Fundraising or Money-Raising?

Clerk:  Your total is $blahblahblah, would you like to add a dollar to support children puppies hungry old homeless high-school band?

Me:  Uhhh, no, not today.

Clerk:
aggressive-1748701_1920

Yeah, cheers, thanks, thanks a lot.  *sigh*

I know these kinds of programs raise a lot of critically-needed money for a lot of great organizations – and the beneficiaries who need them.  I totally get that.  But I think they detract from the profession of Fundraising & Development, create a false sense of “do-gooderism” and make it harder, ultimately, for us to do the real work of development and advancement.

Plus Ca Change . . . 

We live in an age where just about anybody can engage in any profession as long as they have a device and an internet connection.  You can diagnose your own illness on any number of health sites like WebMD, be your own accountant on TurboTax or TaxAct or act as your own travel agent on hundreds of different platforms.

My photographer friends tell me their jobs are much, much harder now that everyone carries a pretty decent camera in their pocket.  EVERYBODY’S got an artistic filter.

Fundraising is the same.

Fundraising has always been this way, though.  Bake sales, lemonade stands, change jars at checkout counters, taking up a collection for Sally Sue at work . . . . as long as we live in a money-based economy, somebody will always need to raise money for something.  It’s just now we have – like other professions – more sophisticated online tools to do it.  GoFundMe, Kickstarter, Indiegogo . . . . the list goes on.

Here’s where I get worried . . . more worried . . . when nonprofits (read: Board Members/CEOs, etc.) start saying, “We need more donors and more dollars; we should do a GoFundMe.”  And fundraisers do it. Because LOOK AT ALL THE MONEY COMING IN!

money-1428594_1920

Maybe we need to start differentiating now between Fundraising and Money-Raising.

Take a moment, sit down, pour yourself a nice cup of whatever relaxes you because I’m about to commit blasphemy:

Money-raising is easy.  Fundraising is hard.

What?  What’s that you say?  Raising money is easy?  If it’s so easy, why isn’t everyone doing it?  If raising money is so easy why are we working so hard at it?

Getting money for something is pretty easy . . . put something out there that tells the world what the need is and SOMEBODY will give money to it.  And they might give a lot of money or they might give a little, but then they’ll got and give their spare change to someone else.

But what’s hard – really hard – is building sustainable, long-term relationships with people and organizations who are deeply committed and passionate enough to give of themselves to fund the causes they care about.  That’s hard.

That’s day-in, day-out.  That’s technique and experience and trial and error and great success and wild failure.  That’s strategic excellence vs. widespread mediocrity.

There are days when I think professional fundraisers should rail against the bake sale and the change jar and the GoFundMe for Baby Jimmy’s college fund.  And sometimes I think we should shake our fists to the heavens and decry the latest gift-wrap/car-wash/cupcake sale/give-a-dollar-at-the-register program.  But, no, they have their place.

And sometimes they have their place in a well-developed, comprehensive professional fundraising program.  Part of, not instead of.

But we should hold our heads up high and say what we know is fundraising.  We know Development and Advancement and we know how to be strategically excellent.  We know how to use an online giving tool in the context of the whole, not just a “if you code it, they will give.”

We know the difference between money-raising and fundraising.

 

 

 

Rant on Retention

I like to think that professionals in all fields get together and rant and complain about their profession.  I have to believe that there are forums for pipe fitters and physician’s assistants and marketers to get together and go, “They’re hiring people with no experience as experts! Nobody takes the profession seriously!  These CEOs think they can hire somebody with Fundraising experience and that’s as good as 25+ years in Marketing!”  Grumble grumble, rant rant, etc.

Because it can’t just be us.  Can it?

And every other rant lately is about Donor Retention.  It’s the most significant problem facing the profession today.

I agree.  It is.  Based on the data and reports we’ve all seen.

But . . . .

BUT . . . . . . .

