Building profiles is good fundraising

What are we to make of this announcement in the Sydney Morning Herald? 



"Elite private schools are using sophisticated technology in order to tailor their fundraising pitches."

The piece then went on to say that schools use software that:

"Builds profiles on each donor, using census data to estimate wealth based on the average wealth of their suburb and the likelihood of them donating to the school.

"It stores every email a parent or donor has ever sent to the school's fundraising body, their payment and donation history, their volunteering efforts, event attendance and community involvement, to build a profile of the donor and measure their propensity to give."

In other words, schools identify and research fundraising prospects. This is exactly what schools, universities, cultural organizations and other charities ought to be doing if they are serious about fundraising, especially if they are serious about attracting major gifts.


Alfred A. Blum, Director of Advancement at Boston College Law School is cited as the source of the following fundraising maxim:

“The best solicitation occurs when the right prospect is asked for the right gift by the right solicitor at the right time in the right way... For that to occur, research is essential”. [For non-North Americans substitute 'ask' for 'solicit'!]

You as a competent fundraiser will also be able to justify good prospect identification and research from a donor's point of view.  How would you as a donor feel about sitting and listening to a pitch from a fundraiser for a project or cause in which you have absolutely no interest? What if you were asked for an amount that would be impossible for you to consider?  Or, conversely, you were approached for a small gift for something toward which you are strongly motivated and would like the opportunity to be significantly involved with?

Good prospect identification and research stops fundraisers wasting the time and effort of donors (as well as their own time and effort). Good prospect research builds a portrait of a door that tells us their interests, their ability to give and their links with your and other organizations. Good fundraising requires keeping and constantly refreshing this information. Most fundraising software provides ways of doing this.

Additionally, there is a heap of web-based software and searchable databases, freely available or paid for, that can provide valuable information to answer the questions you need to ask about someone's interests, ability to give and linkages.  From this information, you will be able to carefully plan your fundraising approaches so as to not waste the precious time and good regard of people.

The most important consideration though is to once again put yourself in the prospect's shoes.  Every time you record and retain some data about a prospect ask yourself, "If I saw or heard that this was being kept on my record how would I feel?"

If you have any doubts about storing information remember these five principles (adapted from the  Association of Professional Researchers for Advancement Ethics and Professional Standards):

• Keep confidential information protected
• Be sure data is accurate
• Be sure data is relevant
• Be clear about the purpose of your research
• Take responsibility and be accountable for your actions as a professional fundraiser

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”.

Words or Numbers?

One of the enduring debates in the not-for-profit world is what I loosely label words versus numbers or  qualitative versus quantitative. It can take many forms.

I hinted at it in my last blog about the two organisations in India that connect donors with nonprofits. In this blog I aim to look at it further.

This argument has its parallels in other fields, including in the social sciences where it is framed as an argument between positivists and ethnographers. I blogged about another aspect of it under the title Whiteboards and herbal tea. In that I was alluding to an important debate about foundation funding criteria between two leading thinkers in contemporary American philanthropy William Schambra  and Paul Brest .

However, my mind at present is focused on making your case for support and how you might construct appeals. My contention is that words and stories (i.e. the qualitative elements) are far more powerful than numbers and statistics (the quantitative). Another argument might be that pictures are vitally important: but that's an argument for another day.

The argument could also be framed in the heart versus head rubric. Of course, I am not arguing that some numeric data may not be important. For example, when you are making a case for support for a capital campaign it will be important to explain the costing which your campaign is based. It may also be important to provide some information about your organisations overall finances and its balance sheet. Those potential donors who may be considering making very large gifts might (and I emphasise might because it is far from always the case) apply their ‘investment logic’ before they commit to a gift. Supposing, for instance, that they come from the world of business investment decision-making? 

However, it is my belief that for major gifts decisions, in particular, donations are more often made for moral, ethical or even emotional reasons. Donors support medical projects because of a personal history touched by health and medicine. They support educational institutions, again because of a personal history touched by education: and, often as an alumna/us of the institution that they are supporting.

In less biographically touching appeals, I still believe that the emotional, 'heart' pulling effect of stories and the words are far more convincing than statistics. This is true even when the statistics are grim. It is shocking to point out that more than 10 percent of the world lives on less than a dollar a day or, that 17,000 children under age five die every day. 

