Remember how I kept insisting that you need to have a dollar amount in mind when making the ask? The one potential snag is that if the amount is untenable for the donor at the time, the risk becomes that the donor might feel that since they cannot give at the level solicited, he or she should not make a gift at all. While the logic is faulty, it happens often enough where the donor, unable to give at the exact level I was asking, then feels bad giving less than that and decides not to give at all.
An equally common occurrence is that when you go to resolicit donors for their annual gift at a certain level, they feel that since they cannot support your organization this year at their past giving level, that they need to cut their support altogether. For whatever reasons, giving less than what they used to give can sometimes bear a stigma.
Here, if the donor comes back with the aI canat give at that level,a you need to rea.s.sure them that gifts of all sizes matter, and that youad be doing your organization a disservice if you didnat treat gifts of all amounts with the equal amount of grat.i.tude. Using the strength in numbers argument works, and it makes sense to do a little bit of research for this type of reb.u.t.tal. Look at your donor roll: what is the sum total of all gifts of $100 and under? $50 and under? $25 and under? You want to be able to tell that donor, aDid you know that all gifts of $50 and under to our organization added up to more than $75,000 last year?a It is often this kind of argument that helps donors to see that even if they arenat able to support this year at $500, they should still consider partic.i.p.ating with a smaller gift.
Avoid calling it a token gift. This can be seen as pejorative. It isnat in and of itself diminutive, but it can inspire a small amount of shame in a donor.
This reb.u.t.tal is also very effective when dealing with this objection: aMy $25 doesnat really make a difference.a Again, if you can come back quickly and say that all gifts under $25 to your organization last year totaled over $30,000, thatas pretty compelling. You can say that if every donor that said they only had $25 to give decided not to, thatas $30,000 that your organization would not have otherwise received. $30,000 allowed us to do X, Y, and Z.
When I was canva.s.sing on behalf of the DNC in Boston, when I would talk to folks about the impact of their $10 gift, I would tell them a message along the following lines: on a given day on the streets of Boston, I stop about 20, maybe 25 people. If every one of those people gave me $10, thatas $200, maybe even $250. Now, I have a team of 5 that are also out with me today. So all of a sudden, weare talking $1,000 or more. But keep going: there are over a dozen other offices across the country that are also out on the streets today building support, some with teams of 10 or 15 or more doing exactly what Iam doing.
All of a sudden, a $10 gift has s...o...b..lled into tens of thousands of dollars. Granted, the DNC has a huge fundraising operation, but you can still use the s...o...b..ll or multiplier effect to make your case as to why someone should give something, even if they cannot give at the amount that you originally proposed.
I give to other organizations already and am all tapped out.
With any objection, you should be open to the fact that you might not rebut in a way that results in an immediate conversion of a no to a yes. The point of negotiating is, yes, ultimately to get a gift, but in the interim, to sustain the dialogue and to nurture the relationship.
With this particular objection, you need to see where their philanthropic dollars are going. What organizations are they currently supporting? If possible, find out at what dollar level they are supporting, too.
If you donat know the work of the other organizations, ask the donor what they do. Ask why the donor supports them. Ask them what about that organization inspires them to give. If you can, figure out how much.
Figuring out why they support other organizations is important because you have to listen carefully to figure out if there is a good fit for the work that your nonprofit does. Does your organization have a similar or complementary mission to what that donor is supporting?
If it does, then be sure to point that out explicitly, explaining how the work that the other organization does is valid and important, but that supporting your organization, due to the complementary nature of the work that it does vis--vis the other one, will help the overall mission of both nonprofits.
Also, be sure to let them know that you appreciate the fact that they are philanthropic generally, even if not to your organization specifically. You want people to continue to behave philanthropically, because relationships and wealth levels change over time. So encourage them, even if you really cannot get them to budge and give to your inst.i.tution, to continue giving, as the act of giving now is a good indicator of giving in the future.
Earlier, I stressed finding out the level of support that that donor gives to other organizations. I did this because it may or may not be at a level of support that you were hoping to solicit. If, say, the donor boasts that he is giving $5,000 to another organization, you can tell that donor that he can get involved with your organization at a level that is comfortable for him, much like the previous set of reb.u.t.tals on not being able to give at the level for which you originally solicited.
Iam not giving because Iam upset with a decision that your organization has made recently.
Iam not giving because Iam disappointed with the leadership of your organization right now.
This one comes up a lot. The way to look at this one positively is that it means that you are dealing with a donor who is following the work that you do. Previously, I talked about dealing with the angry donor, and this is a variation on that situation.
The first thing you need to do is have the donor articulate in his or her own words what is upsetting and why. Donat interrupt. Just listen to the testimony, even if it takes on the form of a rant.
