Giving crowdfunding a go

So far, I have never run a crowdfunding campaign. But I'm willing to give it a try. 


After all the Royal Academy turned to crowdfunding to raise the money to bring Al Wei Wei to London. And the Smithsonian is using crowd funding to save Neil Armstrong’s Apollo 11 spacesuit.
 
Some years ago I worked with an organization in Australia which supported artists and arts groups in their fundraising. One of its most successful programs was to promote crowdfunding, which proved especially useful for emerging artists seeking funds for new projects, or for touring.  Even for young artists seeking funding for study overseas.

Going back to the basics - always a great place to go - why wouldn't crowd funding be a great way to fundraise?

First of all you need a compelling case for support. What about bringing Chinese dissident art great, Al Wei Wei to London? Or saving Neil Armstrong’s spacesuit? Not bad, don't you think?

Then you have to establish your constituency. Whom are you going to approach? Who is most likely to give to this cause? In crowd funding, that decision is pretty well made for you. They will be people already close to you. Your friends and friends of friends. The people on your database, the people who have come to your events, your school or college, made a donation in the past, or signed up to your newsletter.

What are you offering them? You are offering them an opportunity to become further involved with what you do.

You will be benefiting from that fundraising 101 perennial, the Pareto principle. By offering a hierarchy of gift levels much of your targets will come from the small number of donors who have the greatest capacity and inclination. At the same time you will have been democratic and given as many people as are interested a chance to support you.

(The author of a Harvard study has concluded “Crowdfunding has enabled a democratization of access to funding.”)

Most importantly, you will be recognizing and involving your donors. They will get a piece of you, some part of your cause as a thanks and reward for their gift.

I'm not an expert in crowd funding but I'm willing to give it a try. Meantime, here is a blog on 5 Ways to Supercharge Your Next Crowdfunding Campaign, from the excellent 101Fundraising site.

If anyone is willing to give me a go, I'd be happy to help put together a crowd funding fundraising campaign. Send me a message.

How do you get the rich to support the arts?

The typical Aussie billionaire finds his fulfillment in watching himself climbing up the Rich List.

So said art and film critic John McDonald, adding he could name only two out of Australia's 39 billionaires who had “a cast-iron commitment to art.”

His turn of phrase is interesting, if innocent. A look at the list of Australian billionaires reveals that the majority are - if not casting iron exactly - certainly engaged in mining or construction. Digging holes and building towers, I would suggest, tend not to be the occupations of aesthetes and art lovers.

Much of the rest of McDonald's article relates to corporate rather than individual support for art. However, it is his suggestion that the rich should support the arts that concerns me. I agree that it would be nice if there were more support for the arts. Equally, I believe it is important that we do what we can to encourage philanthropy  of any kind from the wealthy and not so wealthy more generally. However, there is a another side to this equation. That is the side of the beneficiaries of philanthropy - whether they be the arts and artists, or other sections of our civil society.

The responsibility of those of us who work for civil society is to enter into a positive dialogue with the wealthy and make the case that we are worthy of support. McDonald makes these points in the final paragraphs of his piece. "Many donors, large and small, complain that they have been treated with rudeness or a lack of consideration," he says. "Sending out letters and starting campaigns will never do the trick."

Of course not. What we need to do is investigate and understand the minds of our potential patrons. The comment I made above about digging holes building towers was intended as a clue. To start with we need to identify whom the most likely supporters will be. What are their interests and what do they value?

Interests amongst the first and second and second generation that dominate the Australian very wealthy tend to remain close to the source of their wealth.  Their preoccupation is with the industries from which their money has come and they hope will continue to come. Miners and builders tend not to be very interested in the arts. However, some are philanthropic. Of the Aussie billionaire miners, Andrew Forrest gives generously to indigenous programs.  Of the billionaire developers, Frank Lowy has given time and money to football. There are readily found clues in the background of each which point to these preferences. Their personal stories have been told again and again in the media.

