping people of color dependent on white, Western charity? Is Matthews of the belief that there are no needy children in the US or is it that he’s simply anti-American?

So, Mr. Matthews, how do you like having your motives judged and your character impugned? Normally, I wouldn’t have done so, but I decided to take a moment to adopt your writing voice. I also thought it might be interesting for someone to hold a mirror up to you.

I won’t go into why the Geffen donations are beneficial. Suffice to say they will do a great deal of good from creating good paying jobs to enhancing medical education and research. It might not be what you or I would support. It’s certainly not what Matthews would support. But, the fact is, it’s not our money. It’s Geffen’s wallet, and he can empty it however he wishes, or not at all. If Matthews wants $100 million to go to the various causes he listed, let him go out and earn it so he can give away his own money where he sees fit.

Rejecting a $100,000 Gift Helps #Nonprofit Raise MORE Money

The idea of rejecting a major donation usually sends a chill up the spine of nonprofit executives. After all, nonprofit organizations are not in business to return donations. Instead, charities employ hardworking fundraising professionals to bring in contributions. For many nonprofits, donations are the lifeblood of the organization.

However, rejecting a gift can actually help a charity protect its mission. Recently, I reported on two organizations that rejected or returned major gifts:

“When Should You Refuse a Gift?” — tells the story of Lucy the Elephant rejecting a grant offer from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

“Update: Spelman College Returns Gift from Bill Cosby” — relates why a major gift from Cosby was returned

Not long ago, the Girl Scouts of Western Washington demonstrated that a nonprofit can protect its mission and raise more money by mindfully rejecting a donation. In the case of the Girl Scouts, the organization rejected a $100,000 gift and raised over $250,000 in the process!

When the Girl Scouts received the $100,000 gift, the staff was understandably thrilled. The money equaled approximately one-third of the organization’s financial assistance program budget for the year. The Girl Scouts offer financial assistance so that any girl can join despite economic obstacles.

Unfortunately, the Girl Scouts quickly learned that the major gift came with a major stipulation: the organization could not use any of the funds to help transgender children.

Megan Ferland, CEO of the Girl Scouts of Western Washington told Seattle Metropolitan magazine:

Girl Scouts is for every girl. And every girl should have the opportunity to be a Girl Scout if she wants to.”

In other words, accepting the donor’s terms for the gift would have violated the organization’s mission. So, the Girl Scouts made the only decision they could; they returned the gift.

Then, the organization tried to turn a lemon into lemonade. The Girls Scouts launched an Indiegogo crowd-funding campaign to try to recoup the funds. In the campaign, the Girl Scouts explained the situation. However, the organization correctly protected the privacy of the donor by not revealing the donor’s name.

Is It Better or Worse to Send More Appeals?

Part of me is definitely a fan of conventional wisdom. Come on. What’s not to like about wisdom?

On the other hand, part of me hates the notion that we should continue doing things because that’s the way they’ve always been done. All too often, conventional is code for mediocre.

In other words, I think it’s wise to regularly challenge conventional wisdom, so long as we do so thoughtfully and preferably with good data.

So, being a good fundraising nerd, I enjoyed reading a number of articles this week that explore how often charities should send appeals to donors.

Let’s start with the conventional wisdom:

The more appeals you send, the more money you will raise.

Andrew Olsen, CFRE, Vice President of Client Services at the Russ Reid Agency, tested the conventional wisdom. In his blog post “Fundraising Myth Busters: Solicitation Frequency,” Olsen concludes, “Don’t be afraid to add a solicitation or two to your annual line up. As this case shows, you stand to make a lot more money for your cause if you do!”

In his post, Olsen shared testing that was done for two nonprofit organizations:

• In the first case, the organization went from five to 10 solicitations, and year-over-year revenue increased 123 percent.
• The second organization increased from three to six solicitations, and year-over-year revenue increased 110 percent.

Given that the highly respected Russ Reid Agency conducted the tests, I had to take notice. However, Olsen’s post raised more questions for me than it answered:

• While gross revenue increased in both test cases, did net revenue increase significantly?
• What impact does increasing the number of appeals have on long-term donor retention?
• How does increasing the number of appeals impact donor Lifetime Value (LTV).
• If revenue went up, why stop at six or even 10 appeals? Why not send an appeal out monthly, weekly, daily, hourly? When should we stop?

