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