« Back to blog

Show Me The Money- Disasters, Restrictions and The Future of the Fund Raising Industry

In the past few months, responding to two disasters in two countries has taught me allot about disaster funding, and the nature of the fund raising industry. My hope is that some larger market players in the fund raising industry can learn from the following.

In response to the major devastation that hit Guatemala with tropical storm Agatha AIDG recently did what we did for Haiti and what many NGOs do in a disaster, we put out an appeal to donors in our newsletter.

http://www.aidg.org/newsletters/

Now for background our newsletter has about 3000 active subscribers, our Haiti quake appeal pulled in over $125,000. The appeal for Guatemala pulled in $5250 ($5000 of which came from a long time donor and Tedster). Unfortunately $5250 isn't even gonna buy the first community's pipe.

So what happened? Do people like Guatemala less than Haiti? No. Not from the emails that came back without gifts.

In truth what happened is that the Haiti donations in large part weren't actually new money. They were existing donors giving what they would give for the year but giving it then, for Haiti. This was a huge chunk of our budget for the year from our regular donors that suddenly was legally bound by restrictions to just respond to the Haiti disaster. While helping immediately the donors accidentally stripped funding from the general resources of the organization. And they were tapped, so when a second disaster hit they actually didn't have any more to give to AIDG.

With these results and with the trouble I have had in getting grant funders, who did receive major relief money, to move at any pace faster than 6 months to process anything it was pretty clear to me last night that I needed help. Despite phenomenal impact on the ground, mind blowing press, and my best efforts to talk to people with deep pockets, the funds are not keeping up. So I started researching external fundraisers.

I had been waiting for an introduction to a fund raising consultant from another ED, but I was feeling dubious. In my different fellowships I have taken some fund-raising consultant sessions before. From fluffy-clouds-and-rainbows stuff about speaking from the heart to hardline metrics-and-evaluations-dashboard-reporting-per-customer-served-big-mac-style-philanthropy wooing. But to be honest I am not sure this is something to be fixed with just some charm school about what I can say to donors. I'm just not sure I'm THAT guy.

I mean let's be honest here. I'm no bed of roses. I'd peg myself somewhere between a bad stand up comic and Rain Man on the social graces. I'm an alright ED and I have an encyclopedic knowledge of BOP tech. I'll tear through the BS in a system and get to the core error. But I'm not a salesman for high end luxury goods. To hire THAT person at going rates with the cash flow we maintain is way outside of our budget and finding them in the time frame needed is pretty unlikely.

What I need is outsourcing. Somebody with a proven track record and connections to move the job forward. So I decided to look for a fund raising contractor, and turned to google. My search journey I've captured for you:

It ended up with a couple spent minutes here:

Aside from Tom Cruise's stellar insight into how many social entrepreneurs occasionally feel, and how my constituents will eventually feel if I can't solve these issues, this really opened up a window for me.

Where are all the big fund raising contractors? The professional solicitors? This is an industry with thousands of professionals yet none of them has a google adword? Interestingly similar fundraising term searches with adwords had hacker SQL injection attacks in the adwords. Hackers and scammers know NGOs need money, why don't the pros?

What I have learned from this is that either A) the companies and private practices that should be good at this are thinking way too small and a market opportunity exists for a serious player to dominate B) These companies need to hire me part time to manage their SEO because they suck at it . . .really. I might not be so great at the fund raising but honestly folks your google results are pathetic.

This is an industry that is waiting for its day. Small orgs need the big gift the most. I have often lamented that impact philanthropy has strangled out all the institution building big gift philanthropy of the late 80s and early 90s. Most the groups I respect in terms of impact, Partners in Health, Echoing Green, Teach For America, City Year, all started with a major million dollar or more gift in the first year. For an entrepreneur that is pretty darn useful to start an enterprise, you can staff off of that, you can build both a program execution and a fund raising team. Starting with 50-100K it's a bit more of a challenge. You are constantly just treading water to creep upwards with your budget.

Unfortunately for most small orgs today the world metric based philanthropy has crushed innovation and the big bet gift that has created some of the truly great philanthropic groups. Small groups compete with imaginary efficiencies (I'll be glad to defend this point in more detail to anybody in another post, many big org metrics are skewed when you look deep at their books and on the ground impacts. Many groups “sell” to the public subsidized philanthropic products basically “loss leaders” and capitalize on brand to draw in the gifts. It is not $1 to feed that kid for a week or $25 to get them that cow in a $100 a cow market. Sorry.) .