First – can we just stop beating each other up?  Please?  “The worst fundraising mistake you can make!” OR “Fundraisers aren’t paying attention to the fundamentals!” or any other number of alarming headlines.

There’s a lot of fundraisers doing really great work, making great relationships and helping find the funding to tackle some of society’s toughest issues.  Should they be paying a little closer attention to their retention rates?  Sure.  But let’s praise what they ARE doing.

And just because a development officer is not measuring specific retention rate, doesn’t mean that they’re not conducting great donor stewardship, wonderful relationships and hitting goals.

Objection:  If development officers are doing great stewardship, why are renewal rates across the industry so low?!?

Me:  I haven’t seen the actual data those reports come from, but I do think they’re approached with pretty broad brushstrokes.

Second – some donors aren’t MEANT to be retained.  And most CRMs and reporting tools just take a straight, one-shot look at it on a year-to-year basis.  I have yet to see a report that said, “Retention rate was 47% for annual fund donors.”  Maybe there was a whole lot of campaign giving or specific project funding that went on last year and those donors very specifically gave a stretch gift and that CDO is already working the next gift for five years from now.  Some gifts, some giving just ISN’T multi-year.

Is a fundraiser a failure because they didn’t renew their capital campaign donors?  They are if you take a one-shot approach to measuring retention.

Third – and most important – measuring retention is not as straightforward as it seems.  The CRM that I use is possibly the #1 or #2 most popular.  It does not have an extant donor retention report, but recommends you compare the results of a query of last year’s donors to this year’s.  Just compare the counts in each query and you’ve got it.  Indeed, the instructions for this do not factor the fund/allocation of the gift – JUST the year it was given.

Another way to do it is to export the data into Excel and run a VLOOKUP (after pivot tables, the fundraiser’s most useful analysis tool, but I digress).  VLOOKUP will compare Unique IDs (or names or other fields) between two worksheets.

Hang on . . . . first is the time, here.  I’m pretty decent with Excel, but that takes me about an hour or so to do.  And so many shops don’t have a dba or analyst to run these kinds of reports, or the Excel skills to do it.

“But if you knew your retention rate and focused on retention, you wouldn’t have to work so hard acquiring new donors.”  True.  That’s truth.

But . . . let’s look at an example from real life (true story – names changed):

– In 2014, Jack Spratt made a personal $1,000 introductory gift, God love him;
– After some extended cultivation, Jack made an additional $10,000 gift from his family foundation, later in 2014;
– In early 2015, Jack’s wife Eileen leveraged a $5,000 gift from her company restricted to a specific program
– Later in 2015, Jack renewed his $10,000 and made it through a donor advised fund
– Eileen did not renew her $5,000; Jack, however, increased their support to $20,000 which he made through a mixture of soft-credit from a corporate gift and a gift from a different source . . . . .

Guess who doesn’t show up in a retention report?  Jack and Eileen, because they change the source every year and Accounting requires gift entry to be tied to the actual source of the gift and soft-credited to the donor.  Every year they look like new donors and would get “lost” in a direct unique identifier comparison.  But guess who was also the subject of intense stewardship and cultivation – isn’t that focusing on retention, too?

Unless the retention report recognizes soft-crediting OR the query/export combination you use appropriately designates soft-credited gifts to the donor . . .

Does this account for a lot of gifts?  No, not on the overall whole.  But I’ve seen situations like this be 5% – 6% of a database, so it has an impact.  And I’ve seen it – a lot – at lower levels.  One year one person in a household gives, the next it’s the spouse who writes the check.  (And householding (how a database looks at individuals in the same household, i.e. spouses, domestic partnerships, etc. ) is a massive problem in fundraising CRMs – that’s a whole other blog post.)

The point?  Donor Retention is incredibly important and we should be doing everything possible to hold on to the donors we have.  We DO need our Boards and Leadership to understand that keeping a donor is a far, far better investment than seeking new ones.  And, yes, that is our job to tell them.  More importantly, it’s our job to show them.

