~ Peter said: ~

~ Do you see hucksterism as the death thrash of a desparate NPO? ~

Is it a last resort? Or is just simply what we know? What we learned in school, fundraising for our kids. Flog something, have a bake sale or hold a silent auction ...

Meron,

It's a loaded question and there are variables. In general, the learning was really in observation of some longstanding well established NPOs.

But I'll go out on a limb ...

I think some organisations will do anything just to do something to raise funds. Further - they know who they are. If these NPOs don't come to terms with their habit they are destined for oblivion.

Invariably the NPOs squeak about "accountability" being forced on them by funders etc ... [Not to suggest that funders don't abuse/over use the concept - when it suits.] The real driver is the giving public, who are looking for authentic means of making a contribution and then a means to authenticate that choice. The giving public isn't paying attention the way they once did.

death thrash ~ now I understand your angle.

~ Peter said: ~

~ I think some organisations will do anything just to do something to raise funds. Further - they know who they are. If these NPOs don't come to terms with their habit they are destined for oblivion. ~

So how do you encourage NPOs to step out of the box (to use an overused term) to shed the habit, try something different, take a risk, make like a dolphin ... and in the process awaken, stimulate and educate the giving public?

A former client was fond of saying:

Never send ducks to eagle school

I tend to think it isn't about having an organisation making "like" it's something, but very much about being what it is.

To continue this animalia.

It may be fine to be a seal, i.e. political campaigns are definitely seal-ish. A seal-ish organisation may just be a short lived organisation.

You asked:

... and in the process awaken, stimulate and educate the giving public?

I think your question needs to start at the other end, NPOs need to get "stimulated and educated" by their donors and other key supporters. For instance,

• how would NPO behaviour change if the daily papers covered their activity the same way business is covered?
• how would an NPO respond to the idea of "firing" donors that aren't engaged with the organization, i.e. only want the tax benefit?
• how would NPOs restate their principles if their investment portfolios were held up as the organisational moral compass?

"Stimulated and educated" NPOs then need to look at their "what" and "why".

I guess the short answer is:

I suggest they turn themselves inside out.

[Aside: when I first read this ...

• Killer Whale - "works collaboratively yet highly aggressive/indiscriminate"
• Shark - "works alone and highly aggressive/indiscriminate"
• Seal - "low collaboration and willing to put on a show for fish heads"
• Dolphin - "works collaboratively and strategically"

Christan's fish tank came to mind ... can't seem to let go of the image.]

~ Peter said: ~

~ I think your question needs to start at the other end, NPOs need to get "stimulated and educated" by their donors and other key supporters. ~

Interesting flip. One I'll have to ponder.

My first thought was to take that one step further. If it's the NPOs that need to be stimulated by their donors and, as you've suggested, the donors have become detached and disinterested, caught up in the mechanics of giving and not connected to the spirit of giving then what is it that is going to fire them up? Who has the most heart in the game?

I don't see it as "firing anyone up" - like a sales manager - but more cutting away to make more room for, and include more, of the donor - creating space for the donor to contribute.

Meron said:

My first thought was to take that one step further. If it's the NPOs that need to be stimulated by their donors and, as you've suggested, the donors have become detached and disinterested, caught up in the mechanics of giving and not connected to the spirit of giving then what is it that is going to fire them up? Who has the most heart in the game?

I think the impetus for change is in the nature of competion, that's competion for individual attention. The expression of attention can be made in a variety of ways. The more ways an individual can convey attention, the greater opportunity for the NPO to stimulate engagement

Using o.net as an example, here we have an immense catalogue of direct action opportunities. Some NPOs may view this as competion (for scarce resources), others may view it as opportunites for collaboration.

This looks like it could be the start of an interesting discussion on viable ways to create revenue for NPO's, but I am not really getting it. Could you be more direct about the message you are wanting to deliver? If you had spoken up at the meeting and said what you would say as clearly as possible(instead of putting your eye out with the pen), what would you have said?

• Could you be more direct about the message you are wanting to deliver?

In the context of the meeting, the phrase "this is something we could never do" came up. It's a limiting belief that in many cases ends discussion. The phrase can be applied as much to fundraising stunts as creating social enterprises. I believe the difference lies in that a social enterprise has the opportunity to raise the NPO to a state of emancipation. Where as a focus on fundraising stunts adds noise and can distract from the purpose of the NPO, e.g. wanting the <insert coulour> rubber wristband/piece of ribbon, etc ... without knowing/being attached to the cause it represents.

As for the meeting, I was there as a resource to support the management - if needed. I wouldn't want you to think that I wouldn't speak up if required.

