Will philanthrocapitalists and hyperagents really change the world?

"As philanthropy enters a second golden age, real social change is getting lost in the hype of market-based giving," writes Linsey McGoey in Fortune.

The first 'golden age' was the 19th century, the time of Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller Sr., McGoey reminds us. According to her, "From Carnegie’s spending on public libraries to Rockefeller’s investment in biomedical advances, their giving helped to shift charity from the dispensing of alms in a largely unsystematic manner to a business in itself, overseen by paid philanthropic advisors".

One trend in the ‘second golden age’ that is significant, she suggests,  is 'philanthrocapitalism'. This she summarizes as "a more muscular philanthropy that seeks to combine profits with poverty alleviation".  She is not entirely accurate. Matthew Bishop and Michael Green, who coined the term, described the concept succinctly as "philanthropy led by the world's wealth creators... applying business techniques and ways of thinking to their philanthropy".

Paul Schervish, cited several times by Bishop and Green, is the scholar who has, more than any other, studied the philanthropy of US wealth creators. He described one of the characteristics wealthy philanthropists' as 'hyperagency'. Hyperagency means “… being able to construct a self in a world that transcends the established institutional limits and, in fact creates the limits for others”.

Schervish also points out that these hyperagents are the 'producers' of philanthropy in a market where the currency is not money but emotions, and the producers are not troubled by competition.

Another trend in the second golden age, according to McGoey is the effective altruism movement, championed by Peter Singer. Singer has declared Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates  “the most effective altruists in history.”

McGoey's concern is that the hype around the second golden age is ignoring questions about its effectiveness. "Its progress," she says "often seems to be measured and underpinned by self-sustaining feedback loops". Giving in the US has remained stubbornly around 2% of GDP. 

Foundations are a growth industry in the US yet extreme poverty , meanwhile, continues to rise.

"Today’s philanthrocapitalists see a world full of big problems that they, and perhaps only they, can and must put right," Bishop and  Green wrote. 

Another commentator, Michael Edwards, sets that notion to rights in 'Small Change: Why Business Won't Save the World', his rebuttal of Bishop and Green’s book. Edwards believes that “business thinking and social transformation operate on entirely different logics”.

Finally, McGoey points to an alarming paradox from the first golden age which, hopefully, is not destined to be emulated in the second. She quotes from David Nasaw, Carnegie’s biographer, “Carnegie … became, if anything, more ruthless in pursuit of profits once he had determined that those profits would be distributed during his lifetime.” Then she juxtaposes this tweet from Martin Shkreli, “I donated a total of $5,000,000 to various causes recently. Looking forward to telling you all about it.”  Shkreli is the former hedge fund trader, who was vilified for raising the price of Daraprim - a drug that fights parasitic infections in AIDS and other immune-supressed patients - by 5,000%

No idea where to start interacting with your prospects?

"I have to start raising funds from individuals in a country where HNWIs have a very poorly developed culture of giving.

"...We have no idea where to start interacting with our prospects"

This message could have come from any number of schools and universities that I know of and, I suspect, a large number of other nonprofits. It has certainly been true of several organizations where I have worked either as a manager or a consultant. I've seen the problem, heard the challenge and felt the anxiety. Or you might say "Been there, done that and bought the T-shirt!"

In my experience there is a simple solution. Get out there and start talking to these HNWI prospects. It's not as difficult as you might think. The second part of this reader's problem – "a very poorly developed culture of giving" – could be precisely the hook on which to start the conversation.

The process starts as with almost all fundraising by identifying and researching the people whom you want to go and meet with. The criteria that you used to identify such people will vary according to your situation. However, in some way it will be related to their capacity to give (not just money but also experience and networks) and the strength of their connection to your institution or cause[1]. Writing this causes me to hope you are reflecting on the importance of fundraisers or someone on your fundraising team doing proper prospect research.

Having identified and qualified a list of prospects with whom you have some connection then the message I suggest you send them goes something like this:

Dear Name

You are one of our most significant supporters/friends/alumni and we are very proud of our connection with you. We know we haven't spoken with you a lot in recent times and now we would like to do so with a very specific purpose.

You, I am sure are aware, that institutions such as ours thrive, grow and make a difference in the community because of the support we receive from many quarters.