With these questions nagging at me, I was relieved to see that direct-response guru Roger Craver wrote a four-part series on the subject for The Agitator blog (Note: The Agitator is now a paid subscription site.).

Craver looked at solicitation frequency a bit more closely than Olsen did. For example, he reported that the net income from successive appeals goes down after a point. He also showed evidence that some donors on a file are more receptive than others to multiple appeals. While not surprising, it is nice to see the data on this and have a chance to reflect on how screening for solicitation-frequency preference can affect net revenue. Craver shows that sending fewer appeals, particularly to certain individuals, can lead to greater net income.

5 Words or Phrases that Can Cause Donors to Cringe

Words have the power to inspire. They also have the power to alienate. Words can touch us or they can fall flat.

In my previous post, I shared seven words that, when used together, can earn you the respect, trust, and appreciation of prospects and donors.

Mary Cahalane, of the Hands-on Fundraising blog, looked at words from a different perspective in her excellent post “7 Words and Phrases that Should Die.” 

Inspired by Mary, I now want to share my list of planned-giving and major-giving related words and phrases that, at times, make me cringe:

Planned Giving. I know, I just used the term “planned giving,” and now I’m telling you it makes me cringe. Let me explain. The term is jargon. As such, I think it’s fine to use with other nonprofit professionals in the office. It nicely encompasses all of the various ways of planning a gift. Unfortunately, most donors have either no idea what the term means or only a vague, partial notion.

When speaking with a prospect, avoid talking about “planned giving.” Instead, talk with your prospects about their “legacy” and the specific gift structure(s) you want to suggest. For example, talk about a gift in a will or a Charitable Gift Annuity rather than using the confusing and, for the context, overly broad term “planned giving.” If you need a generic term to use with prospects, I prefer “legacy giving,” while I acknowledge that that phrase is not completely without its own problems.

Bequest. When you read the previous paragraph, you might have noticed I avoided this word. You might have guessed that I don’t particularly like the word “bequest.” If you did, you’re right.

First, many people don’t really understand what a “bequest” is. Second, many of those who do understand the word think it is something only rich folks do. Third, the word sounds funereal to some.

Instead of using the word “bequest,” talk with prospects in simple, easy to understand terms. Don’t ask them to make a charitable bequest commitment. Ask your prospects to include your organization in their will.

Philanthropy. This is a great word. It comes from a Greek word literally meaning “love of humankind.” Unfortunately, some prospects, and even some donors, find the word alienating.

I remember speaking with a woman while we were waiting in the wings at a National Philanthropy Day luncheon. I was about to present her with the Partnership for Philanthropic Planning of Greater Philadelphia Legacy Award for Planned Giving Philanthropist of the Year. She told me she was honored to be present, but she wanted me to know, “I’m not really a philanthropist.”

I explained to the award recipient what the word “philanthropy” means. And I explained that it is not a term that is exclusive to the wealthy. I made sure she understood that she is indeed a philanthropist. I’m glad I had the chance to explain “philanthropy” to this caring donor. Sadly, we don’t always have such an opportunity.

If you’re thinking about using the word “philanthropy,” know your audience and know whether the term will resonate. Just keep in mind that 70 percent of people with investible assets of $1 million or more do not consider themselves wealthy, according to The UBS Investor Watch. If your prospects think “philanthropy” is only for the wealthy, and they’re not wealthy, you’re going to have some problems if you toss around the word. Words such as “legacy” or “support” might do nicely instead.

15 Common Planned Giving Myths Debunked (Part 2)

Last week, I presented eight planned giving myths that were identified and debunked by fellow fundraising professionals from the Smart Planned Giving Marketers Group on LinkedIn.

This week, I’m presenting the seven additional myths I promised along with a bonus myth.

Continuing to embrace planned giving myths can be harmful. Doing so will make you less helpful to your donors, less able to raise money, and less able to realize your career aspirations. That’s why I felt it important to identify and debunk some common gift planning myths.

Judging from the large number of readers Part 1 attracted, I know plenty of folks around the world agree with me. While I have numbered the myths, strictly for reference purposes, I am presenting them here in alphabetical order by contributor:

Michael J. Rosen, CFRE, President, ML Innovations:

In my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing, I go into detail when debunking five planned giving myths which I’ll summarize here:

MYTH 9 — Planned giving is very difficult.

