Archive for the 'Fundraising' Category

What Everyone Should Know About Membership Campaigns

Members Only Cardboard signOh no, here it comes. When times are tough for Community Benefit Organizations, a single article like this one (originally from the Wall Street Journal, then quoted at the Chronicle of Philanthropy) can be enough to send boards and EDs scurrying to get ahead of the latest new fundraising fad.

Membership is by no means a new fad. It is one that is used by many high profile organizations – museums, Nonprofit Resource Centers, public broadcast stations. And it can indeed provide a fairly reliable stream of money.

However, before the study quoted in the WSJ gets your board all fired up to institute a membership program, there are words of caution you may want to heed.

Caution#1:
Membership dues are paid annually.

Result: While non-member donors are accustomed to giving throughout the year, members are used to being asked / giving once a year – period.

Caution #2:
Memberships tend to be inexpensive.

Result: Not only do funds from members only come in once a year, their giving levels barely graze the bottom wrung of a typical annual appeal.

Caution#3:
Almost by definition, membership is transactional.

Members provide financial support in exchange for a tangible set of benefits – free admission, a monthly arts calendar, discounts on classes, a Pavarotti DVD set.

Result: While members certainly feel supportive of the cause, members can also be heard saying, “I’m considering not renewing my membership this year. I rarely use it…” Their thoughts about their membership are not first and foremost as a donor who is supporting a cause, but as the user of a product or service. The transactional nature of the relationship is further reinforced by ongoing payment-due renewal notices, that are worded to focus on what members will no longer receive if they allow that membership to lapse.

Caution #4:
“Transactions” require more work for the organization than straight donations.

Result: In addition to standard fundraising costs, membership entails expenses for all the “stuff” the member receives.

Caution #5:
Net proceeds are all that count.

Result: Once you factor in the cost beyond the actual member perks – the staff time to secure and manage those items, as well as the ongoing “renewal” notices – might more money be raised if the staff were doing something other than ordering mugs or creating “member events?”

As we summarize the revenue side of the membership equation, we see the following:

Membership is once-a-year, low-dollar revenue from purchasers who, while supportive of the cause, expect to receive “stuff” in exchange for their donation. Membership is transactional rather than engaging, and those transactions require more staff time than other donation programs.

In addition to these financial cautions, there is one additional caution that relates not to revenues, but to the very mission of the organization.

Caution #6:
Membership is defined by exclusivity. Either one is a member or not.

Result: Effecting community change requires a culture of INclusivity. It requires as many hands on deck as possible. It requires that an organization provide service to anyone who needs it, regardless of (and often specifically in contrast to) their ability to pay for that service.

How does it impact a museum’s mission to “provide education and foster appreciation in the community” if they provide discounts only to those who can afford membership? Does the mission de facto become “to provide education and foster appreciation only among those who can afford it?”

The same question holds true for a Nonprofit Resource Center whose for-pay workshops are open to anyone, while free workshops are offered only as a perk for its members. Does that Nonprofit Resource Center’s mission de facto become “to serve our members,” rather than “to serve the community?”

The Answer
When we ask, “What are the pros and cons of a membership campaign?” we are considering one approach in a vacuum. And while the pros of that one approach may outweigh the cons, that still doesn’t make it the best choice among a whole realm of options.

So what’s the answer? The answer requires that we consider the range of options for raising money to support your cause, and choose your fundraising strategy by weighing each of those tactics not only against objective criteria, but against each other.

• How much might each approach raise?
• How much work will it take?
• Will those donors become real friends?
• Etc.

Add up and compare your answers and see which comes out on top.

Is it membership? I didn’t think so.

Are you making your decisions in a vacuum? This easy-to-use tool will help you make more effective decisions!

6 Steps for Connecting Donors to What is Possible

Last week I received a note that became the post Joan is Going Nowhere. In that post, Joan described her frustration with her ED’s mandate that fundraising focus on the donor vs. the needs of the population her organization serves.

I am grateful for the great wisdom you all shared with Joan – being gone for much of the week, it felt great to have such good minds to counsel Joan in her work.  Thank you all for making this a great community of support!

As I thought about the root of Joan’s concerns and considered the thoughtful responses you all provided to her, it became clear that what Joan was seeing as an “either/or” did not have to be so. I hope the following 6 Steps begin to show that there are ways to accomplish both – aligning the donor’s desires with more Community-Driven end results.

