Heirloom Giving

I don’t have a Patek Philippe watch, but I understand that they’re one of the world’s finest timepieces. How do I know this? I know it because they’ve spent years telling me that their watches are among the world’s finest timepieces!

Back in 1999, the company launched a brilliant ad campaign centered around a television spot entitled “Handing Down.” Their marketing executives believed that they could differentiate their product from their competitors by emphasizing the “heirloom” quality of Patek Philippe watches. They were so well-made and so beautiful, in other words, that an owner would want future generations to benefit by inheriting one.

Remember the “heirloom” emphasis when you’re getting ready to make the ask. It’s one thing to approach the ask as a mere transaction – “please consider giving $XX over X years, on the following pledge payment schedule” – but a wholly different, and more effective, strategy to emphasize the lasting value of a gift.

Properly imagined, an annual fund or leadership gift should have an effect for some time into the future . . . ideally, both a financial effect and an inspirational/motivational effect. Do your homework ahead of time and clearly demonstrate to the donor how their gift will give your institution more than a temporary bump.

Copyright 2010 by J. Mark Reimer

The Self-Interest See-Saw: Re-imagining the Donor/Fundraiser Negotiation

Picture a see-saw, perfectly balanced: the board is exactly parallel to the ground, with both children at precisely the same height. Simply put, the key to this perfect balance is equal weight distribution on both sides.

Now picture the perfectly balanced see-saw as a business negotiation between two companies. The negotiation involves equal self-interest, driven by each company’s bottom-line goal of profitability. Each side presumably has the same motivation to make a deal advantageous to his company.

Translate this into fundraising. A common assumption in the donor prospect/major gift officer (MGO) negotiation is that self-interest is much more heavily weighted toward the MGO, chiefly because donors are not bound to give (often they are compelled, of course, by altruism, tax advantages, social aspirations, a sense of guilt/duty, and other motivations, but not bound), whereas the MGO, both for the sake of the institution and his/her own career, needs the gift.

Sometimes this assumption is made by the MGO and the donor alike: the MGO may assume that he or she practically has to plead for the gift, and the donor may assume the attitude of “impress me – I have 30 causes asking me for my money.”

On the other hand, though the ideal donor prospect/MGO negotiation will never be completely equal – always weighted toward the officer because of the difference in self-interest – the officer can and should strive to get as close to balance as possible. And it is possible to do so.

How? First, and simply, put oneself in the other’s place as best as possible. Ask and actively listen, taking mental notes (actual note-taking never hurts unless it’s a distraction from the conversation). Approach the first meeting or first several meetings like informational interviews. After fifteen years in the business I still have to remind myself to do more listening than talking in meetings – especially if the meeting seems a little awkward.

Second, build on the first step by making your cause relevant to the donor prospect. “Making your case in space” not only isn’t helpful but may be viewed as insulting. You may be convinced that your cause is tremendously important, but assuming that your prospect feels the same way can bring the conversation to a quick, uncomfortable end. In my experience, all but the most narrowly specific of causes can have broad appeal if you do your homework and carefully think through the pitch. Craft that pitch not for a demographic but for the specific person you’re sharing coffee with.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, have confidence! Once you realize that that the average donor prospect has a complicated set of “voices” responding internally to your pitch – as mentioned, factors like pure altruism, religious motivation, tax concerns, social aspirations, a sense of guilt/duty, etc. – you can easily envision the “see-saw” coming closer to balancing.

The result of this simple sight-adjustment will be increased confidence during your visits – and likely greater production.

UPDATE: see this interesting article from the New York Times, "Is Pure Altruism Possible?"


Copyright 2010 by J. Mark Reimer

On the Rocks

Not talking about libations here – although feel free to email me if you’re buying!

No, this is about multi-year pledges that have run aground due to the donor’s waning enthusiasm over time. If the proper steps aren’t taken to ensure continuing engagement with the gift, the donor may fulfill the pledge reluctantly or simply out of obligation, not enthusiasm.

Take a five-year pledge; often, around the third payment, a donor may begin looking forward to the pledge ending and may start doling out the money each year on the due date until, finally, he/she is able to “take a break. It’s not that I don’t plan to give again – I just need some time off.”

In this scenario, the donor is thinking a lot about the cost of the gift – which means that he or she is dwelling on the obligation. Wow, I really can’t wait to fulfill this pledge. I need to make a gift to X, or I could use this money for my kids’ tuition, or . . .

At that point the multi-year pledge becomes like a boat taking on water – sinking, requiring a lot of hard work to keep things afloat – as opposed to a craft that’s watertight, buoyant.

Think about that last word, buoyant. It’s no mistake that the word means both “capable of floating” and “cheerful.” A charitable partnership, as opposed to an obligation, keeps the donor engaged and excited.

To stay “shipshape,” you should approach every stewardship visit like a new pitch:

• Don’t leave a visit or a call without offering one specific example of how the last pledge payment was used.
• Try to change the reporting style up slightly each year – “tell me something I didn’t know.”
• Involve others – recipients, deans, professors, Executive Directors, parents, etc. – in writing or even alongside you on a visit.
• Don’t wait until year 5 (or 3, or whatever) to look ahead – begin introducing the idea of the next gift midstream.

Make the value of the gift – to the institution, to the people receiving the benefit, and to the donor – evident. Doing so will keep the ship afloat!

ATMs vs. Coffee Mugs

How do you view your donors? Are they ATMs, there to kick out cash each year when you come calling . . . or are they partners with whom you spend time over coffee, have open and honest discussions, get to know? Can you honestly say you know Donor Y’s motivation for giving, the names of his or her children and their schools, and what sport he or she coaches, or have you skipped right to the ask?

The ATM approach may work for the short run but will run out of steam when your donor figures out that you’re only interested in that immediate gift. If your “coffee mug” approach makes clear that you’re interested in the relationship that leads to a giving partnership, then you’ve got something.

Copyright 2010 by J. Mark Reimer

The Hundred Hands

Remember that every donor has a hundred hands reaching out to them. Ninety-nine of them are palm-up, asking for a donation. Make yours the one that’s offered in partnership!

Which one are you?

Copyright 2010 by J. Mark Reimer