Going back to the two-by-two matrix, an NPO needs to appreciate their organisational disposition and then determine if it's working for their longterm ambitions.

In the case of this specific NPO they are a product of bending to the whim of whoever was footing the bill and so they are engaged in activities well outside their mission aligned competencies.

Thanks for the question btw ...

Patricia said:

This looks like it could be the start of an interesting discussion on viable ways to create revenue for NPO's, but I am not really getting it. Could you be more direct about the message you are wanting to deliver? If you had spoken up at the meeting and said what you would say as clearly as possible(instead of putting your eye out with the pen), what would you have said?

Thanks for the answer Peter. I understand better. I think you have lots to say about inspiring ways that NPO's can engage with donors effectively and be the better for it - and I look forward to hearing more.

I recommend journalist Michael Maren's book: The Road to Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity. The point that applies here is that many groups are really good at fund-raising, but awful when it comes to running successful projects.

From personal experience I have stopped giving to organizations that keep sending me junk along with requests for more money. I have enough calendars to wallpaper my entire apartment, and will never run out of return address labels. These types of ploys really irk me. I want my money to go to program expenses. I realize that NPOs need a constant stream of funding. But showing me results in the field is the way to get my attention. Stop wasting money sending people tote bags and coffee mugs.

Brian, I've seen you mention that book a couple times, I just dropped an order in at Amazon for the book. Thnx for the recommendation.

Ditto re the recommendation for Michael Maren's book, although realizing that he has quite an axe to grind.

Maybe San Diego is unique, but we have a continuing stream major non-profit scandals and fundraising scams hitting us here, from the local Red Cross to a scamster soliciting charity funds and pocketing the donations.

I talked to a former vice president of an organization of one of the largest adopt a child programs, who told me that "maybe" $4 of the $30/month collected actually makes it to the kid. (Michael Maren describes Save the Children distributing none of the collected funds to a school in Appalachia).

The Chronicle of Philanthropy estimated that Americans donated $2.4 billion and 175,000 volunteered in the wake of 9/11, yet trust in charities plummeted to a 25 year low within 6 months. Folks react out of generosity and compassion, and get distrust and cynicism back.

I think that folks really do want meaningful opportunities to make the world a better place, but I am not convinced that the current "industry" structure is the appropriate way to make this happen. Having 1.4 million (in the US alone) non-profits fishing from the same donor pool is a recipe for turning it into a donor puddle.

there needs to be a better way.

I hope that you enjoy the book Mark.

I have to agree with Tom. Maren does have an ax to grind. And most of his field examples come from Somalia, one of the most tribally divided and socially difficult countries to work in. After reading Maren's book, I returned to Africa to see things for myself. In my limited experience, I felt that many NGOs are getting a terrible rate of return on their investments.

Maren talks about aid workers zooming around in white Toyota landcruisers, and not being in touch with local politics. I have to agree with this assessment. On my last trip to Ethiopia I met a very cordial aid worker in a fancy bar in Addis Ababa. After introductions, he asked me about safety in Addis--where he could go and not go. He was staying at the fancy Hilton Hotel, and had never explored the city on his own. I am not trying to question this man's abilities or effectiveness at his job, but want to point out his distance from the local people. Time and time again I have met career aid workers who have this same sense of distance.

As Tom mentions above, aid has become an industry--not only on the home front but also in the field.

I don't know the solution, but it is more than just collecting money. I feel that some groups have too many funds, and therefore spend indiscriminately on ill-thought projects. I am making a list of the organizations that I believe are doing the best work, but have almost no means of checking up on their work. Charitynavigator.org is a start, but I sometimes find myself at odds with their methodology. I will post a link to an article called Rating the Raters when I can locate it.

Peace,

Brian

There are better ways. There is also a herd of elephants in the room.

Tom Munnecke said:

there needs to be a better way.

Donors might be focused on tax benefits because that is what the advisor shoves in their face. The advisor feels uncomfortable asking the charitable question, and bumbles it by asking if the potential donor would like to give to save taxes. ICCCCCCCCCCCCK.

Find your passion. Volunteer with an organization. Don't be distracted by the corruption in some bad seeds--it is a time of change and transparancy is the new key word.

Nonprofits are mission-driven organizations. IMHO, they will do best when they speak from their heart about their passion. Those that connect will give abundantly. Those that don't didn't want the "product" anyway.

And yes, get rid of all the gimmicks. I don't want 60% of my donation coming back at me as a gift. What a waste! As givers, we would do better to offer gifts that help reduce fundraising costs which take up an amazing/frightening amount of an organizations time and energy.

Rock On Peter!

