Fundraising is all in the prep

Earlier this year, the Nonprofit Quarterly and BoardSource did a pulse survey (a quick, “let’s just take the pulse of those who bothers to respond”) trying to understand boards’ greatest concerns for 2016.

Embed from Getty Images

Of the 173 responses, 53% (n=78) selected “general economic uncertainty, increased volatility and shocks.” In other words, they are worried about funds. The fourth, at 29% (n=43) greatest concern, is the “increasingly competitive environment.”

Taken together these say boards are really worried about financial sustainability: an unpredictable financial climate with more and more hands grabbing for a fixed annual pool of money.

Normally, I wouldn’t get too excited about what a sample of 173 out of a population we count in the millions says, but the reality is that you’d have to be a fool not to recognize our current financial vagaries and the ever expanding nonprofit sector.

What makes it even more worrisome is the continued resistance of board members to assume their fundraising responsibilities. If any nonprofit is going to secure its financial future, it will be through individuals—not through foundations, government contracts, sponsorships, etc. This is not news; light bulbs should not be going off. This has been the reality for quite some time, though organization after organization, board after board, simply refuses to accept it.

Though data abounds on people’s giving patterns, leading to all kinds of suggestions on how boards and organizations might do a better job of securing individual dollars, Fidelity Charitable’s recent survey of 950 of its clients reveals an interesting picture. (Yes, these clients are not your average Americans, but they are a slice of the donor pool that so many nonprofits want to tap.)

Almost half (47%) of those surveyed have never taken advantage of any of the alternative ways of giving to nonprofits, other than giving cash. Folks aren’t giving stocks or bonds, making bequests or using annuities or IRA distributions, to mention some options. And while it is true that those who give less than $5000 a year to charities are far less likely to use any alternative to cash, 24% of those who give more than $20,000 a year have never used an alternative giving option. This fairly screams “opportunity for education.”

There were two other results of this study that are also noteworthy as boards think about how they will address their chief concerns in 2016. First, 80% of donors budget their charitable giving just as they budget their living expenses, entertainment, etc., and approximately one-third determine the total amount they will donate. (Another reason nonprofits have to stop thinking donors should give on the organization’s schedules rather than on the donors’). Second, those under 50 earn and give more than those aged 50 and older. While fewer of them may have investible assets, 70% of them (compared to 48% of those older) have incomes of $200,000 or more and 47% give more than $20,000 per year (compared to 16% of those older). Now, that is a pool to cultivate for what they could give now and in the future.

I thought of all this as I was reading Daniel Pink’s book, To Sell Is Human: The Surprising Truth About Moving Others. Pink does the heavy lifting, scouring through the reams of social science research and boiling down all the learnings into writing that anyone can access. Wanna-be and need-to-be fundraisers could learn a few things from this easy read.

The easiest transition from the for-profit sector to the nonprofit sector is sales to fundraising. Pink found from culling through all the research that extroverts do not make the most successful salespeople. Surprised?

So, all you board members out there who love to hide behind the plea of, “I’m an introvert,” in order to avoid fundraising, hang it up! To be fair, the research shows that the extremes of either end of the introvert-extrovert spectrum don’t make good salespeople; it is the middle-roaders—the ambiverts, which is what most people are.

But for every rule there is at least one exception, and I am that. I am, to use Pink’s term, a strong introvert—in other words, I am at that extreme end of the spectrum. With the right cause in my hand, and the knowledge that I’m on course to give others the opportunity to join in this right cause, I can stand with the most successful ambiverts! And I say this to let no one off the fundraising hook. Ambiverts have the right mix: they aren’t over-talkers like strong extroverts or under-talkers, like strong introverts. They have balance.

And, apparently, they have buoyancy. I really love this descriptor of a concept that any and every fundraiser knows: not everyone says yes. So, we must stay buoyant. Pink’s concept of buoyancy comes from a 40-year veteran of selling brushes door-to-door, who said to him in an interview, “Everyday I face an ocean of rejection.”

Old-school fundraisers would tell you to know your ratios: how many nos do you get for every one yes. Buoyancy says the same thing in a different way: keep asking because there will be no’s in between the yeses; just keep riding the waves.

But Pink’s most helpful finding for those in sales—and those in fundraising, though, just to remind you, that isn’t the focus of his book–may just be that doubting yourself before the call/visit is more helpful than pumping yourself up. Counterintuitive? Perhaps, but when explained, it makes total sense. The latter is all rah, rah, and more often than not comes with false bravado and no substance.

The former, known as “interrogative self-talk” in today’s tongue, is really making sure you are prepared for the call, have your ducks in order and you’ve done your scenario planning. So, rather than patting yourself on the back and telling yourself “You can do this,” it is asking yourself, “Can I do this?” And answering with, “I should do A, then B. Remember last time, I did this and it probably would have been better if I’d done that; and if they put up resistance Q, I should say blah blah. Where were the weaknesses in my explanation last time? Maybe I didn’t listen as well as I should have and I need to listen more, etc.” It is what all good fielders do: before the pitch is thrown, they know exactly what play they’ll make if the ball comes to them, otherwise while they are dancing in the field, the runner gets on base—or worse, scores.

None of us can control the volatility of the economy, but we can develop a strong, well-equipped, deep cadre that can work toward the financial sustainability of our organization.