While listening, you need to have an ear towards how accurate his or her perception of the situation is as well as if he or she is putting the grievance into its proper context.
Sometimes, the act of listening is enough to calm people down, to get them back on your side. Oftentimes, asking them to articulate why they were upset diffuses the situation that they had been building up in their mind.
I had a prospect who had supported the inst.i.tution for years and suddenly stopped giving. I visited with him and asked him why he had stopped. His initial answer was vague: aI donat like the current president or athletics director.a When I pushed him on why, he wasnat really able to come up with anything concrete: he just didnat like them. After realizing that he was just being somewhat petty, and after a discussion of what each person had actually accomplished in their positions, we were able to discuss getting him back on board as a donor.
Very often, an explanation of the decision-making process that resulted in the donoras ire will help. Even if the donor is still in disagreement with why a decision was made, explaining how your organization got to that decision can help. It makes the donor feel like an insider to have the process divulged to him or her. It also helps the donor to see all the stakeholders in your organization that were affected in that decision.
So ask questions, provide context, and, if the donoras perceptions are simply out of sync with reality, delicately and diplomatically explain that they are slightly off in his or her read on things.
The other tactic you can employ here is to refocus the conversation on the positive work that your organization is doing. Donat ignore the fact that the donor is upset. Acknowledge it; honor it. But then see if you can steer the prospectas attention back to the substance of your organization, of the work that you are doing, and why that merits support. In essence, youare asking the donor to hang up his or her hang ups and focus on the big picture: your organization is doing very important work that matters to society and should matter to the donor, and you need that philanthropic support in order to continue achieving your inst.i.tutional goals.
Granted, there are a myriad of other objections that can come up. These are just some common ones, along with proposed reb.u.t.tals that tend to work. Remember that not every reb.u.t.tal will turn the conversation around immediately, but it does allow the dialogue to continue and allows you to prove to your prospect that you believe strongly enough in your work and your organization that you want to find a good philanthropic fit for the donor at a time and level that is comfortable for him or her.
So there it is: the ask, dissected and inspected from many angles. We started the chapter with a brief meditation on rejection, and itas my hope that youall accept it as a part of the trade. I then spoke at length about how the ask will usually engender some level of discomfort, and that thatas OK. If the donor is completely comfortable with the solicitation, you are probably low-balling her. I then outlined the various preparatory steps that go into the actual ask, and the considerations of time, setting, solicitor, and amount. We then took a look at some tips and tricks for you to use when pulling the trigger, and then spent some time dealing with reb.u.t.tals and how to deal effectively with a number of common ones.
Letas turn our attention now to major gifts and talk about how to ask for those gifts amount your top 20 percent.
Major Gifts.
Big Money for Big Projects.
Not to sound alarmist, but major gifts will make or break your fundraising shop. The long-term success and sustainability of your operation hinges on your ability to solicit and close major gifts. Whatas more, any fundraising campaign that you launch with a dollar goal will depend on being able to line up some heavy-hitting donors. This sounds intuitive, and you can set up a fundraising shop with the best of intentions to develop a major gift program. But when you hit the ground running and have to meet annual targets (which have significant budgetary considerations), it can be easy to sell yourself short and neglect your biggest donors.
The good news is that major gifts neednat be a stressful affair. There is a lot to major gifts solicitation that is very similar to soliciting regular gifts. And there is plenty thatas different. Donat worry, though. Weall walk through the process of asking for these large, large gifts.
The threshold for major gifts will vary depending on your donor base. I would define it as your top 20 percent in terms of gift size. In this chapter, weall focus on the top of your gift pyramid, the similarities and differences from the other 80 percent of your donor base, timelines, expectations, a reflection on major gifts since the recession of 2008, and advice on the actual solicitation. I provide an example of a major-gift solicitation in Appendix B.
Whatas the Same.
Letas start with what is the same between major gifts and regular partic.i.p.ation gifts.
When I was first recruited to do major gifts, a colleague in the major gifts department said, aItas just adding zeroes.a And in some ways, thatas a good departure point for beginning to think about major gifts.
So, whatas the same? Well, for starters, youare still dealing with people. Yes, theyare wealthier than your average donor, but at the end of the day, major gift prospects are just people. Yes, they sometimes get special attention and should get treated differently, but theyare not royalty. You donat need to grovel. So thatas the first point: itas still a human interaction, and these major donors are still regular people. They just happen to be a bit wealthier than average. Thereas a balancing act that will happen with each of your major gift prospects in terms of how much you need to stroke their ego.
