Did you know that a prospect research consultant isn’t successful unless you, the front-line fundraisers, are successful? Shocking, but true! If I provide you with irrelevant data, or too much data, then you are less prepared and less strategic in your fundraising. You won’t raise as much money for your mission. I won’t get re-hired. And you won’t tell your friends good things about me.
I was reading an article in an excellent research magazine, Connections, published by the Association of Professional Researchers for Advancement. The provocative suggestion was that prospect researchers must move from “pushers to partners”. I never felt like I was an information pusher. But I have had front-line fundraisers tell me about their disappointing experiences with “pushers”.
When I founded Aspire Research Group, my goal was to bring professional prospect research to all sizes of organizations. We have been reaching that goal! And whenever I work with a client there is always some level of back and forth communication going on.
Whether it’s donor profiles, data mining, or prospect tracking, I need to understand who you are and what you want to achieve before I can provide you with information solutions that get you to your destination.
When you work with a prospect research consultant, be sure to make time for questions on both sides and for feedback after the work is delivered. If you do this, your consultant will be able to provide continually better services to you.
Consider the donor prospect profile as an example. You need more than house values and occupational titles. You need to understand what makes your prospect tick, why she has made gifts, and how her assets translate into wealth and possible gift opportunities. You need more than data – you need the information that will inform your fundraising.
Want to hear some shocking success stories? Want to find out how to improve your fundraising strategy with prospect research? Call Jen Filla at 727 231 0516 or email jen at aspireresearchgroup.com.
So you want to implement a moves management system to ensure you are focusing on your best major gift prospects. Or you have a system, but you want to make it better. Good for you!
Moves Management is a Workout!
First, recognize that a moves management system is not a magical system where elves enter all your data and print reports whilst you sleep. Using a moves management system to track donor prospects is like getting physically fit – you have to workout! It requires you to:
Enter information on each donor prospect record – at least:
Periodically review your progress and start over at #1
Regular, internal prospect review meetings (at least monthly)
Assess Your Needs and Resources
Sometimes when you first start exercising, you find that you are so, so tired and wonder if getting fit will ever give you more energy and finely-toned muscles. It will! But you have to slog through the first bit of work. That said, you can’t swim across the English Channel tomorrow if today you are struggling to swim across the pool. Assess your needs and resources:
Are you starting from scratch or have you already been tracking prospects somewhere?
Tweaking a system is often easier than starting new
Will gift officers be tasked with entering tracking info plus their prospect actions, or is there another staff member available?
Assigning some data entry to other staff, especially on newly identified prospects, keeps down the grumbling and frees up your gift officers to go and get those major gifts – no excuses!
Do you have many solicitors, or just a few?
When the office is small, it’s best to keep things as simple as possible
Is this for ongoing major gifts or a campaign?
While similar, a campaign may warrant a higher degree of tracking
You Will be Tweaking
As you choose a combination of database fields and database reports (or maybe Excel lists and calendars if you are very small) together with your regular prospect reviews, you *should* find yourself tweaking the moves management system. For example, you might realize you are re-visiting disqualified prospects and decide to change your prospect stage like this:
First Method
Second Method
Identified
Cultivation
Solicitation
Stewardship
Identified
Qualified
Cultivation
Solicitation
Stewardship
Disqualified
This is a natural progression in your use of your system. Or maybe you find that it takes forever to enter the information in various fields around your donor database record and decide to limit your tracking to a few key pieces all in one easy-to-enter place in the database. Or maybe you find that monthly meetings are not enough and weekly meetings would keep everyone where they need to be with their prospect list.
Ask any fitness freak – taking the time to understand the best times and types of exercise for yourself makes all the difference in achieving your goals. Taking the time to get your system customized to your fundraising culture and constituents will make all the difference in whether you achieve your major gift goals. Not everyone has washboard abs and not every nonprofit has an efficient, high-performing major gifts program!
Give Yourself a Generous Year
Give yourself at least a year from your first effort to get the system really working smoothly. If it’s not working after a year, take a hard look at whether you (a) really need a system or (2) have put the right kind of effort into it. If you are a one-person shop cultivating ten people across the year, you can keep a lot of that in your head and your calendar. If you have multiple solicitors and/or need to boost your total prospect numbers (those under identification, cultivation and stewardship), you won’t be effective without a system.