However, we recognize that one area where we have a challenge is that we have a very poorly developed culture of asking for gifts.

The purpose of this letter is to ask if we can come and talk with you to get your advice on how we might begin to approach this challenge. We feel that because of your experience and success in your field you will have faced similar challenges and will have a great deal of wisdom to offer us.

I will telephone your office sometime next week to see if I can arrange a time when we can meet you.

Yours sincerely

Of course the actual wording of such a letter will vary with your specific situation. However, the basic structure suggested above is:

• One or more opening factual statements showing that you identify with the reader.  Put yourself in their shoes. What is true about them and what is important to them enough that they will continue to read the letter?

• A short phrase summarizing your mission or case for support.

• State the specific problem (note the re-frame as “asking” not “giving”. Us not “them”).

• A request for their advice (remember the fundraising adage, "Ask someone for money and they will give you advice. Ask them for advice, and they will give you money")

• Timeframe and an indication that you intend to follow this with an action.

Then, do follow-up. Make a time to go and talk. When you do have the conversation remember another important piece of fundraising wisdom: "you have two ears and one mouth - use them in that ratio!" You will learn more and develop a better rapport by listening. 

Ask them what they think about you. How well do they think you are performing? What could you do differently? What would they do in your shoes? Who else do they know who it would be worth having a similar conversation with?

Then you will exit by saying “Thank you for those important suggestions. I will keep you up-to-date on our progress and, if I may, come back and bounce a few ideas of you at some other time.”

Of course, this is only the start of a relationship. However, you will have broken the ice. In all likelihood, you will come away having gleaned some valuable nuggets of information about the prospects, her interests, values, and connections.

This first interaction should only be the beginning of a series of interactions which you will use to bring that person closer and closer to what your organization does. If you treat their ideas and connections with respect you will undoubtedly when their support and that of others like them.

In another blog, I will suggest some ideas on how to continue to bring major prospects closer and closer.

---

[1] Your target here will be someone who is one of the “wealthy, wise and well connected”.

Don't research, don't ask

One university Vice Chancellor whom I have worked with takes the view "just ask!"

Luckily for him, his fundraising team doesn’t take this to heart.

Many years ago, when I should have known better, I accompanied another Vice Chancellor on a visit to ask a prospect for a seven figure gifts. I had only been engaged by that particular university a few days previously and didn't think it politic to dissuade him from the ask. The ask was made around a boardroom table with several other people in the room. The temperature dropped several degrees and had a pin hit the floor it would have sounded like a dropped dumbbell.

I should have known better because as a newcomer to major gift fundraising I had the good fortune to share an office with a then, little-known breed of professional called a Prospect Researcher. Until then I hadn't known such a job existed. Since then I have been enormously grateful to the skills I learned from her and a growing number of other professional prospect researchers with whom I've worked.

Success at major gift asking depends on you asking (or as I prefer to say offering an opportunity) for a gift that will make a significant difference in an area which is central to the giver's moral universe. Research will help you understand that person’s moral biography[1].

Research also help you know the size of gift that a potential donor is able to make. This is likely to be a product of their past giving record, where the opportunity that you are offering fits within that moral universe, and their wealth (assets and liquidity).

Research will also help you identify the prospects social and professional networks. This will help you work out whom to involve with you as you begin to draw the prospect towards the opportunity to give and who can help you weave the narrative of your case for support.

It will also help you know the prospects social and cultural tastes and enable you to plan a series of events and moments which are likely to develop the bonds of friendship between the donor and your organization.

To be more concrete, this is what you want to discover through prospect research

• Basic contact and demographic details, including addresses, occupation, family circumstances, age and education.
• Networks and affiliations such as particular recreations, clubs and societies professional and personal), professional networks including board and trustee roles
• Already existing philanthropy (ideally including amounts given) and volunteering
• Income, which can often be inferred from occupation and other indicators; and wealth, which is often much harder to know and seldom has a basis in appearances.

It is my belief that the majority of major gift prospects will expect you to have done this homework. Not doing it and wasting someone's time with an ill judged ask is a major discourtesy. 