Secondly, thereas an actual ask, just like a partic.i.p.ation gift. Granted, the time horizon is longer, but a day still arrives in which you must ask for a philanthropic commitment to your organization.
How you contact them wonat change, eithera"you plan a trip and a call list in the same way you would to plan a trip based solely on partic.i.p.ation and annual giving. In short, the first and last stepsa"the outreach and aska"happen in much the same manner as with any other prospect.
Whatas Different.
There is, however, a good deal that differs in the solicitation of major gifts and the solicitation of partic.i.p.ation gifts. The first big difference is the time horizon. On average, a major gift solicitation cycle will take twelve to eighteen months. I know, that sounds like a long time, especially when youare trying to raise money just to keep the doors open and the lights on. Remember, though, this is only for your biggest donors. There is a difference between a high-end annual partic.i.p.ation gift and a major gift. (I should also state here that the high-end annual givers of today are the major gift prospects of tomorrow, and they also need special attention, but thatas not the focus of our current line of discussion; it is important to note, however.) Major gifts do take a longer time to close, and thatas because you want those gifts to correspond with the core of your organizationas goals. If you close a major gift that happens to support something for which there isnat currently a need at your inst.i.tution, you do a disservice to both your prospect and your inst.i.tution.
The way that major gifts impact your organization can vary in many more ways than partic.i.p.ation gifts. Partic.i.p.ation gifts often provide budget-relieving support to your inst.i.tution in a limited number of areas. Major gifts can range from providing budget relief to creating new programs to transforming an existing program and bringing it to new heights.
It Takes Time.
It is in part due to this potentiality that negotiating major gifts takes a longer time. You want the prospectas money, but you want it delivered in such a way that the donor feels good about the gift they are making, and that your organization can use this money effectively. Itas of no use to you to close gifts that do little or nothing to enhance your organizationas core programming.
This sounds like a no-brainer, but believe me, it can be tougher than you think. There is a burgeoning industry of philanthropic advising, in which companies advise and consult with extremely large foundations on how to effectively give away their money. As an industry peer said to me, as to why such companies exist (and thrive), aItas harder than you think to give away $100 million.a There are snags in major gift work that do not arise in soliciting annual gifts. By the nature of the size of the gift (and sometimes by the accompanying size of the ego), there is often the philanthropic equivalent of strings being attached. The donor will have preferences, and the capacity of your inst.i.tution to honor these preferences may vary.
Beware the Naming Opportunity Minefield.
Letas spend some time talking about naming opportunities, as this is something your inst.i.tution needs to think about and plan for seriously. What naming opportunities are available for major donors, and what are the giving thresholds at which you will name something? You can name buildings, you can name programs. You can name rooms. You can name staff positions. This work will involve coordination with your stewardship/donor relations staff, as you will need to report on each named fund.
Establishing naming opportunities and thresholds will depend on your current donor base. It doesnat make a lot of sense to set a naming opportunity at $100,000 if you have n.o.body in your donor base that can give at that level.
On the other hand, naming opportunities do have the ability to raise donorsa sights, even if they are not yet able to give at a certain threshold. It lets them know that donors already exist at that level, and that giving at that level would make them one of the top donors to your organization.
Sometimes, when I am reading through the program at certain performances or events and I get to the list of benefactors, broken down by giving level, I see something interesting. There are, as expected, a lot of donors at the lower levels, with fewer and fewer as the gift level rises. This is the gift pyramid playing itself out. Then, Iall see one or more levels at the very top that are empty.
Itas an interesting strategy, one that I think has value. Itas sending a clear signal to donors, most notably to those at the current top of the list, that your organization has aspirations to solicit individuals for even more than they are already giving.
Just so you donat think Iam speaking out of both sides of my mouth here, let me reconcile all of this: when setting giving levels, and thresholds for naming opportunities and giving societies, you are limited to the resources within your current donor base. However, this is not to say that you cannot create thresholds or societies for which you do not currently have any support. By doing that, you are revealing your philanthropic hopes and dreams as an inst.i.tution, as well as providing your donor base with an idea of where your organization is heading.
What is more, your current donor base is ripe for further development. Chances are that a number of your top donorsa"as well as a good percentage of your mid-range donorsa"actually have the ability to give far beyond what they are currently giving. The professionalization of your development shop, and the creation of a robust major gifts program, will raise their sights and hopefully empower a number of them to begin giving beyond their already generous levels of financial support.
There will be a temptation, especially early on, to provide naming opportunities at the drop of a hat, and to make exceptions if a donoras giving levels are close enough, or even within reason. There is certainly a good justification for doing thisa"it keeps donors engaged, makes them happy, and strokes their egos.