 

What we’re really saying is, “We – as a fundraising industry – NEED to take better care of our donors.  We need to thank them more, get our arms around them more and treat their giving with the respect and care and awe that it deserves.”  Like all things, if we focus on the metric and not the action, we miss the point.

So, yes, absolutely – focus on donor retention.  But spend less time tracking the number and more time loving on donors.

Why Data Like a Lab – It Just Wants to Make You Happy

We had to take a tough break from blogging for a little while.  We lost one of the Buck-White Boys on February 15.  The original Buck-White Boy, the lab by which all others will be measured and the Dog That Started It All.  Tucker.

img_5801

Tucker was the best.  He was the best part of a Pet Partners  Animal Assisted Therapy team.  One of the sweetest, kindest, most joyful animals you would ever want to know and he took a huge part of our hearts with him.

On his therapy visits, Tucker didn’t do well sitting still – he did better in situations where he could go from room to room and visit with people.  He’d turn a corner and walk into a hospital room, where someone would be desperately ill, and the whole room would just light up. He’d smile and wag and soon everybody was smiling and wagging.

He just wanted people to be happy.

That’s labs, man.  They just want everyone to be happy.

Now, I’m not going to anthropomorphize data so much that I’m going to compare it to a therapy dog, but . . . your data pretty much just wants you to be happy.

Data doesn’t want to be difficult, it doesn’t want to be messy and complicated and tough to deal with.  It just wants you to be happy.

Your fundraising data is the single greatest tool you have – well, other than your rock star personality, amazing charm, superior intellect and dashingly good looks.  Without good data, all of that goes to waste because, without information, who are you sharing all of that awesomeness with?

magnifying-glass-1677361_1280

Clean, structured, secure data makes your job 1,000 times easier.  If you don’t have to worry about your data, you can spend your time loving on donors.

That’s what I mean by your data wants you to be happy – it wants you out there changing the world, not sitting in the office crunching data sets or cleaning up salutations.

We were fortunate to get Tucker as a nine-week-old puppy and we invested a lot in his training and development.

Tucker-Grad-2-rs

The older he got, the fewer bad habits he had and we could always revert back to that training to remind him what good behavior was.  He ultimately passed the AKC’s Canine Good Citizens Test.

Invest in training your data, keeping it clean and up-to-date and don’t let the bad habits accumulate – that’s a happy database.  And a happy database = a happy and successful fundraiser.

 

 

 

At Home in the Annual Fund

house-409451_1920

C’mon, sing with me now, “Our house.  In the middle of the street.  Our house . . . ”  Or we could have gone with, “Our house is a very, very, very fine house . . . ”  This is a multi-sensory blog; great info and musical ear-worms.  You’re welcome.

If you don’t know Helen Brown, I’d encourage you to get to know her.  Really a leader in the world of Prospect Research, super smart, writes a great blog and a couple of months ago had a mic drop moment with “Why wealth screenings – and prospect researchers – are so reliant on real estate.”

Go read it; I’ll wait.

Right?  Wasn’t that good?  She’s so on point.  My favorite bit:

You may be right, you may be wrong, but at least it’s something to go on in this business where we’re all operating on uncertainty, every single day. We attach ratings to and hang our hopes and our cultivation strategies on people who may or may not support our organizations. It’s a guessing game to which we apply the most solid things we can to a sea of uncertainty.

The rating is a just starting point anyway.

Preach, sister.

I reached out to Helen and got her blessing to riff on this a little bit.  I love prospect research.  I think it’s one of the coolest things in our arsenal, but it’s certainly not my forte.  Nor is it the end-all, be-all panacea of solving all our fundraising issues.  Research and predictive modeling take the guessing game out of the equation and turn a shotgun approach into a laser focus.

The Rating Is Just a Starting Point Anyway

Folks, there’s no certainty in Fundraising.  OK, there’s one – nonprofit organizations will always need  to do it.  Other than that, anything’s possible.  Every technique, best practice and sacred cow is just there to help reduce some of the variables.