The two billionaires whom McDonald specifically mentions as supporters of art are are Kerry Stokes (media) and Kerr Neilson (finance). Both are art collectors, the latter owns a gallery. In my view he unfairly overlooks the Pratts (Packaging) and Packers (Media and Gambling). Both are billionaire families who have made substantial contributions to performing and visual arts over decades. In fact, he dismisses James Packer's $65 million commitment to the arts as "a sweetener" to a property development - Barangaroo - in which Packer has a substantial interest. This, though, is to overlook the history of involvement in the arts of other members of the Packer family.

Family background has its influence on philanthropy. James Packer could have linked his sweetener to indigenous matters or to sport, either of which would have gained him brownie points with the government. Philanthropic decisions are rarely made unilaterally. The Pratt family link to the arts can be discovered through the biography of its principal characters.

Incidentally there is an honorable list of Australia's not quite, or once-but-no-longer billionaire families and individuals who do support the arts.  The Balnaves (media), the late Elizabeth Murdoch (mother of media magnate, Rupert), the Fairfax family (another media owning family), the Myer family (retail) and the Belgiorno-Nettis family (civil engineering) John Kaldor (fabric), Pat Corrigan (freight).

My point?  We enlist the wealthy by identifying those who are most likely to share our values and beliefs, developing relationships with them and offering them opportunities to support our work where it most seems to match their own interest. In my view there is nothing to be gained by complaining about or hectoring those who may have other genuinely held values, beliefs and interests.

What is a culture of philanthropy?

What is a culture of philanthropy?  It’s a phrase that has gained a great deal of popularity over the last few years. 

Google the phrase.  I did, as I wrote this blog and what did I find?

An article by Simone Joyeaux, one of the best known US major gift fundraising pundits.  An article from NonProfit Quarterly Newswire, a leading US nonprofit sector journal. A webinar, by Compass Point (sponsored by NonProfit Quarterly).  Compass Point is a leading US consulting and training  organisation.  Two whitepapers from two more consultants showed up on my lap top screen, and, finally,on that first page of hits, an article in Fundraising Success Magazine by another leading fundraising pundit, Pamela Grow.

By the way, check out all these links and sign up to their newsletters because collectively they will provide a rich flow of knowledge and expertise for you as a fundraiser. I read all of them regularly. (Or, you can take the easy route by checking out Artful Training’s Facebook Page, where such articles are regularly posted)

But, what do I think a culture of philanthropy is. And, what would one look, feel and sound like?  Here’s my version of a fictitious organisation with an embedded culture of philanthropy.

Let's imagine it is an Art Gallery. And imagine that you are donor. Suppose you go in, perhaps to have a coffee and enjoy the latest exhibition. Of course, as you walk in the main entrance, prominent is an attractive 'roll of honour' displaying the names of all those individuals, foundations and companies whose philanthropy has contributed to the success of the gallery. You get a thrill of recognition, as you see your name amongst them.

As you walk past the welcome desk you exchange warm greetings with the staff member who sits behind it. You know each other by name. Likewise, the volunteer who is sitting at the information desk greets you by name. And you too, a volunteer yourself,  have spent some time sitting in this chair. In the café, the barista gives you a special smile. You know that he is a young artist and you ask how he is going?

While you're having your coffee, a young lady from the fundraising office pops down. She says, that the office had heard that you were in the building .She brings the Head of Philanthropy’s apology, that she can't come down and say hello - she’s in a meeting. However, they thought to take this opportunity of sharing with you their latest donor newsletter which is just about to be mailed out. When she is gone, and as you sip your coffee and enjoy your carrot cake , you browse through the newsletter. You are pleased to see notice of a special preview for friends and donors before the next exhibition and you check your PDA and discover that you are free to attend.

Fortified by coffee and cake, you decide it is time to enjoy some art. As a donor and the volunteer you have free access to all the galleries. Nonetheless, you think it is appropriate to put a $10 note into the donations box as you pass into the main gallery. Walking into the gallery feels like walking into a room of friends. There are pictures and objects there that you have long enjoyed and it is always refreshing to see them. In the next room, you are delighted to see a group of children engaged in learning. The galleries Education Officer smiles and waves at you. The education activities at the gallery, you know are sponsored by a local bank.