There are incredibly talented development people with strong contacts who raise hundreds of millions of dollars for big organizations like the ones I just mentioned, who could do a lot of good in the world by going solo and helping smaller organizations bring some new innovation into social enterprise. Somebody accustomed to raising 50-100 million for a big org could probably do a lifestyle changing business, cutting their work week dramatically while earning the same salary, by only raising 10-20 million divided between a handful of smaller up and coming orgs.

Too many of these consultants though just step off the treadmill to do training. Which is hard for small organization EDs to really take advantage of, in the new organization juggling act. I know plenty of amazing EDs who become great fundraisers eventually, but not in balance with the needs of the orgs. There need to be more contractors and less consultants in this field, people who will treat it as their job to do the work and the heavy lifting of the fund raising task instead of just offering advice.

If the mission of the NGO is the service to the community, and fund raising is truly something administrative (as most donors like to classify it in costs analysis), then it should be something an NGO can easily subcontract. NGOs subcontract back end services all the time, book keeping, accounting, payroll. I don't hire somebody to tell me how to reach into my heart and find my inner book keeper, I hire a book keeper. Why not fund raising?

Aside from finding the right contractor the boutique fund raising pricing is out of whack with the resources of its potential customers. Contrary to common development director and contractor beliefs, to build a truly sustainable client base they need to work just from commission or fee on delivery of gifts. The barrier to entry for customers in this industry is that most the the small, effective and compelling orgs lack the funds to pay a fee up front to hire one of these contractors.

If the contractor wants a stellar portfolio of orgs, ones that take off, they need to run from a comparatively small commission based or fee for award based service. Most small orgs trying to compete for the next level of grant support can't afford a greater than 10% investment in fundraising. If a contractor can raise 20 million between a few groups, 10% is certainly sufficient to run a successful, profitable, boutique business providing these services.

In closing since this is posterous and not the TED stage I'm gonna pitch. AIDG needs to run a several million dollar fund raising campaign to adjust to our new post disaster programs and the reality of the countries we work in. If we want to do things right for the communities and become sustainable off of major international aid this is where we need to go. If you are a professional, you don't get paid a cut greater than my indirect costs rate, if you have a track record and proven references I invite you to contact me to help us on this. Prove to me the industry is not the dimly lit thule I imagine it to be.You'll be doing a service to the world. Trust me I'm serving my constituents much better dealing with a training curriculum or product design issue than thinking about the right turn of phrase for a donor letter.

Don't leave me having to answer my constituents, when they come to me like Tom Cruise, “Sorry we can't get you water because there is just no money to be shown.”

Posted by Peter Haas 

Comments (19)

Jun 09, 2010
Peter, I think your so right AIDG needs more than just the money, it needs the "coin" - the whole package without the overhead - a donation, a recognizable champion, a sizable change made from a single big hit. The growth dilemma - how big do we grow so we can insight real change without the "United Way" overhead.
Jun 09, 2010
Colleen Flanigan liked this post.
Jun 09, 2010
<tr><td>Peter, thank you for this-- sharing something a lot of us feel no matter what scale.  Whether you have had large donors to rebuild disaster areas or are seeking to create artistic work for Ocean outreach, the strategic thinking is an awesome responsibility.  I agree that fund-raising is an art and speaking from the heart without being a "closer" does not always work.  Appreciate your telling of your frustration and idea for solution. Timely.
     I was at a World Ocean Day event last evening.  I was asked to "table" and be an artist.  It was very bizarre to realize that I am not a tabler.  There dressed in interactive performance attire and prepared to be "on," I was standing behind a table with items that really don't represent the Ocean Project Sensory Immersion in the clearest way amidst a room full of policy advocates.  It was an important moment. Not at all a wasted moment because I connected with some people, but from my lens, if I could be an artist-in-residence with Oceana, for instance, to develop the artwork and to give them the opportunity to sponsor creatively engaging means to educate and cultivate new ocean conservationists, what a win for all involved: the scientists, artists, and policy advocates doing what we do best in harmony.

I wish you success with finding a contractor! Your post makes me feel supported in this issue and I learned a lot since I am not experienced in large fund-raising endeavors, although I keep trying. How many times people tell me I will get good at it when it terrifies me...I do have a wonderful pro-bono-until-money-comes-in grantwriter wrapping her mind around our project and aiming for some large foundations.  She works with smaller orgs and businesses involved with water issues.  Thank you again for this post. And as Jen says, you and AIDG deserve the "coin."  keep doing your amazing life-saving work. colleen



---</td></tr>
Jun 11, 2010
ActuallyGiving said...
I love the idea of this. I would love to do this type of work.