However, if you can really tell the story, or paint the picture of  a child born in a village in sub Saharan Africa to parents whose every waking moment was devoted to scouring for such miserable sustenance that the harsh environment provided. And that even this survival was everyday threatened by effects of climate change and political upheavals. And then your story continues, that the future of that child can be met  with appropriate help and that they will survive and even thrive. Or better still,  you can show how existing funding is changing the ecosystem and infrastructure in the community where that child lives. In summary, tell a story or paint a picture showing there is hope. Isn't that far more compelling than bare statistics?

The great advantage of storytelling over fact-telling is especially reinforced in these examples from the SOFII website *, each of which uses various combinations of media and technology. Another advantage of making your case with stories is that they lend themselves to being retold in multiple ways (and there's only so much you can do with numbers!!)

• Every day in developing countries thousands of women (mainly) face the difficult task of fetching and carrying water from its source to their homes. It's a grueling daily duty most donors would find very hard to imagine.  This is the story told by WaterAid 

• Martin was volunteering in Afghanistan with when he met a young girl called Hadisa. At eight months old, she was carried hundreds of miles by her father to receive treatment after the village elders tried to stone her to death for the shame they thought she brought to their community. The medical facilities in Kabul were not equipped to deal with the severity of Hadisa’s condition. This was the story that led to  Martin founding Facing the World.

• It’s easy for you to ignore a homeless person as they walk past them on the street, but  if you had a homeless person telling their story on your phone for three days you would see that the issues behind youth homelessness are complex and varied.

Please add your own examples of compelling stories, well told (or even the compelling use of numbers!)

* BTW Here also is the story of SOFII told by its founder - himself a master of storytelling.  

Indian Giving Circles: Qual vs. Quant

Schools, universities, leading cultural organisations and a handful of medical charities aside, nonprofits are rarely successful at attracting support from the very wealthy.

Small and medium-sized nonprofits generally are even less likely to engage with high net worth supporters. One of the reasons may be that, the rich support organisations with which they are connected through their own networks. One solution to this that is beginning to achieve positive results has been the formation of giving circles.

It has been my privilege to have met the founders of two such groups in Mumbai, India where I have been this month. Both are successful. What is interesting is their quite different approach. The difference is one that fascinates me and has wider significance in the discourse around evaluating nonprofits (For examples,  here or here) . The difference can be summarised in my view by that hardy perennial phrase 'qualitative vs. quantitative'.

In the quantitative corner is the better known of the two, Dasra. It was founded 15 years ago by husband-and-wife Deval and Neera. It is Deval whom I have met more than once. He is an engaging, articulate and urbane late thirty something. Both he and Neera are US educated and both former Wall Street analysts. They came to India determined to make a difference using their financial-analytic skills (though of Indian origin, neither are Indian by birth). Over the 15 years, they have developed a formidably successful organisation. It now employs some 40 plus staff, crammed into a ramshackle two-storey building in a downmarket part of West Mumbai. Nowadays, too, it boasts two small outposts (most likely working from home offices) in New York and London.

Dasra says it has assisted inject some US$37 million into nonprofits and social enterprises. It also runs a very successful Indian Philanthropy Forum, which brings together some of India's most active philanthropists and successful nonprofits. A version of the Forum was recently staged in New York for the first time.

Dasra identifies and thoroughly researches both key areas for intervention and potential partner organisations working in those fields. As well as working to thoroughly understand the problem, it investigates which nonprofits and social enterprises may have the skills and capacity to solve it. More often than not it works closely with these organisations to encourage and train them to think and act more analytically. The mechanism it advocates is 'the theory of change'. Their goal is to create solutions that can be 'scaled up' and achieve as big an impact as possible for the resources invested. I once, tongue-in-cheek described this style of approach in an earlier blog as ‘philanthropy for bankers’: I  had Deval partly in mind!

Once, Dasra is satisfied that it has a grasp of the problem and suitable partners it will begin to recruit donors to a 'giving circle'. Members of a giving circle agree to provide a fixed amount over three years to achieve a significant change in the problem area.

The second organisation I have just met on my current trip. It is a semi-formal organisation called Caring Friends. I met its founder, Ramesh in the tiny two room office, up a narrow staircase, that he shares with a former business partner. His support staff comprises a team of two administrators and a driver. Ramesh was a senior manager of a well-known Indian corporation. His travels through India had brought him into contact with the notable activist, Baba Amte and his centre for leprosy patients and the disabled called Anandwan.

