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?