I'm trying to figure out how it works in practice and getting stuck. I'm sure you've heard this, but successful fundraising is about the relationships. "People give to people" and so forth. A small percentage of gifts are about proving the charity's impact, which would be easier to outsource. But the majority are about the bond between the donor and the recipient.

So who's the relationship with here - the nonprofit exec or the fundraising contractor? The former will be far, far more sustainable for the org. If the relationship is between donor and contractor, the gifts leave when the contract is up.

If you're ramping up a campaign, who's providing the list of prospective donors? Are they coming from the nonprofit's community, or from the contractor's contacts? The former will be better leads, more successful with gifts, more likely to be repeat gifts (which are the critical component).

Essentially, outsourcing this work is commodotizing relationships. Certainly this happens in sales: you can buy leads, and try to make a relationship with a prospective buyer. But there, the end point is a sale, money exchanged for goods. In fundraising, the money is a gift. It would be like buying leads to make friends - kinda weird.

Be interested to hear more from you about what specifically you'd be looking to outsource.

And I do love the idea. Just some thoughts on things to figure out before diving in.

Jun 14, 2010
 said...
@actuallygiving though this sounds horrible from an organizational point of view I am suggesting that the contractor own the relationship not the organization. And perhaps the contract is a few year thing. But the important issue is that it builds the resources and organizational capacity to raise its own money. Most of the problems I am discussing in developing an organizational fund-raising capacity are truly a problem when an organization is in early stage under a million and the ED does all the fund raising and program. At this scale they really don't have the resources to properly field a fund raising team. What I have found is that most early stage donors don't really want to stick around for the later stages. They want to get you there and help you move on to the next source of funding.

As an aside exactly the same thing can happen with lost relationships when an ED leaves an organization. In some ways it can be safer to be staying with a contractor who is keeping the org as part of their clientele for a period of a few years, than to pile all those relationships on an early stage ED who is at more risk of burn out. Maybe if more orgs did this they could *gracefully* exit the founder a bit easier and bring on more structure to manage organizational perpetuity.

As a final aside on program I am focused mainly on innovative social enterprises that are doing unique things in unique places. The core value of these institutions is that the program work is novel and thus can't truly be outsourced (if it could it wouldn't be novel and the social entrepreneur wouldn't have all those good stories to tell).

Jun 15, 2010
sashadichter said...
Peter, thanks for this - inspired me to think harder about this....reflections captured here:
http://sashadichter.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/time-to-outsource-fundraising/
Jun 15, 2010
Eric Foley said...
Great read, Peter--thanks. I’d suggest three other reasons why outsourcing fundraising to contract fundraisers is not more popular:

1. It’s viewed by the largest professional fundraising society as unethical.The Association of Fundraising Professionals wrote a white paper on the subject, listing six reasons why they frown on the practice. My guess is that you won’t find much of their reasoning to be especially persuasive. From a pragmatic standpoint, the one that carries the most juice is the recognition of how rare it is that there is a 1:1 correspondence between a particular solicitation and a gift, or even between a particular solicitor and a gift. Big gifts especially are like fine wine; they mature with age, and their cork is best popped in the company of many.

2. It’s a strategy whose time has come…and gone.There may have been a day when wealthy individuals were looking for places to park their dough where their hands and their checks would separate. In fact, the whole of traditional transactional fundraising is still based on that elusive hope. Increasingly, however, as I document on my ericfoley.com blog, there is an ever-strengthening connection between people’s money and their involvement. (As I noted recently there, volunteers to an organization give 50% more than non-volunteers.) This goes even beyond the point made above that a number of non-financial activities go into a donor’s decision to give. (Were that the case, we could just say to the contractor, “Tough. That’s just the cost of customer development.”) What the stat recognizes is that donors seek to interact in a certain way with an organization, and the nonprofit must be permeable and amenable to that approach. A nonprofit that outsources fundraising is unlikely to develop the kind of corporate culture in which donors and potential donors feel welcome to volunteer and participate in meaningful ways. If it did, it wouldn’t need to outsource its fundraising.

3. Only bad fundraising is truly something administrative.It’s not like bookkeeping really, Peter. I supposed bookkeeping may in some circumstances be personally transformative. But good fundraising must be so. As Sean Stannard-Stockton notes and often laments, donors who say “I’m looking for a really good organization that’s making a significant impact that I can give a lot of money to” are as rare as unicorns. There’s just no way to take the transformation out of fundraising and have that be effective. And that transformation comes from personal participation, engagement, and ownership in the cause…not an encounter with a salesman for high end luxury goods.

What IS an industry that’s waiting for its day are donor representatives who are more than financial advisors–individuals who work for givers, not organizations, and who are trained to scout out the nonprofits who want more than money and who can provide more than a good social investment.