That’s what prospect research does.  Especially in higher-end major gift work.

But we don’t often use it in the Annual Fund, especially in segmentation.  Why?  Because usually all we have is real estate.

If you’ve done a screening of a whole bunch of names – 300 or 300,000, doesn’t matter – you skim off the top tier, those with the highest ratings.  Funnel them into Major Gift portfolios for next steps – identification, cultivation, etc.

SOAPBOX MOMENT:  Major Gift folks, please, when you’re done with your identification/qualification process, pretty please release those unqualifieds back into the Annual Fund pool so we can get ’em solicited and not let them stagnate.  We all know you can’t manage a portfolio of 500+ prospects, even though you’re a Fundraising Rock Star.  #pleaseandthankyou

Typically what you’re left with is a whole mess of mid-range prospects and donors that have one piece of data from public information – real estate. (And then a whole lot more that have no publicly available data at all).

Sometimes Some is Enough

To Helen’s point – it’s something.  It’s something we now know about this individual.  We have an idea of what they’re like because we know what real estate they’ve purchased.

Does it tell us what to ask them?  No.

Does it tell us what their capacity is?  No. (Although you can surmise a capacity based on real estate, there’s no way to tell what their debt-to-income ratio is).

Does it give us a clue on response?  Possibly.

In a direct response acquisition or renewal campaign, prospects with real estate can out-perform those with no rating at all.  Most likely in average gift vs participation.  There have been many tests and programs that have shown that those with higher real estate values tend to give a higher level gift than those without it, especially when you’re using an ask string.

Because it’s something.  It’s something that says, “Hey, there’s some capacity here.”  And sometimes some is enough to make a difference.

As Helen said, “We can use it to form well-educated guesses.”

It’s worth testing.  It’s worth the investment of having, and using, that data – at all levels.

It’s worth not dismissing just because “it’s just real estate.”  If you’ve got nothing else, it’s at least something to help an educated guess.

Donor-Centered or Data-Driven

buzzwords-everywhere

Google “Fundraising Buzzwords” or “Nonprofit Buzzwords” and you’ll get a whole list of the phrases we like to kick around the industry.  Fortunately, “Donor-Centered” is one that’s stuck around for quite some time.

Data-Driven seems to be losing some of its popularity.  “Big Data” is taking on different connotations (really, Big Data refers to databases so large that most computers can’t process them – most of us aren’t really working with true Big Data, no matter how large our database is).

But you can’t be donor centered AND data driven.

At least, that’s the common misconception.  We tend to think of these two things as being different parts of the brain – left-brain/right-brain, science/art, emotional/rational.

How many DODs or MGOs do you hear say, “I’m just not a data person!” Or, “I can’t even deal with that – it sounds so boring, I’d rather talk to people!” Or “What’s my password for Raiser’s Edge?”

So, what is data?

This one’s the best.  From www.mathisfun.com

What is Data?

Data is a collection of facts, such as numbers, words, measurements, observations or even just descriptions of things.

“Or even just descriptions of things.”

At its very basic level, data is simply another word for “information.”

So, data-driven means “Guided by Information.”

Think of a donor, one you know well.  Don’t look at your CRM.  What do you know about them?  Or think of a group, a segment, a subset, something – what do you know about them?

You just conjured up a whole bunch of information – kid’s names, home address, giving status (Current, Lapsed, LYBUNT, etc.).

Data – information – can also be very unconscious.  You’re not thinking about it right now, but when I say Your Birthday, the date immediately pops to mind.  Or if I say, “Your Mother’s maiden name,” boom, there it is.

We’re processing data all the time, without even thinking about it.

When we’re truly being donor-centered – stewarding their gift, cultivating them, listening to them – we’re processing a lot of information about them.