Brian,

You might find this o.net thread on Charity Ratings worth reading. If you haven't found it already.

Thanks Peter. I had not found this thread.

Below is a link to the article about rating the raters

www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/x3790839788.pdf

can someone come up with a dolphin graphic for me to put on my profile page? ohhhhhh...... carlaaaaaa? :)

MinistryWatch.com, one of the services mentioned in the article, has a mission:

[...] promoting biblical principles of stewardship and helping people to apply those principles in their lives.

By providing quality information services, we seek to contribute to the enlightenment of the Christian community while empowering Christians with the ministry-specific knowledge that will lead to increased giving and enhanced ministry accountability.

All with an eye to creating a responsible giver - and I don't know what one of those looks like.

But then I've long felt that Charity is more about the donor than the recipient.

Brian,

Thanks for the link.

BTW - if you add "http://" as in

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/x3790839788.pdf

you create a hyperlink.

I'll offer this as a for instance.

• Some will see this as good fun.
• Some will see it as demeaning.
• Some as savvy collaboration - good PR.

For me, the effort and the Chiefs quippy comment:

“I’m happy to help out any way that I can, even if it means a little pain,” said Graham. “The important thing is that we come together as a community and raise funds to fight pediatric cancer and make the experience of having cancer a little less scary for kids.”

feels hollow. Is that really the way one should feel about pediatric cancer research and camps and programs for children living with cancer? <Rhetorical>

Wow, Peter, as far as I am concerned, any effort mixed with good intentions aimed at bringing awareness, visibility, assistance, and/or funding is a good thing.

To me, this seems like an off limits thing to judge.

So, to the question you pose: "Do you see hucksterism as the death thrash of a desperate NPO?" I've got to say that "hucksterism" is in the eye of the beholder ... obviously it does work for you ... or does it?

In emphasizing how torturous this meeting was for you, you said "… Was close to poking my eyes out with my pen tip."

Ah, the dramatic flair.

Peter Rees said:

feels hollow. Is that really the way one should feel about pediatric cancer research and camps and programs for children living with cancer? <Rhetorical>

Good points, Peter. It brings up the question of the zillion other things that need attention, but only a finite number of police chiefs willing to have their legs waxed. Even we expand this to dunking the mayor, shaving the heads of school principals, etc. we are still competing for public attention against Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston, or whomever (sorry for being out of date)...

We are also conditioning the public to 1) wait for an extravaganza (or mediagenic tragedy) to donate something, and 2) satisfy their "I gave" obligations in this kind of publicity frenzy.

This creates a vicious circle. Consider an NGO with X program folks, doing the work that is the on-the-ground mission of the organization, and Y fund-raisers, who are bringing in the money to fund the X program folks. Money gets tight, and the organization has to cut back somewhere. Does it cut back on the fund raisers, who bring in money, or the program folks, who cost money? Pretty difficult to keep up the program activity against this stark financial realities. So, they spend more money promoting themselves. The incentives are perverse; program activities suffer while fundraising flourishes.

The way to reverse this is to have the program activities attract resources for their success. Attractor networks (as opposed to promotional networks) would be scalable to lots of opportunities and activities, not just the spotlighted ones.

Yes Gina, and someone in the organisation is charged with making the judgement call.

In the face of declining donations; an organisation may blame the "Tsunami Effect" or "donor fatigue". I think healthier organisations look at the messages they are conveying, determine what they value, and measure their success against that determination, i.e. are we saying what we do and doing what we say, in such a way that more people are drawn to our work?

As for:

To me, this seems like an off limits thing to judge.

That may be so ... but I'll hazzard a guess that every day we make judgements when we distribute our giving dollar.

Gina Del Vecchio ~~ said:

Wow, Peter, as far as I am concerned, any effort mixed with good intentions aimed at bringing awareness, visibility, assistance, and/or funding is a good thing.

To me, this seems like an off limits thing to judge.

So, to the question you pose: "Do you see hucksterism as the death thrash of a desperate NPO?" I've got to say that "hucksterism" is in the eye of the beholder ... obviously it does work for you ... or does it?

Judging from a few off-list comments, this might seem a "tomato" vs "tom-ah-to" sort of issue. Not so much.

If one is called into community service, it serves one not to demure from asking "how can this be done better?".

Thanks to Mark and FOOD CHAIN, I've been thumbing through Looking Out for the Future: An Orientation for 21st Century Philanthropists by Katherine Fulton and Andrew Blau.

This blurb, from p. 7 - text, might interest some.

If NPOs don't come to terms with how they attract engaged supporters, this issue will remain unaddressed like an "elephant in the room".

The noise will only get louder and distracting.