Consider Getting a Coach
Olympic athletes wouldn’t dream of training and competing without a coach. Even the most dedicated athletes find themselves tired and frustrated, unable to “see” what is holding them back. A coach can keep your spirits up, redirect your efforts to keep you performing, and, step-by-step, help you reach ever higher goals.
If you are determined to reach your major gift goals, but find yourself unable to wrap your hands around moves management or even identifying good prospects to track, contact Aspire Research Group. We specializing in helping fundraisers reach their goals, guiding you comfortably every step of the way. Call (727) 231-0516 or email jen at aspireresearchgroup.com.
For more blog posts on moves management, click here: Moves Management
The majority of nonprofit organizations in the country do not have dedicated prospect research staff. So how can you still leverage prospect research to raise more money?
The biggest hurdle is recognizing that prospect research can be accomplished by everyone in your organization. Here are three shortcuts any fundraiser can implement to begin using prospect research techniques to boost giving:
(1) Identify people with linkage, ability and inclination
Everyone in your organization can identify people who are connected in some way to you, appear to have some money to give away and, if not outright passionate about your mission, are likely to be philanthropic. Have a team meeting and educate everyone in your organization about what a good prospect looks and sounds like. Arm them with the kinds of easy conversational questions that will help qualify a good donor prospect. Then listen when they tell you about people and share the outcome with them.
(2) Get to know the people closest to your organization
From the gift entry clerk who starts her call to a donor with “thank you” before asking her question, to the janitor who gives people directions on the campus, to the president who meets with local companies – everyone in your organization has a chance to treat your constituents as the friends and family they are. As the fundraiser, you need to ask staff about people frequently and listen and record what they say.
(3) Decide on a tracking system and stick to it!
Working with the people in your office who understand your database best (which could also be the vendor), decide what you want to keep track of and the best way to do it. Then make sure everyone entering data does it the same way so you can pull accurate reports. For more ideas, read Three Simple Steps to a Prospect Management System.
At first it may seem like a lot of work to involve other staff members in identifying and cultivating your constituents, but once you learn to balance all of the chance meetings you have with staff with a few added formal encounters, you might find that you will gather more face-to-face intelligence with donor prospects than you ever could have accomplished on your own.
It takes time to implement anything new, but with all this information being gathered you will soon be in the enviable position of prioritizing well-informed prospect lists!
Still need help identifying prospects? Are you lost in your database full of donor records? Need deep research before a solicitation? Call Aspire Research Group at (727) 231-0516. We can help.
In just two decades there have been huge shifts in how women and men earn and give away their money. As responsible financial stewards, fundraisers need to be sure that their efforts reflect the needs of women as well as men. This post analyzes and highlights information primarily from a new study of high net worth women from The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Heck, I might just convince you to make it easy for women to give to you by creating a women-only giving group!
I say that in *just* two decades there have been huge shifts, because twenty years is a relatively short period of time. From the time I started working in 1988 until now a tsunami of changes have transformed how women are treated at university and at work. My first boss, who had porn tapes delivered to the office and carried around a loaded gun, would be considered an anachronism today – and a dangerous one! And that was only twenty-three years ago.
Because such dramatic change has occurred in such a short amount of time, many of us fundraisers may still be clinging to outdated myths about women’s giving potential. These myths could cost your organization, but worse, they could cost the people who rely upon your organization to serve them.
*Women are Earning More Money* You probably know this, but remember that women did not enter the workforce in significant numbers until about forty years ago in the 1970s. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011), women were 40% of the labor force in the 1970s and are now at about 60%. But how do those numbers translate into earning power?
The Pew Research Center published a study in 2010 that may surprise you. It demonstrated that the percentage of working women earning more than their working husbands has grown from 8% to 26% in the past two decades. A quarter of working women in a two income household are the primary breadwinner. Nice. And that is in the face of the fact that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), women earn about 80% of what men earn.
But the real eye-popping news is that in nearly 90% of high net worth individuals surveyed in a study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University (2011), women are either the sole decision-maker or at least an equal partner in charitable decision-making. In non-research language that translates to: women decide how to give away the household dollars. How’s that for a myth-buster? Ignore women at your peril!