Gift planning can certainly be challenging, However, for the most part, it involves fairly simple gifts: Bequests, CGAs, appreciated property (i.e.: stock).

MYTH 10 — One needs to be a planned giving expert to be involved in gift planning.

Nope. While it would be helpful to be a planned giving expert, it’s not necessary. The vast majority of planned gifts will come from Bequests. CGAs and appreciated property are two other simple, popular types of planned gifts. You don’t need to be an overall planned giving expert to master those planned giving vehicles. However, you should be familiar with other gift planning options and know who to call for assistance when a donor wants to talk about those other options.

MYTH 11 — All planned gifts are deferred.

No, they’re not. For example, a gift of appreciated stock is a current gift. Even with a deferred gift such as a Bequest, depending on the age of the donor, you might not need to wait all that long for the gift to be realized.

MYTH 12 — Good marketing focuses on organizational needs.

Nope. Good marketing actually involves being donor centered.

MYTH 13 — Planned gift marketing should be passive.

Many development pros think it is inappropriate to actually ask for a planned gift. However, 88.7 percent of donors say otherwise. So, why have only 22 percent of Americans over the age of 30 been asked to make a planned gift?”

Charley Shirley, CPA, Senior Consultant, Donor By Design Group LLC:

Why “Ask”?

At Michael Rosen Says…, I listen to my readers. And, I even sometimes take requests.

Recently, I received an email from Anton Wishik, a professional editor who recently transitioned to the development world. I thank him for the message. He wanted to know why I insist on using the word “ask” as a noun.

The inquiry caught my attention for a number reasons:

1. As a former newspaper editor, the proper use of language continues to matter to me.

2. According to the good folks at Merriam-Webster, the word “ask” is indeed a verb, not a noun. So, Mr. Wishik has a valid point.

3. Mr. Wishik’s inquiry gives me the chance to write about one of my favorite topics: The “ask.” (Ooops, there I go again.)

With his permission, here is the email I received from Mr. Wishik:

As a longtime editor who just recently started working in the planned giving industry, I cringe at the use of the word ‘ask’ as a noun, which I had never seen/heard before. So do many other writing professionals; here’s one comment made at Merriam-Webster’s site: Marianna Zhabokritsky · Court Reporter at Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario), ‘So ‘ask’ is now being used as a noun? ….  Please tell me that it is still considered to be an improper use of the English language! Highly irritating!’

I’m not a stuffy editor and I realize fully that the language is constantly evolving, with new words joining the lexicon almost daily. I’m not even saying that ‘ask’ shouldn’t officially join the language as a noun, much like ‘tell’ has come into wide usage as a noun from poker. Maybe the words ‘request,’ ‘query,’ or ‘solicitation’ don’t quite describe the action taken by a [Planned Giving Officer].

I see that you use ‘ask’ as a noun, and I’m sure you have an opinion on the subject — and thought you might want to blog about it!”

Well, as I’ve said, I’m happy to take requests from time to time.

To help me explore the issue of “ask” as a noun, I’ve enlisted my good friend Laura Fredricks, author of the best-selling book The Ask and the new e-book Winning Words for Raising Money. Here is what Laura had to say:

It is so common that when anyone wants anything in life…they ‘ask.’ We have grown up to ask, politely, for what we want. We don’t ‘request’ we ‘ask.’

Taking this to our professional fundraising level, we have taken the ‘ASK’ to a sophisticated level. Asking for money takes organization, structure, focus and follow up. Comparing our ‘ask’ to a ‘request,’ ‘ask’ wins hands down because it has more impact and meaning. A ‘request’ is fleeting but an ‘ask’ has presence and attention. The person being asked knows that an important decision is about to be made.”

I agree with Laura. When a development or sales professional puts forth an “ask,” he or she has already done a great deal of work. The prospect has been identified, educated and cultivated. The professional has evaluated the prospect’s situation and has determined the most appropriate thing to ask for.

For their part, prospects usually understand that the “ask” will likely lead to some type of negotiation rather than a simple yes/no conclusion.

The noun “ask” implies more than just the sentence making the “ask.” It refers to the sentence and everything that has led up to it.

In development, we ask for donations. So, it seems silly to me to use a word that is different from the verb when we need a noun. When we talk about the act of asking for a donation, we are talking about the “ask” not the “request” or the “query.”