Moved by his initial experience he sent an article together with a letter to around 50 of his friends and acquaintances inviting them to support the work of Baba Amte. He became a regular visitor and supporter and his subsequent outlook has been much influenced by the friendship that developed between him and Baba Amte.

Ramesh then began to take an interest in other nonprofits and became aware of their challenges and limitations. These in particular he described to me as the lack of financial resources; their limited vision; and deficiencies in human resources and training. He began to apply his own skills as a business executive to assist nonprofits.

He later found an ally, Nimesh, and together they created Caring Friends. The name is taken from the quote usually attributed to anthropologist,  Margaret Mead: “Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For indeed that's all who ever have”.

Caring Friends is not a legal entity and does not fundraise. Its website makes the point, "In fact, Caring Friends does not have a Bank Account.  We do not accept cheques in our name. Cheques are made directly to the NGOs, hence 100% of the funds go to the NGOs." It adds that “we have zero overheads.”

The group has grown into a network of around 200 wealthy (some very wealthy) individuals who support the nonprofits that Ramesh and Nimesh identify and on which they have undertaken 'due diligence'. These supporters meet every 2-3 months and invites a nonprofit to present their work.

Ramesh describes the due diligence as based on visits to the nonprofits and the areas where they work. These visits are undertaken by Ramesh and Nimesh. Above all, they are looking for integrity. They focus on whether the nonprofit is well ordered, and maintenance aspects such as record-keeping and cleanliness of the premises. Often, he says, they will support the nonprofits out of their personal resources before recommending them to others of the Caring Friends.

Ramesh, who is now in his 70s has retired from his corporate role to become a partner in the small business whose office he still occupies.  This allowed him the flexibility to continue and fund his philanthropic work . Nimesh too, runs a  business.

The support  nonprofits receive through Caring Friends may vary from between 25 to 80% of their total financial resources. Projects featured oin Caring Friends' brochure are making a difference to hundreds of thousands of individuals spread across India.

Both Dasra and Caring Friends are exceptional organisations that - though, very different in approach- are making a major difference. Which, I wonder would be the approach you find most attractive: the very quantitative, methodical approach of Dasra; or the more subjective, qualitative approach of Caring Friends?

And which, are likely to work best to attract wealthy donors where you are? I would be fascinated to hear your answer.

A degree in fundraising? It’s a no-brainer

Is it a case of the cobbler's shoes? Universities are increasingly turning to philanthropy to funds their needs. But how many of them actually teach fundraising?

Charles Keidan asked a similar question recently in Times Higher Education.  "While universities arm themselves with a “philanthropy workforce” and sophisticated donor-profiling software, another question has received far less attention: where is the academic scholarship and teaching about philanthropy?"  Where indeed?

I should declare an interest. It is my fond hope that one day I will find a nook in academia somewhere, where I can devote my time to researching and teaching new generations of practitioners about philanthropy and fundraising.

And I’d like especially to focus on ‘fundraising’. What is the state of play with regard to researching and teaching fundraising at present? I'd be grateful to anyone who can add to the following roll call.

In the US, the two best-known centres for research and teaching of fundraising are the Schoolof Philanthropy at Indiana University  and the Hauser Center at Harvard . (Although, from their brochures it looks as though neither of these offer fundraising as a major).

In the UK, there appear to be three places. A new course has been launched at the University of Chichester. The University of Plymouth is home to Adrian Sargeant, as Professor of Fundraising . Lastly, Cathy Pharoah holds the position of Visiting Professor of CharityFundraising at CASS Business School, University of London. 

Apart from these places in the US and UK, from where will we find any tertiary trained fundraisers?

There are, and this is no bad thing, a growing number of university research centres studying and teaching philanthropy and civil society more widely. Unsurprisingly, the majority of these are in the US. However, according to Times Higher Education, Europe is home to eight dedicated academic centres of philanthropy and two chairs. 

Australia has its Australian Centre forPhilanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, and The Centre for Social Impact ( a four university partnership which includes the  Asia-Pacific Centre for Social Investment and Philanthropy). Of course, the more we understand philanthropy, civil society, the various distinct and hybrid forms of social investment, nonprofit management, NGOs and so on the better.  But none of these in Australia teach (as a major) or research fundraising.