Being Donor-Centered means putting the needs of the donor at the forefront of our relationship.  In order to do that, we need to know what their needs are – we need to know who they are.  And, of course, we can’t do that without information.

Even simple information – data – helps get us there.  Spouse name, kids names, their job, their last gift, who they’re connected.  That’s all data is and most of us are just carrying that around in our heads all day.

Donor-Centered and Data-Driven are two sides of the same coin.  Can’t have one without the other.

Just, please, for the love of all things, get that data into the CRM.

 

What I Won’t Do Is Subscribe to Fear

2016

My whole social media feed is FULL of comments about how awful 2016 has been.  It seems everyone is ready to kick this year to the curb and usher in a new one – “It can’t get worse, right?”

Personally, I’ve had a fantastic year – probably one of the best on a personal and professional level.  And I know that puts me in a fortunate position; I’m tremendously grateful. The world outlook?  Not so much.  I agree, it’s been a pretty wretched year.

In a moment of complete candor, I’ll express my abject terror over what could happen in our political landscape in the coming months and years.  Like many, I am still in shock and numb.  And I’m afraid.  For my family, for my community and for many who I am lucky to call friend.

But what I will not do is subscribe to fear.

I will not allow fear to control me or my actions.

Fear of failure.  Fear of rejection.  Fear of what may be.  Fear of the unknown.  Fear of taking a risk.  Fear of standing up and saying, “NO! This is unacceptable.”  Fear of standing up and shouting, “YES! This is wonderful!”

I will not subscribe to fear.

What I will do is champion change.  What I will do is my best.  I will be relentlessly passionate and I will commit.  If there was ever a time to not sit on the sidelines, this is it.

What I will do is love and acknowledge the people who are creating change, who are making a difference.

What I will do is own that our profession, the profession of fundraising, enables people who care deeply to be engaged with their passions.  I will own that we, fundraisers, have one of the greatest responsibilities in the world – how awesome is the charge that we have been given?

And I don’t mean in a “Dude, that’s awesome” way. I mean in a, “We should stand back in awe” of what we get to do.

There’s no room for fear in that responsibility.

 

 

Fundraising is Paper Towels

Thanksgiving was wonderful and I hope yours was, too.  So many things to be thankful for – like making new friends!

We met a lovely couple who are both donors and volunteers at various local nonprofits, so of course the conversation turned to stories from the trenches.

Our new friend spends some time volunteering at a local homeless service agency and went in recently to serve lunch.  Here’s how she put it:

I was asked to make sandwiches for bagged lunches they distribute, so I gloved up and headed into the kitchen.  In the process of preparing to make sandwiches, I spilled something on the counter.  “Where would I find paper towels?” I asked and the response I got was, “We are out of paper towels and they won’t be delivered until next Tuesday, so just use one of these kitchen towels.”  And, with that, she handed me a kitchen towel that had clearly been used before and, even with anti-bacterial cleaner, I didn’t think was very sanitary.  I was just so shocked they didn’t have paper towels.”

So, instead of making sandwiches, she hopped in her car and went to a bulk supply store and bought paper towels.  Great!  Thanks to a great volunteer and donor!

When she asked, though, why they didn’t just order more, the response she got was, “We just can’t afford them – it’s not in the budget.  We can only get x amount per year and we can only get what’s in our standing bi-weekly shipment.”

What potentially stood between a hungry person and lunch was a lack of paper towels.

Paper towels.

Because buying more wasn’t in the budget.

This is the Overhead Myth in action.  This is a highly reputable, well-respected, tightly run organization.  And yet one of their front-line people knows that sometimes what stands between a hungry person and a meal is a paper towel.

There is no metric in the world that measures Paper Towel ROI (PTROI).  There’s no report that indicates the ratio of paper towel to less food insecurity.  But I’m willing to bet Paper Towels never show up in any program budget or case statement.

Paper Towels are the Annual Fund.  (Which is not Annual and not a Fund, I know, I know.)