The biggest ask I've managed was the leading gift to a medical research institute.  The final stage was a dinner hosted by the chief executive of the organization, in an exclusive and hard to obtain historic venue. There was live classical music (another of his interests) and a formal presentation by the leading researcher and a full table of the institution's leaders and existing supporters. A proposal that had been carefully shaped to conform to the giver's well known tastes and inclinations had previously been submitted. We knew this was what the donor expected.

It was the discourtesy of not doing research that resulted in the frosty silence that I first described above.

---

[1] ‘Moral biography’ is the term used by Paul Schervish, the leading researcher of HNWI philanthropy. The term moral biography refers to the way that individuals conscientiously combine in daily life two elements: personal capacity and moral compass (Schervish, PG 2006, 'The Moral Biography of Wealth; Schervish, PG 2008, 'Why the Wealthy Give').

The very, very rich got even richer

Wealth-X and UBS have just released their 2014 research into the world's billionaires. 

The numbers have increased, which will surprise nobody who subscribes to Thomas Picketty's argument that you and I will never catch up to the wealth of people who are already rich.

There are now 2,325 people with a net worth of at least $1 billion this year – 155 more, or a 7% increase, from 2013. They collectively control $7.3 trillion dollars in total wealth. Jacob Davidson, in Money put is, "that means a group of people about the size of a typical suburban high school student population could fund the entire United States defense budget for 14 years." 

The report provides some interesting tidbits for those who are interested in the lives of the rich and famous. For example it offers a month by month billionaires' social calendar, noting the events they are most likely to attend. The US Masters and PGA Championship feature prominently . But also, at least 23% of the world’s billionaires are likely to attend at least one, if not more, of the many elite art shows held annually around the world.

However, more comforting is the discovery that more than 70% are active in the philanthropic sphere. Excluding future pledges, the report says "billionaires, on average, donate just over US$100  million cumulatively over their lifetimes. This is equivalent to 3% of their net worth – more than the average  billionaire’s real estate holdings".

Topping the list are Chicago's billionaires. 100% of these billionaires are active philanthropists. New York and Los Angeles follow at 96%. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia at 95% beats Singapore's 94% of philanthropically inclined billionaires. Only 85% in London show interest in philanthropy.

Education, and Higher Education are top two on their list of preferred causes. The Arts come fourth after Health. Religion, unlike for the population more generally (most studies show) falls bottom with only about 4.5% supporting church, temple or mosque.

Chicago's billionaires give especially towards improving living conditions and the developmentof their city. Those from Tokyo, in contrast, show interest in disaster relief and the environment.

Also just published is a new book by Brookings Institute academic Darrell M West 'Billionaires: Reflections on the Uppercrust.' One of this book's cautions is that we need to be aware of new models of billionaire gift giving. Cultivating wealthy individuals requires considerable tact, persistence, personal contacts, and know-how, he rightly notes. Being results oriented, many billionaires focus on concrete objectives, and they want demonstrable impact for their money.

West cites Matthew Bishop Michael Green, the authors of Philanthrocapitalism . They describe how the very wealthy bring skills and tools from the business world to their philanthropy. They push nonprofits to focus "in some cases for the very first time" on specific outcomes for their work and performance metrics.

He could also have cited Paul G Schervish, who coined the term hyperagency for the behaviour of the very wealthy. As he describes it:

"Hyperagency  is the ability to exercise effective control over the conditions and circumstances of life rather than merely living within them. Hyperagency, in contrast to agency, means that the wealthy are able to construct a world that suits their interests". Schervish, PG & Herman, A 1988, 'Empowerment and Beneficence'.

In a later work, Schervish - who has studied the philanthropy of the very wealthy in United States in greater depth that anyone - has also identified 13 strategies followed by philanthropists in what he likes to call the New Golden Age of Philanthropy. (Schervish, PG 2000, 'The modern Medici')

Theresa Lloyd and Beth Breeze have recently published a study of why rich people in the UK give to charitable causes.Lloyd, T & Breeze, B 2013, 'Richer Lives: Why Rich People Give' 

For Australians, a work worth reading on what motivates major donors (though not billionaires per se) has been written by  Wendy Scaife, Katie McDonald and Sue Smyllie (2011 'A Transformational Role).