However, it still begs the question of where any of this (including social investment) would be without fundraising? (And, of course, this also links back to where would the institutions where these research and teaching activities exist, be without fundraising?).

Perhaps we can take some comfort from the fact that only recently the question was being asked, “Where is the research and teaching on philanthropic foundations?” In preparing to write this blog I came across this 2010 blog entitled 'Is there a future for the academic study of the philanthropic foundation?'. My own PhD supervisor, Michael Liffman, wrote an article this year in Alliance Magazine, explaining how he came to found what in 2002 was the first Australasian course offering a professional education in grant-making, philanthropy and social investment

I hope that Michael will share my view that a degree in fundraising (given universities are increasingly dependent on fundraising) is equally important in 2014 - and will forgive me stealing his Alliance article's title!

What's the 3rd sector for?

What do we have a third sector for? 
By third sector I mean that group of activities that are done not by elected governments and not by privately owned enterprise. The sector sometimes called the voluntary sector, the civil sector or the non-profit sector.

Let's think of some of the things that this sector is doing today.

• At great risk to their lives humanitarian aid workers are attempting to bring relief to the hundreds of thousands of innocent men and women and children trapped in the maelstrom of Syria Iraq.

• Again, risking their lives, medical workers are dealing with the nightmare of Ebola in central and west Africa

• Scientists and researchers working in our universities and research institutes are discovering new mechanisms for combating and curing life destroying disease.

• Activists of all sorts are putting themselves in dangerous and uncomfortable situations, often defying governments and large corporations in order to promote a vital discourse around the delicate balance between the natural and man-made orders.

• Other activists are fighting for freedom from oppression, torture, executions and shining lights into some of those dark corners of our geo-political world where our governments and commercial enterprises are constrained, or afraid to intervene.

• Organizations are providing support, counseling and practical assistance to a range of minority groups whose votes or dollars are insufficient to trigger the interest of the other two sectors – minority groups such as but not limited to children at risk, disabled of all sorts, minorities of many kinds, refugees, homeless and so on.

• Artistic and cultural artefacts and practices are being preserved and promoted through museums, galleries, theatres, opera houses and concert halls as well as a myriad performing groups and talented individuals.

In all these cases, these activities are happening not because they win votes toward political power or generate financial revenue and private wealth. These activities are happening because thankfully in the circuitry of human existence there are links and conductors of empathy and moral imagination. We are able to see, feel and hear the plight of others then imagine, articulate and execute ways to make a difference.

This, it seems to me, is what the third sector is for. I have nothing but respect for those of my friends and colleagues who have chosen to work in government or private sector. However, I am very comfortable being part of this vital other partner in the success of humankind and the preservation of our globe.

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).

One must travel, to learn (Mark Twain)

 "If the passenger visits better countries, he may learn to improve his own", wrote Samuel Johnson,  in 1755.

As I have spent the past two weeks in India a thing that has struck me as I read my morning news has been the number of stories about local nonprofits. 

It has led me to think afresh about the importance of nonprofits (NGOs) and social enterprise in the space between what government and the for profit sector can do. It is in this space where change can happen, a difference can be made and humanity can be found. What would the world be like without all the various organisations in that space where you live?

There are said to be around 200,000 nonprofits in India more than one for every 600 of its 1.2 billion people. In India, as in much of the developing world, the ability of governments and the for profit sector to deal with the huge demands of extreme poverty and a fast growing population has limits. Here are some examples of how Indian nonprofits are stepping up to the challenges. 

Keshav Srushti in a bid to spread awareness on solar cooking, will be recruiting students from 500 schools across Mumbai to cook solar-powered dishes. This solar cooker is a rudimentary piece of plastic foam that can reach a maximum temperature of 120ºC and can save up to 10,000 units of electricity on a daily basis and is functional for a year.

Salaam Balak  is trialing solar powered school bags for the poor. This idea came to its designer when she was talking to her domestic help, “She told me about the problems her children faced while studying at night. There are frequent power outages in her slum". The backpacks look like regular schoolbags but turn into a lamp when their front pockets are unzipped.

GOONJ  responded to the problem that 68% of rural women cannot afford sanitary napkins. When women cannot afford sanitary pads they resort to using cloth pieces or nothing. This causes infections and can lead to cervical cancer. GOONJ decided to act on this issue and started a movement of making sanitary pads out of waste cloth for rural women.