Paper Towels are operations, they’re overhead, they’re not sexy, they don’t generate results.

And yet . . . sometimes the lack of a Paper Towel stands between a hungry person and a meal.

And if that isn’t the most powerful case for general operational support, I don’t know what it is.  Fundraising is (very often) paper towels.

The Problem With Recurring Giving

A family I know is going through that terrible process of having to put their mother into assisted care.  She has Alzheimer’s and it’s so sad.  This is a woman who had a heart as big as all outdoors, gave to everyone she met and had an infectious laugh that lifted the whole room.  And now, more-often-than-not, she sits in her wheelchair and cries.

Go back to that giving thing . . . in going through the process, her children needed to close out her credit cards.  You see where this is going, right?  She had monthly payments to two, large national charities.  $10/$20 a month kind of thing.

The only way the family knows this is because they found the bills as they went to close out accounts.

creditcards

Guess what?  They can’t find anybody at the charities who knows what to do or can help.  So, they just canceled the credit card.  So, the charity just won’t get paid and will have no idea why this donor stopped giving.  They’ll probably try to contact the family to get a new credit card number in a few months, but the relationship is over.

There’s no phone number on the website, there’s no email address – everything just goes to the main switchboard at their national corporate office.  I offered to help and I can’t find anything on their recurring monthly donor programs.

call-center-1015295_1920

Now, this woman filed meticulously – she kept EVERYTHING anybody ever sent her.  Especially these charities.  She would proudly show off the new calendar every year and lay out the quarterly magazine on the coffee table.

But they can’t even find a thank you letter, an acknowledgement, nothing that indicates any level of personal engagement.  She would have saved it, pack rat that she was.

I GET IT.  Hell, I live it.  There’s a lot going on and having enough time to do everything is tough.  But, there’s the problem with recurring giving.  It is too, too easy to get the monthly gift and then just let it roll.  They’re smaller gifts, they run automatically and both the donor and the charity lose sight of them.

Wait.  No.  The donor doesn’t.

We – fundraisers – have to believe that a donor who makes a $10 monthly gift is every bit as invested as a donor who makes a $10,000 one-time donation.

These charities needed to believe that this beautiful woman was PROUD of supporting their missions.  She was.

What could they have done?

  • Sent a thank you letter acknowledging the gift and re-stating the plan – $10 a month until you tell us to stop
  • Every quarter sent a hand-written thank you note — even if it was mass-produced and simulated handwriting, it would have been SOMETHING
  • Sent a personal letter from whomever is responsible for the recurring giving program, “If you need anything, call me or email me.”
  • Regular updates on how her money was spent
  • Have a special page on the website for these recurring donors – or a private website/URL only they can access
  • Sent a welcome packet with all the above information in it
  • Acknowledged and been grateful that there was a person on the other end of that $10/$20 per month

In this day and age, all the above are easy and relatively cost-effective to do . . . even by direct mail houses and vendors.

Recurring giving is absolutely the right way to go.  It is deserving of all the hype and focus and consultation it receives.  Every charity should have a recurring giving program.

But they should also have a recurring thanking program to support it.

 

Philanthropic Culture in the Annual Fund

human-1375474_1920

Building A Culture of Philanthropy! Does Your Organization Have a Culture of Philanthropy?  What’s Your Philanthropic Culture?  GET YOUR BOARD ON BOARD!

I dunno, sometimes I think the only culture I get is from yogurt.

yogurt-1039309_1920

Ba dum bum. *cymbal*

Discussing the development of a culture of philanthropy is absolutely the right thing to do.  Working towards a culture of philanthropy should be a high priority.  Tirelessly working towards it should be Job #1 in an NPO.

But it’s very hard to do when there are so many non-fundraisers who have negative views of fundraising.  Say “fundraising” to a non-fundraiser and they immediately think the multiple emails and hundreds of letters and tons of phone calls – i.e., primarily annual fund techniques.