Unfortunately, if you try to google those folks at the present time, you’ll come up empty, too.

Jun 22, 2010
 said...
Why won't your ideas work? Simple, I'm gonna grill your ass about all kinds of things up to and including your fundraising program and how you fund fundraising. Then when I find out you've "contracted it out" or that you pay a commission to a fundraiser I'm gonna say "no" to your solicitation. Donors don't believe in fees for the job they know you should be doing.

You don't need a consultant...you need to become a fundraiser, Peter. That's your top job. You claim you'd "peg myself somewhere between a bad stand up comic and Rain Man on the social graces. I'm an alright ED..." You better improve buddy. Wealthy donors don't suffer fools. You're the personal proxy for your organization. No wonder you're not getting gifts! Why is your board keeping you with this kind of internet post? You are in the WRONG job and your board needs to replace you. Individual funders fund people who are superb human proxies for their organizations. Fundraising is NOT administrative at all...it's a high stakes series of authentic personal relationships done intensely in a one-on-one context and that makes or break your orgs. ability to realize it's mission. Your primary job is securing funding and hiring the suitable professional directors that can run the organization. Get crackin' and start paying attention to what past consultants have told you. It's YOUR job to find the way to get the connections (by working your board and other contacts) get the gifts. It's the consultant's job to show you the path to do that. It takes years of diligence. It's an deeply social process. You better start now.

Jun 22, 2010
 said...
BTW, your board looks weak. Board development is central. We're talking wealthy (capable of making 4-5 figure annual gifts) and connected. And for heaven's sake...you were recognized as a 2009 TED Global fellow for your work! That's the richest group around...you've got a starting point right there! I'm sure you're a wonderful person...in fact I know you are...but I wanna spank ya. If you've spoken at the World Bank, Harvard, MIT and other forums on technology, entrepreneurship and SME finance and haven't come away with 4-5 major contacts to speak with further about the organization's work and funding needs then these opportunities have been wasted. Have you called a donor today?

BTW, the contractor NEVER owns the relationship not the organization. How do I know? I have been an individual major gifts fundraiser either in a paid or volunteer capacity for 18 years and now I'm a big fat donor.

Jun 22, 2010
 said...
Hmmmm interesting comments here and on change.org. I will have to follow up with another post as there is definitely some confusion regarding my statement. To clarify a bit I have raised millions of dollars and have good relationships with my donors. I just believe an outsourced managed relationships can move things faster in a period such as this rapid disaster response. I've seen managed relationships work before for small orgs to the benefit of the org and the donor. In fact, though most our donors like us, one of AIDG's strongest relationships is managed externally and is pretty positive on all sides.

@Phyllis before you cast too many stones please keep in mind the difference between a small org started with high personal risk taken by the entrepreneur with significant time spent on the ground versus one where an established board with resources and structure hires an ED to sit behind a desk and run an organization. The reason most emerging social entrepreneurs are tremendous bargains because they do more in the field serving thousands of people on less money than most larger orgs pay just for salary of one staff member sitting stateside.

To date I haven't met a board of an emerging org that was strong enough to carry the org through an ED transition in the first three years. In fact I've seen quite a few emerging social enterprises that served thousands of poor people destroyed by boards who tried this. Literally I've seen hundreds of kids move to the streets and go hungry because a board in the states wasn't prepared to manage the org. It is a goal to work towards for transition but ultimately I'd say it is pretty rare. Despite this post I largely get the org pretty fantastic media. I'd think they keep me around because of the positive results on the constituent side with high return of value for the donors we have and relatively happy return donors. I'll ask them next meeting.

Jun 22, 2010
 said...
Ok. Good luck!
Jun 22, 2010
 said...
Let's see what happens next.
Jun 30, 2010
Seeding Labs said...
I absolutely sympathize with Pete here. Phyllis - I love being the face of my organization, and I think I am pretty good at it. But In defense of myself and other young people who start organizations from the grassroots - we rarely have the kinds of networks that we need to raise money, the kinds of networks that the contractors Pete refers to probably do have. I started Seeding Labs literally 2 weeks after defending my PhD dissertation - at which point my network consisted almost entirely of grad students and post-docs earning the federally mandated $30K/year. There is no straightforward route from that kind of starting point towards building the kind of network that can support a growing organization. It takes enormous work and time when you are also already strapped working on the ground doing important and urgent things. And I think most of all it requires the happy accidents of meeting the right people at the right time. I for one wish there were a better way.
- Nina
Jul 11, 2010
 said...
Pete and Nina are talking about the way the funding world COULD be, and Phyllis Iszant and Eric Foley and Sasha Dichter are talking about the way the funding world IS. And like the social entrepreneurs they are, Pete and Nina also believe the funding world can be reinvented. If a social entrepreneur is willing to take on grave social problems, why should they not also tackle funding strucutures? I don't think anyone writing here would say to a social entrepreneur something like, "you can't change education in America, just accept the status quo." So why tell us to accept the status quo in funding?

