By Kathleen Provost
As a professional fundraiser, I often struggle between the intent to find an extraordinary idea to fundraise successfully, and the security that comes with known fundraising practices or methods. I have learned to give a value to a charitable gift and to document proven methods by which I can make accurate measurements for my chosen strategies to obtain charitable gifts. I can measure my cost to raise a dollar; or I can measure how much investment is needed to steward a future major gift. Proven methods help assess our work and estimate expected results. Yet, I am often face with the challenge to find something new, something better, something innovative that could yield a better result.
Shakespeare is the best-known writer to have expressed the idea that shiny things aren’t necessarily precious things. In his 1596 The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare wrote ‘all that glisters is not gold’. “Glister” was eventually replaced by ‘glitter’ in modern renditions of the play. But the thought remains, meaning that not everything that is shiny and, perhaps superficially attractive is valuable.
So, as professionals, we need to question is the “new shiny” project or idea worth sacrificing or neglecting a perhaps boring but proven fundraising initiative? What if we just continue our course with a proven method? Is there a risk to our fundraising growth? Or better yet, if I choose new and innovative fundraising activities, or strategies, is there a risk to my organization’s sustainability? How do we really determine the value of a charitable gift, given all things considered?
“The Shiny Object”
Last March, as the world began facing an unprecedented global pandemic, Jeff Brooks, from the Moceanic team, wrote an article entitled: How to Survive Shiny Object Syndrome, intimately called SOS. Brooks claims leaders in our organizations are often under a lot of pressure to produce results that are better than the previous year. Given the challenges we are faced today with the current state of our economy, our public health, as well as our social reality, maybe doing what we have always done in the past is unlikely to produce better results.
If we must turn our attention to new things, new ways, new methods of fundraising we may be able to address the new realities we are facing. Brooks stated, “We all have a responsibility to innovate, to look forward, and to keep up with changing situations.” But how much of our attention should be focus on the SOS? In a way, the SOS may be something new and produce different result, but they do not have a proven track record at the moment. So, the question is how much risk can we take on? Brooks’ recommends we use the Eisenhower Matrix to help us prioritize our time. This tool can help us find that balance between prioritizing our work on the ongoing old stuff that really works, and the new shiny objects that might work. When it comes to innovation, there’s a “just right” place between being hypnotized by every new thing that comes along and being afraid to do anything new at all.
Eisenhower Matrix – Will divide your tasks into quadrants by their urgency and their importance.
Our responsibility, as fundraisers is to ensure we can yield a charitable gift for our organization. We solicit charitable gifts on a daily basis with our annual appeals, our special events, even our strategic approach to lead donors. The question remains how much risk can we take to find an alternative method of finding these charitable gifts?
The competition for the charitable gift
In addition to the risk factor involved in implementing new fundraising methods, we are reminded constantly of the exiting competition for charitable gifts. Imagine Canada states there are over 170,000 charitable and nonprofit organizations in Canada, and 85,000 of these are registered charities (recognized by the Canada Revenue Agency). That is a lot of competition! If we do not innovate or change some of our strategies, our competitors become the SOS that may attract our donor. At the end of the day, we are also responsible to address our own donor fatigue. Maybe we need a few fundamentals to ascertain a healthy balance between the SOS and the known fundraising strategy when considering a charitable gift for our organization.
Last year, our colleague Fraser Green, Principal & Chief Strategist at Good Works published a fascinating blog titled Why You Shouldn’t Just Focus on the Shiny New Fundraising Trends. He shared his experience with clients who are often looking for the “newest innovation, the latest trends or a cutting-edge practice”. Yet Fraser cautions us to consider the benefits of a consistent and disciplined focus on fundamentals. He reminds us to learn and understand best practices in our fundraising programs and to look to the successful practices of other charities. He claims that “Shiny things in fundraising are like lottery tickets. They’re nice to have, but you shouldn’t expect to win – not by a long shot.”
Bottom line, we have a responsibility to ensure we can yield the best charitable gifts for our organization. At times, the SOS may be a distraction, at times it is a blessing. The best way to ascertain its merit is to assess our fundamental fundraising capacity against a new idea, to ensure its viability, and to assess the possible risk associated with it.
The refusal of a charitable gift
If an innovative proposal crosses our desk, must we accept it? Can we refuse a charitable gift because of the proposed method or process of obtaining that gift? Fundraisers ought to be aware of the rules and regulations that govern our professional practice and we ought to identify the legal obligations that are necessary when obtaining a charitable gift.
Whether we are guided by our own professional Code of Ethics, (notwithstanding the application of the Canadian law on charitable giving) we still face the SOS attraction to respond to some fatigue within our organizations, and within our fundraising programs. Still, we have some discretion in assessing whether the acceptance of a proposed donation is, or is not, in the best interests our own organization. So, when you are approached by your Board Chair, or volunteer committee member with a “Glister”, how can you assess if it is real “gold”? How can you assess if this idea will ensure a good return on investment (ROI)?
The poisoned charitable gift
As referenced by Imagine Canada, in Canada alone, hundreds of thousands of charitable gifts are needed every year. The “Shiny Object Syndrome” is real and plays an essential role in shaping our capacity to innovate and think creatively. Without measurement and a tactical approach, the SOS can be lethal to our fundraising programs and ultimately to our organization. However, if it inspires us to push some boundaries, or explore new approaches, it can yield a ROI we had not envisioned.
One word of caution — beware of the boundaries surrounding your newfound fundraising initiatives. If by accepting a charitable gift, you or your organization are transgressing any laws, or committing to unacceptable donor requirements, this may be a poisoned gift. Even creativity has its limits. Beware of the poisoned apple.
Kathleen A. Provost, CFRE is the Campaign Director at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish. She brings over 25 years of fundraising experience within the charitable sector. She writes this column exclusively for each issue of Foundation Magazine.
References:
https://www.moceanic.com/2020/shiny-object-syndrome/#respond
https://www.moceanic.com/2020/fundraising-tool/
http://sectorsource.ca/research-and-impact/sector-impact
https://www.goodworksco.ca/why-you-shouldnt-just-focus-on-the-shiny-new-trends/
Related Posts