Developing a culture of philanthropy begins with how we talk to our donors and prospects about giving in our acquisition and renewal process.

And how we talk to our colleagues and leadership about what the Annual Fund is.

The Annual Fund isn’t annual.

When you say “fundraising” to most people, even those in the nonprofit sector, they hear “being pestered for money.”  Rarely is the immediate impression that lovely lunch they had where someone asked their opinion and then they felt compelled to support an organization because they believed in it so much.

And, so, we get “focus on major gifts” and “let’s have more events” and “we should really be going after more grants.”  Because nobody wants to be a pest.

An “annual fund that isn’t annual” is about inviting people to be a part of something.  It’s about the donor’s interest and passions and it’s about embracing them where they are and opening the opportunity to them to be part of our mission.

This is what storytelling is all about.  It’s where donor-centered and data-driven intersect.  It’s creating a sense that we aren’t pestering the donor for money, but, instead telling the donor the incredible impact they can have.

And it’s about doing that through direct mail and e-solicitation and phone-a-thon and thank yous and a whole lot of transactional stuff that we have the obligation, the requirement, to make about them.  The Donor.  The Philanthropist.

It’s scale.  It’s doing everything possible to make that massive mailing sound like it’s written from one person to another.  It’s mimicking the best practices of major gift, one-on-one conversation in massive quantities (and massive is relative – 100 or 100,000, they’re still individual communications from one person to another).

It’s about me and you.  Mine and yours.  And what we can accomplish together.

Like any good journey, the development of culture starts with one step, one person and a passion to change the world.

 

 

That’s Not a Major Gift

At least five times over the last week or so I’ve heard the statement, “$x level is NOT a major gift; don’t waste your time on those” or “Those low-level donors aren’t giving major gifts.  They’re nice gifts, sure, but they’re not major gifts.”

Let me tell you about Jane.  I adore Jane.  She was accidentally invited to a recognition event that her donation technically didn’t entitle her to.  She gave $50 per quarter, over one year, for a total of $200.  On a credit card.  For five years, faithfully.

Jane LOVES . . . no, she LIVES the mission.   And at this event she said to me, “I so wish I could do more; I’m retired and I know I can do the $200, but anything more and I’m worried I wouldn’t be able to pay it off, but I WISH I could do more.”  I reassured it that she was appreciated, we had a lovely conversation and now every time I see Jane – which is frequently – we talk about grandkids and dogs and wonderful, wonderful things.

We did have a brief conversation, early on, about giving $50 monthly.  Which she realized she could do very easily, she’d just never thought about it from a monthly perspective.  Jane now gives $600.

And that’s a major gift.

For Jane.

Does it meet the minimum institutional major gift threshold?  No.  Is Jane recognized as a major donor?  No; she doesn’t want to be.  Does Jane get a yearly stewardship lunch at a fancy restaurant?  No.  Sometimes I run into Jane at Starbucks and I do buy her coffee.

But everybody in administration knows Jane.  And sometimes we talk to Jane about ideas and upcoming ideas.  And we know that Jane is giving, right now, at the highest level she can.  And, oh my gosh, do we appreciate her.

There are plenty of other $600 donors who just write a check in response to direct mail.  And there are some major gift donors who do the same – they don’t want lunch or courting or schmoozing, they just respond.  God love ’em.  And they’re at or above the “identified major gift threshold.”

Can an Annual Fund Director afford to invest in every $100 donor to find their Jane?  Of course not, absolutely not – especially in large-volume shops.

But Janes – like cream – ALWAYS rise.  There’s always a Jane, popping up like a prairie dog going, “Anybody paying attention to me?”

And to say, “Don’t waste your time on Jane” means you missed out on a really lovely relationship.  That may – or may not – turn into a deeper engagement for both of you.

The trick is to recognize the Janes when they come your way and not have a preconceived idea that says, “Well, can’t do anything for her because it’s not a major gift.”

For Jane it’s a very major gift.