The reason i think the funding status quo needs to change is because it is so elitist. The number one job of a CEO should NOT be to schmooze with rich people. I am not saying this because I think non profits "deserve' rich people's money in some robin hood fashion--in my own organization, Video Volunteers, wealthy donors have contributed lots of ways beyond their money. The reason it is wrong is, one, that it encourages nonprofit CEOs to tell donors what they want to hear rather than what the reality is. The bigger problem is that it is elitist. People from wealthy backgrounds are more likely to speak the language of wealthy donors. Should a board therefore only hire a CEO who is from an elite college because that person will be better able to speak to donors? The diversity of the various social entrepreneurship forums that i'm part of is generally pretty low, and this may be one reason. That has always really disturbed me.

I work mostly in India, and I have tremendous respect for the CBO -- community-based organizations--model, which says that people from a particular community may be the best advocates for that community. These folks may not have great connections (I'm thinking of a wonderful young woman Pete and I both know who is a Liberian refugee running a nonprofit on staten island in her community), and the role of fundraising professionals should be to help them make those connections! that is a great service for fundraising professionals to do. in fact, it would be a great mission forthe next generation of fundriasing professionals-- to help fill the gap that exists between donors and social change leaders whose backgrounds have given them zero connections to wealthy donors. we'd see a lot more off-the-radar ideas succeeding and more diversity.

I feel that fundraising professionals don't have much in the way of useful advice for young social entrepreneurs, and I think that's where Pete, Nina's and my frustration comes from. Part of what i hear in these blogs is, "work harder! meet more people! get yourself where the rich people are!" That's as useful a piece of advice as one I hear from a lot of people -- "have you ever thought of the Ford Foundation?" Uuh.. yes... tell us something we don't already know. I just wish their could be as many fresh and new ideas in the world of philanthropy as there are in the social change fields that social entrepreneurs work in.

Here's one that my partner and I were recently discussing, I'm not sure it's a very good one but I'll put it out there any way: how about taking a share of the life earnings of a nonprofit director? I would easily give up some percentage of my life earnings to a foundation that would agree, today, to support the ideas of my nonprofit until it achieved the goals i promise to deliver on in the next 10-15 years. I know someone is doing that in other fields and you all will likely remember the model better than I. (Is it Warren Buffet who is doing that with business school loans? I can't remember.)

I'd love to hear the new ideas you all have about how fundraising can be invented, and how it can open the door to a more diverse range of leaders who may not be charmers or connected but have powerful, world-changing ideas.

Jul 13, 2010
We just opened out doors earlier this month, but this is exactly why we started Mark & Phil (http://markandphil.com). We're all about increasing the capabilities of ngo's and csr aligned companies in the areas of marketing and philanthropy when they need it most. Our model is to act as an outside resource for these orgs to give them extra manpower, ideas, and the power of great design to make their missions become a reality.

Recently we've had some great success raising awareness for http://acleanerfuture.org by building a viral site http://instantoilspill.com to help drive traffic and keep the oil disaster in the gulf fresh in every American's mind as the press coverage starts to fall off.

We've got some more campaigns already lined up for this summer but are itching to hook up with an NGO that needs us to help them increase their fundraising. If you know of anyone, let us know! ;) They can contact me directly at daniel@markandphil.com

Jul 17, 2010
valkenburgh said...
Congrats to Daniel above. I have had a similar plan in the works for sometime but me and my young+poor colleagues have run into a problem.

We wanted to start a professional solicitation company in Northern Virginia BUT Virginia law requires a $20,000 surety bond to get a license for such a business.

Any bond that size would require personal indemnity from me and my partners so... no go. I checked and Maryland and D.C. have similar requirements.

I think it's very possible that no one gets into this business because of the risk inherent in becoming licensed.

The libertarian in me is screaming right now!

Aug 07, 2010
Neil4and said...
Earning money has online never been this easy and transparent. You would find great tips on how to make that dream amount every month. So go ahead and click here for more details and open floodgates to your online income. All the best.
Sep 15, 2010
benita152010 said...
This is a really excellent read for me. Must admit that you are one of the best bloggers I ever saw. Thanks for posting this useful article.

finance news

Mar 31, 2011
Marcel Mahler said...
Nice article, currently reading about the different money restrictions

Leave a comment...