The main exhibition, too, has a sponsor acknowledgement displayed at the entrance way and discreetly on each of the exclamatory labels that accompany the artworks. Of course, you know that the quality of the exhibitions and the education program and the gallery generally is reliant on sponsorship and donations.

After an enjoyable hour or so soaking in the arts and the ambience you’re heading out again, much uplifted. As you walk out, the gallery director and one of the members of the board are coming in. They, too, greet you warmly. In fact, the board member is an old friend and it was she who first cultivated your interest in the gallery. And, it was the gallery director and she who visited you a couple of years ago and offered you the opportunity of becoming a donor. You remember her explaining how much she had enjoyed making a gift and how it had continued to reward her in many ways. After thinking it over you too made a significant gift. The investment you made has repaid you many, many times.

Misunderstanding corporate partnerships

The furore leading to the withdrawal of corporate partner, Transfield Holdings from the  Sydney Biennale was unfortunate to say the least. However a better understanding of the range and nature of corporate partnerships could have made a difference.

A big part of the misunderstanding related to the nature of the partnership. The second part related to the nature of the partner, Transfield Holdings. The two are interrelated and one can often be a predictor of the other. Fundraisers generally understand this. However non-fundraisers often don't.

Firstly, you should look at the nature of the partnership between a business and  a nonprofit.  To confuse matters there is a whole plethora of different descriptions of business partnerships with acronyms like CP, CSR, CSI, CI and CRM*. Most widely used of all and usually misused as a catchall phrase is "sponsorship". In my view this misuse seems to have also been perpetrated by the Australian Minister for the Arts.

When I'm training fundraisers, I usually talk of a spectrum of types of business partnership ranging from the soft and subtle to the hard and highly visible. At the soft and subtle end of the spectrum are partnerships that are purely philanthropic. This is where the partner is supporting the organisation without expectation of any tangible benefit. This is usually because of some type of shared value or belief. This is what I would argue was in fact the case in respect of Transfield Holdings and the Biennale.  The owners of Transfield Holdings, the Belgiorno-Nettis family,  have been closely associated with the art show since its inception.  Franco Belgiorno-Nettis was the Biennale's first major donor and he until his death, then his son  have been on the board of the organisation ever since.

In the middle of  the spectrum from soft to hard are partnerships with companies wanting to put something back into the community. Usually they want this for business reasons such as wanting good relations with government, a particular community, or the public generally. This is very often the reason why banks, mining companies and oil explorers form partnerships with nonprofits.

At the hard and highly visible end are  partnerships that are marketing driven. These usually involve businesses that have something to sell to the public.  They hope that their association with a non-profit will enhance their brand and  directly increase their sales. Often there are some direct promotional activities associated. For example, a competition or product sampling at the sponsored event. It is this hard and highly visible type of partnership that can accurately be described as a 'sponsorship'. The obvious sign that it is 'sponsorship' are highly visible company, brand or product logos.

This is where the nature of the partner can be a predictor. A FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) company such as a soft drink or an ice cream manufacturer is most likely to be interested in the type of partnership that will have a direct effect on sales and market share.

A company, that doesn't sell direct to the public but is dependent on public or government goodwill for its business is likely to want to be seen 'doing good'.  These companies will talk about 'putting something back into the community'. Sometimes these may be a parent company which owns a large number of brands and products.  For example, Unilever has a strategy quite separate from its brands, such as Dove Soap or Ben & Jerry's Icecream. Whilst the brands and products may be involved in marketing driven sponsorships, the parent company is likely to be involved in a less commercially driven, - a longer term partnership with a community activity. Often that activity is located in a community to which it is geographically linked in some way. For example, where its HQ or biggest factories are, or  its raw materials come from, or from where it hires its workers.

Would the stoush that affected the Biennale have happened if all those involved had a better grasp of corporate partnerships? There are many types and there are many reasons that a nonprofit might be attractive to a corporate partner. This is, of course, the beauty of corporate partnerships for nonprofit organisations.

* Corporate Philanthropy, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Investment, Community Investment and Cause Related Marketing. I call the acronyms the 'alphabet soup'!