Really big gifts are transformational

I love being a major gift fundraiser.  I am convinced that it is the most effective and enjoyable form of fundraising.  So I was thrilled to come across a slew of blogs on major gift fundraising this week.

The great thing about major gifts from the perspective of a nonprofit is that they make major initiatives possible.  Terry Burton, blogs "Really big gifts can have a transformational effect on a nonprofit organization". Terry amongst other things is the author of a definitive text on Naming Rights. Naming Rights, you will know often go with transformational gifts. Reading his book is a good way to begin to plan how you will build a naming rights policy into your major gift strategy.

But back to the more recent blogs I mentioned. Fundraising consultant, David Landsdowne talks about Board Misperceptions and Other Issues Related to Major Gifts.  Among the misconceptions he deals with that old chestnut "We need to raise $100,000. Let's just find a hundred people who'll give $1,000 each."  He also reinforces the importance of stating a dollar amount when asking for a gift.  My favourite definition of asking for a gift comes from another fundraising consultant.  He says asking for a gift is simply putting a figure on the table.

The  blog Ten Reasons (Besides Money) That You Should Plan a Capital Campaign Now!  by fundraising consultants Gail Perry and Andrea Kihlstedt is worth a look as you think about your own potential to get stuck into major gift fundraising. This is the question they pose:

"Do you have big dreams for your organization but find yourself limited to taking tiny steps forward? Wouldn't you love to move forward boldly and make an even bigger—maybe even a huge—difference in the world? Are you ready to be inspired and excited by big thoughts and plans?"


The word 'transformational' was used in the title of the comprehensive research paper (download as .pdf) published by the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies. The headline quote in the exec summary says: "Major gifts play a transformational role in terms of making a gift that is really significant and can often make a huge difference to the organisation". The study is worth you dipping into again to remind you that, "Many... see major gifts as the most ‘underpotentialised’ area of community support in Australia". Also that major gifts have "great unrealised potential as a funding model for community need".

Pro Bono News wrote a very good summary of the paper you could revisit: Major Giving Report in Australia - Donor & Fundraiser Perspectives.

Capital Appeals are their own reward  happens to be about the institution where I was first engaged as a major gift fundraiser. It celebrates the end of a successful capital campaign for a Centre for Carbon Innovation at Edinburgh University.  My first, much earlier role as a major gift fundraiser was the start of a campaign for a Centre for Inflammation Research for the same university.

Can you suggest any other good sources of inspiration and advice on major gifts?

Whiteboards and herbal tea

There's a bit of a barney going on about 'Strategic Philanthropy' between a couple of prominent US 'philanthropoids' . It's fun to read yet somehow I feel that it’s forgotten a basic of philanthropy. Philanthropy is about love of mankind.  Real people not statistics.

William Schambra , started the ding dong with a provocative address in which he suggested that foundations in general and the Hewlett-Packard Foundation in particular were preoccupied with "whiteboards and herbal tea".  Well that wasn’t precisely what he said though it's amongst the memorable phrases.  What he was arguing was that there is a trend, in foundations especially, toward applying scientific models and metrics.  This, he says, threatens to usurp actually going to the frontline and listening to the wisdom and experience of those working at achieving the objectives of the grant seeking charity.

In response Paul Best, the head of the Hewlett-Packard Foundation paints a picture from an imagined past.  What if, he says, 19th Century philanthropy had ignored newly emerging medical research into bacteria and accepted frontline advice based on past practice and local wisdom?  Would serious problems have been tackled? (Note, that he has conflated the original argument into a defence of science as a whole, rather than Schambra's example which referred to a particular use of a specific scientific approach to foundation decision making).

The initial argument, it is acknowledged by Schambra, actually was made in an article Letting Go  in Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR).   It presents a real life case study of a foundation (Hewlett-Packard funnily enough!) which funded, entirely off its own bat, a  program that failed in its objectives.  A little while later some people closely involved with the intended beneficiaries of that funding came back to the foundation with a much better considered proposal.  A proposal designed from the perspective of the beneficiaries, in the knowledge of their specific circumstances and conditions.  It was funded and it was a success.

Now I am a fundraiser not a philanthropoid. For me, resonating through this argument is a more important one for  fundraisers.  When you are making your case for support or when you are running stewardship programs, are  you taking your donors or potential donors to the frontline? Are you introducing them to the people for whom their support makes a difference?

Creating a case for support in my experience is one of the hardest things a fundraiser has to do. It requires you to take a leap out of your world and into the wider world where your beneficiaries and your donors are.  You will have to talk to beneficiaries and learn their needs, wants and aspirations and turn these into stories, using sounds, feelings and pictures.

Of course, there's another strategy that you can use. How much time are you actually spending time in the frontline yourself.  Working alongside your program staff and the beneficiaries of your work. Or at the very least interacting with program staff, asking them questions and showing interest in what they do.

In fact by building rapport with your program staff, spending time in their shoes you will be able to do a much better job of  selling your case for support and dealing authentically with your donors and prospects