But you set a dangerous precedent on two levels. On one level, you are selling yourself short with that particular donor. By making an exception once, you are undermining your donoras confidence in you. This is less of an issue if the donor does not know you made an exception, but it does tend to erode the relationship. Part of you will end up resenting either yourself or the donor for selling the organization short on a pre-established naming opportunity.
It is easy, years down the road, to look back at how you gave away the name of a program or a building for far too little. a.s.suming that the decision to asella it at a lower price doesnat come back to haunt you.
Believe me, when a donor asks how much it costs to name something, part of me, every time, wants to suggest a figure to which I know theyall say yes, even if itas far below what I should be targeting.
Youare implicitly saying that itas okay for them to stay at the level at which they are currently giving. And for young nonprofits, itas rarely the case that a donor is giving at their full capacity. If you never ask for more than what they are currently giving, they will never be challenged to step up their philanthropic commitment to your organization.
Not every donor will turn into a major donora"some will stay at their consistent, high-end annual gift, but you at least need to present funding opportunities above their current giving level from time to time.
There is another level at which you sell your organization short: by cutting corners on funding opportunities. You send a bad message to the rest of your donor base. Again, you set a precarious precedent for yourself if word gets out that the price tag on a naming opportunity is negotiable. Whereas, if you go to your next donor and stick to the script, what would happen if the previous donor had been in contact with this one? If the first donor tells the second that he had something named after him for a certain price, how are you going to explain it to the next donor? Will you have to make a second exception?
It gets messy in ways that you canat antic.i.p.ate. You can control how you communicate with your prospects, but you cannot control how prospects communicate with one another. And you simply canat know who is saying what about your organization. The smaller your donor base, especially your top donor base, the more likely it is that they converse with one another. Circles of wealth tend to overlap, and more so once you begin doing high-end donor events, since the network gets smaller (and the wealth more concentrated).
The final argument against making exceptions to pre-established funding levels is the simplest: there is a donor out there who will give at that level. So let the reluctant prospect give at a comfortable level, gracefully decline them the naming opportunity and/or find them an opportunity youave established at a more modest level, and go in search of someone else! Itas hard to trust this fact, especially early on in your major gift work, but please believe that there are donors out there who can give you large amounts of money . . . and that with enough training and time, your team will have the ability to solicit these donors for the desired level of funding.
When Priorities Do Not Mesh.
A tougher situation than naming opportunities can arise when your donoras interests and your organizationas funding priorities do not mesh. At the annual giving/partic.i.p.ation gift level, this is generally not a problema"you either have a budget category to which they can make a donation or you donat. But what if someone comes to you with a million dollars and there is no need for what that donor wants to support?
It becomes a bit like a chess match or a tug-of-war, depending on your personality and the donoras. Sometimes there is no match to be made. For example, if you are an organization that promotes the game of squash in poor, urban high schools as a gateway to help get these students into college, and a donor approaches you with a million dollars to build a new swimming pool at your facility for cross-training, chances are the proposal will not be well received.
But what if the situation is a little blurrier? When are you willing to bend for a donor? What if, say, your organization does environmental advocacy work and needs additional office s.p.a.ce? A donor comes along who is willing to give you as much money as you need, but she wants to select a friend as the architect, someone not qualified in green design. What then? Do you take the building at the expense of betraying your ideals? Or do you turn the donor away?
The hope is that there is room for negotiation, and that you and your organization can make the case for employing a LEED-certified architect. But if the donor does not budge, what do you do?
This is an ethical question that has no easy answer. I am certainly not about to prescribe a formula that could damage your organizationas relationship with a top donor. If there is this level of intransigence, it might make sense to get your governing board to weigh in, or to have a board member/trustee engage the donor or architect directly. Either way, as a fundraiser you need to weigh in on the matter, while also accepting the fact that you might not be the best person to be the ultimate arbiter of the situation. After all, your ultimate goal is to close gifts; you have an understandably skewed view of things. By the very nature of your work, you are more likely to side with the donor. That is more than acceptable; itas your job to do so. Itas for this very reason that Iam advising you to kick it up the ladder when you are in the midst of a negotiation this intense. If youare in this situation, it is justifiable to delegate decision making to the higher powers.
While not every major gift will present you with a dilemma of this magnitude, and not every prospect will haggle about the price of a naming opportunity, these are issues that come up with major gift work that simply donat arise with partic.i.p.ation gifts or annual giving.
Storytelling and Negotiating: The Essential Skills of a Major Gift Officer.
Even if yours is a single-issue advocacy group, you shouldnat discount donors who are giving to other causes. Think creatively about the work your organization does and, if applicable, where you fit into the broader movement.