Sewa Trust  provides free meals to city slum and street dwellers admitted to hospitals who are unable to afford their own. Many of the beneficiaries are migrant workers drawn to the cities from rural India by the opportunity of work and separated from family support during their time of need. Says one beneficiary, “I regularly come to this organisation and am offered free food by the members. I live on a footpath and do not have enough money to buy food for myself". 

Sangama, an NGO for sexual minorities, sex workers and people living HIV has been asked by the Kerala Government  to conduct a socio-economic and situational survey of transgenders in the state through an NGO with a view of formulating welfare measures for them.

To celebrate Indian National Day on 15 August, the Times of India ran a feature that highlighted several more NGOs and social enterprises:

Basic school skills

The focus of in-school programs has always been on children achieving basic skills. The depressing fact is that of children enrolled in class 1, about 40% drop out before class 8 and a total of 70% drop out before class 10, makes basic literacy and numeracy an urgent social goal. Akshara’s effort began in Bangalore when remedial programs were implemented with volunteers, trained to identify children with learning deficits and give them specialized inputs. 

Microcredit and crowdfunding

Rang De combines microcredit and crowd funding to help people achieve freedom from poverty. It acts as a bridge between people who want to help the under privileged and those who need money to invest in small businesses. People living in cities can choose from a huge database of borrowers on rang these websites invest as little as Rs.100 into their business.

Out on the streets

Started in 2010 by an anonymous group of volunteers Ugly Indians are out on the streets fixing pavements, fearing a garbage, removing unauthorised posters, painting walls and planting saplings all over India. The regional initiative in Mumbai has been to document all the filthy and rundown parks and playgrounds and lobby the city council to remedy these.

Femininity and Fearlessness

The Fearless Collective are artists, activists, photographers and filmmakers who use art to speak out against gender violence. It was formed in response to the Nirbhaya rape and murder. The collective aims to redefine fear, femininity and what it means to be fearless.

Pay from your heart

Seva Cafe is a pop-up restaurant run entirely by volunteers. At the end of the meal  diners don't get a bill, just a little note which says "Pay from your heart!".  A hundred percent of the restaurant profits is used to support social service projects.

See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0V1XVzD7ik

Is the Death of Corporate Philanthropy Exaggerated?

The end of corporate philanthropy was predicted in a post on the Forbes Leadership Forum. I reckon not and  the answer lies in stirring the alphabet soup.


Paul Klein, who heads business and civil sector consulting group Impakt, encourages any corporations who are giving away their hard-earned dollars to charity to stop.

Klein, admittedly, doesn’t go as far as Milton Friedman famously did, saying that the only responsibility of a business was to make a profit, or as Jamie Whyte implied even more stingingly in the Wall Street Journal, “Corporate philanthropy is theft.” However, Klein spares no punches when it comes to charities. He recommends they “can address the loss of 5% of their revenue by reducing costs, improving efficiency.” (Those who argue that charities should spend more on overheads will wince at that uppercut.) The five-percent figure quoted is the corporate contribution to nonprofit income.

The Giving USA statistics from which the number is drawn also show that corporations’ giving to charities declined during 2013. Yet there has been a steady flow of reports and articles pointing out that companies who do good in the world do well. A 2013 Cone Communications/Echo Global CSR Study says companies are “expected to be an active participant—if not a driving force—in solving the most pressing social and environmental issues.” Cause marketing—such as Toms’ “One for One,” (Product) Red, and Patagonia’s “Common Threads”—has been highly successful. Millennials, we are told, choose to join and stay with companies on the basis of their volunteer programs and social commitment.


However, it might just be a matter of semantics. Aren’t all the above types of doing good by companies forms of corporate philanthropy? Or are they corporate citizenship? Or corporate social responsibility? Impakt on their website extends this lexicon with yet another label: corporate shared value.

Might it be possible to take a contrary view that has corporate philanthropy is alive, well, and kicking—and adopting many different guises? I have always argued that the best thing for corporate fundraisers to do is to decode then rearrange the letters in the corporate alphabet soup. As well as CSR other acronyms in the soup are  CP (Corporate Philanthropy or Partnership), CSI (Corporate Social Investment), CSV (Corporate Shared Value) and more. The solution is to rearrange it as a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum is the hard edged advertising and marketing related type of corporate partnership at the other softer gentler fuzzier community, social and political objectives.