1) Get Beyond Needs
That means getting beyond the needs of your organization, the needs of the population you serve AND the needs of your donors. Instead, focus on what your organization aspires to accomplish on behalf of the community – the vision for what success would look like.

For example, if you work with a homeless population, what might community-wide success look like? If your organization were 100% successful, what would the community look like?

2) Be Positive
Make sure you are expressing that vision in a positive way, not a negative way. Rather than “ending homelessness” (to continue the example), perhaps your vision is a community where everyone has a home. Or perhaps it is bigger than that – a community where everyone’s basic needs are met. Whatever it is, make it positive.

3) Communicate with Donors about that Vision for Success
Ask THEM what they think is possible. Ask them about their own dreams for what your organization’s “community potential” might be. Take the blinders off, asking, “If money were no object, what might be possible?” See if you can engage them in what is possible for your community.

4) Understand Each Individual Donor
Every individual has a different sense of what is really possible, and you will therefore want to be sensitive to meet folks where they are. There are some who have been frustrated by the incremental approaches many organizations have taken to date, wishing they would work on more visionary systems-changing approaches. Others, however, shun talking about such things, believing it is not possible to create a future that is much different from our past – but still believing that more could be done. Regardless of the visionary extent of their answer, engage them in their own sense of what they DO think is possible.

5) Show Them the Dots – Then Connect Those Dots
Now you can begin to work with the donor to both create the dots and connect the dots. Work with them to envision what the path might be to creating the future that both they AND your organization want. Help them connect those dots, and help them find their place in supporting that work.

6) Make Friends, Not Just Money
The biggest mistake we make with donors is to fail to invite their full friendship. Once they have donated money, that is where the relationship typically stays. We don’t ask them for their connections, their ideas, their experience, their wisdom. We certainly don’t ask them to volunteer, as if asking them to volunteer might somehow offend them.  And that is the worst mistake we can make – failing to turn donors into true friends.

I hope this helps bring those two issues together for you, Joan. Being “donor-centric” doesn’t have to mean pandering or saying whatever will get the gift. It can mean just the opposite – elevating the discussion to both the donor’s AND the organization’s highest dreams for what you can accomplish together – for the people you serve, and for your community.

And when that happens, the fun has just begun!

For +100 strategies for turning donors into friends, check out FriendRaising: Community Engagement Strategies for Boards Who Hate Fundraising but Love Making Friends.

Joan is Going Nowhere

The following note came from one of the readers here at Creating the Future. The subject line was “Feel like I’m going nowhere with fundraising.” I thought I’d share it here, as I know Joan is not alone!

Dear Hildy:
I’m hoping to get advice. I read your blog all the time, and I’m with you on the philosophy of fixing the system as opposed to addressing the symptoms.

I work in fundraising, and I feel like we’re not only merely addressing the symptoms, but we’re actually exploiting the symptoms.

My director is very much of the “donor-centric” philosophy, but that philosophy rubs me the wrong way at my core. To me, my organization exists to address the needs of the population we serve, not the needs of donors. But my director tells me over and over again that the needs of that population cannot be addressed without making the donors feel good about themselves.

I see where she’s coming from, but I feel like we miss the big picture, the opportunity to solve core problems, when our primary focus is on making the donors feel good about giving.

I’m told that, no matter the donor’s motivation (guilt, sympathy, vanity, etc.), as long as they’re giving, the cause has benefited.

This is where I’m stuck. Perhaps that’s true, but I feel like we neglect the big picture, the real solutions when we fundraise to the donors’ fears and egos. I feel like our community suffers when we fragment it by each individual’s personal motivation to give rather than unifying it to address the whole picture, and to perhaps finally solve those greater problems.

I’m reluctant to say it, and so many fundraisers and fundraising blogs try to sell me on otherwise, but I feel like the way we (and most other non-profits) fundraise might be counterproductive to actually creating solutions.

So what can I do? How can I advocate for real, big-picture change when our fundraising is entrenched so deeply in its individualized, donor-centric philosophy?

Sincerely,
Joan

What do you all think? Does the focus on donors actually contradict the ability to focus on the community? Which should be the context of the discussion – donor-centric within a community focus, or community-focus within the donor relationship? Which should guide our work? Do we really have to choose? (Comment button is at the top of this post.)

2/17/09 Note: Check Hildy’s response to Joan here: 6 Steps for Connecting Donors to What Is Possible.