Your job as a fundraiser is to understand what opportunities your organisation can offer and where it fits in the spectrum. Once you know that, you are a better position to identify whom or what department to target. If you have opportunities that are going to drive sales, or enhance corporations product brands then you're at the hard edged and and you need to be talking to sales and marketing executives. If your organisation offers opportunities for corporate volunteering, then you probably want to be investigating the company's human resources Department.  If your organisation has good government connections then you might offer opportunities for companies government or public affairs relationship building. If you are doing good in a particular community, especially one that is linked geographically to companies activities then you will probably be wanting to talk to corporate affairs.

Of course, one of the advantages your nonprofit may have is that you may have benefits at several different places on the spectrum to offer  a company. Take for example a health charity that stages a public event, such as a marathon, that offers branding and product placement opportunities for a business partner.  As well your nonprofit may have strong links  with government health or welfare departments. Such links offer opportunities for business partners to be seen supporting a government backed initiative and may offer networking opportunities to develop  relationships with officials. A major arts festival by which I was once employed offered both these opportunities.  We worked alongside brand and product managers to achieve outcomes at the hard end of the spectrum and with corporate affairs directors and the CEO's office to facilitate networks and contacts at the other more subtle end.

The secrets to developing successful corporate partnerships is to understand your corporate partner. If you can get inside the company's skin, that is see and hear through the corporate executive's eyes and ears then you have a good chance of pitching an opportunity.

Note: Some paragraphs of this blog were first published as a NonProfit Quarterly Newswire on 21 July 2014

Has digital killed the donor pyramid?

A fascinating debate has erupted between two important names in fundraising.  Claire Axelrad is the proposer. Andrea Kihlstedt the opposer.  The proposition? That social media has killed the donor pyramid.
You know the pyramid?  Legacies (or "ultimate gifts") at the top and one-off, first time donors at the base. 

Claire milked the pyramid metaphor for all it was worth in her opening salvo. "They’re where people go to die".  Though, perhaps her more balanced comment was: “The pyramids were built in Egypt. On the backs of slaves. Nobody’s got 100,000 workers (aka direct-mail donors) building a solid pyramid anymore."

Andrea's riposte referenced Mark Twain that "reports of its [the pyramid's] death have been greatly exaggerated"  Andrea continued, "When organizations use the donor pyramid to focus their attention on raising large gifts, that’s just what happens — they raise large gifts."

It emerged in the debate, that both Claire and Andrea agree on two things.  A relief to me because they are things that I firmly believe as well: 

1. Major gift fundraising is extraordinarily important.
2. The Pareto Rule (80/20) is alive and well.

So why the furore? In my view, Claire and Andrea start from different places. Claire references research done by Adrian Sargeant and Penelope Burke on the attrition rates of first time donors (they're the ones at the bottom of the pyramid).  She then, correctly, proposes that social media provides great ways for nonprofits to engage with people.  And, in part, she is saying that attrition is avoided through engagement (aka stewarding) donors.  Social media is effective at engaging first time donors. But, actually, she expands this by saying that social media is effective at engaging many more than first time donors.  It can engage all donors, at any of the traditional levels and non-donors alike. Who would argue with that? (Claire proposes a vortex model for all this high energy, swirling engagement.)

Andrea, though, suggests the pyramid has a quite different role. In my interpretation, her view of the pyramid is really as a planning model. She says the pyramid "makes sense of complexity by reminding us to focus a disproportionate amount of attention to the precious few donors who can breathe life into our mission in the way that small donors, even collectively, can not".  And, frankly, I agree with her.

Yes, it is vitally important to attract and engage with first time donors. (Actually, that would better read, "attract and engage with non-donors") . And social media offers great ways of doing that.  Via Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Google+ and even texts, as Claire says. However, for most organisations I know, the truly transformative, target-reaching mouth-watering gifts and bequests have come through carefully planned relationships with a few carefully identified and researched individuals and organisations.  Those represented by the top of the pyramid.

And yes, the swirling vortex impacts and involves those at the top - and those that influence them too. So for heaven's sake let’s have both the pyramid and the vortex. But please make sure they both work together.  Or else, Claire prediction will come true.  The vortex will "crumble" the Pyramid " … slowly, surely … until there [is] nothing left but an empty frame."  And then where will fundraising be?

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.