*Women are (Finally) Leveraging Networks* When I was in Prague in 2009 I was invited to a lunch by another business woman. What I found was a long-standing network of women who encourage and help build each other’s success in what can still be a hostile environment for women. These women were the movers and shakers, creating new institutions and fantastic business success. It was women helping women. I have not found this kind of tight-knit camaraderie here in the U.S. But I know it exists as can be attested to by the rise of women’s giving networks.
What I find so interesting about their choice to use The Tiffany Circle of the American Red Cross is that this giving network was created by the American Red Cross. In the past I have read numerous articles about women creating their own giving circles, but clearly some nonprofits have seen the “dollars written on the wall” and proactively created environments where women can thrive in philanthropy. Yes, you can do this too!
*What do Women in Giving Networks Expect Most?* Before we go into what The Center on Philanthropy found out when questioning these high net worth networked givers (try saying that quickly!), I feel it is very important to note that in their 2010 study they discovered that 60.2% of women and 55.7% of men gave for general operating support. Really, really. In fact, only 15.9% of men and 10.8% of women were likely to donate for capital, construction or equipment. So it’s safe to say that at least HALF of high net worth donors will give general operating dollars. That’s HUGE! Living up to their expectations now takes on a whole new level of importance, doesn’t it?
The Center on Philanthropy found gender differences in these top indicators of donor expectations:
W=women M=men WIN=women in a network
Honor request for use of gift: W-80.4% M-68.4% WIN-89.3%
Send thank you note: W-60.4% M-52.1% WIN-66.1%
Communicate the impact of the gift: W-45.3 M-26.4% WIN-55.6%
Provide ongoing communication: W-45.1% M-34.5% WIN-49.6
Notice that men differ dramatically in two of these expectations (underlined for emphasis) and that women in a network have higher expectations for these items across the board. If you are going to create a woman’s giving network at your nonprofit, these are key items to take note of as you plan how to communicate with your new group.
*What Motivates Women in Giving Networks to Give* We know from the Center on Philanthropy’s 2010 study that the more high net worth donors volunteered, the more they gave. However, personal experiences with an organization are more important to women. In the world of statistics this number is a big one: 90.8% of The Tiffany Circle women reported that they volunteered.
The study doesn’t attempt to find causes for this behavior, but it is reassuring to hear that women are more likely to have confidence in the ability of nonprofits to solve domestic or global problems (50.4% of women vs. 33.8% of men).
The Center on Philanthropy found gender differences in these top indicators of donor motivations:
W=women M=men WIN=women in a network
Moved at how gift can make a difference*: W-81.7% M-70.9% WIN-86.9%
Can give back to the community: W-78.2% M-63.3% WIN-87%
When a nonprofit is efficient in its use of donations: W-80.5% M-69.2% WIN-86%
Volunteer at an organization: W-65.7 M-49.8% WIN-73.1%
(*This was THE top motivator for men and women. Yes, we all know this, but validation from a study feels good too.)
Here we notice that men differ dramatically in one of these expectations (underlined for emphasis) and that again women in a network are more motivated by these items across the board. If you are going to create a woman’s giving network at your nonprofit, all of the above motivators should be emphasized.
Remember to bury those entrenched donor myths! Yes, these donors are motivated when you demonstrate efficient use of funds. And YES, they will give to general operating too. This study says at least half will. Make a strong case for general operating and they will give.
*Why do Women in Giving Networks STOP Giving?* The top reason for women and men to stop giving is because they were solicited too frequently or were asked for an inappropriate amount. The big news? It’s not as important to women as it is to men. Only 49.3% of women cite this reason, but 61.2% of men do.
This is where I get to emphasize how important it is to methodically approach your annual fund appeals and test to discover the right message and the right number of appeals. And if you are going to ask one of your close donor friends to step up and make a stretch gift, it is only respectful to get an in-depth, researched donor profile. Nearly half of your women donors and more than half of your male donors are offended when you don’t care enough to do your homework before asking for a gift.
*Summing it All Up* More women are working, more of these women are earning more, and women are organizing together to give. The big myth busters?
A quarter of working women in a two income household are the primary breadwinner.
Women are either the sole or equal decision maker on how to give away household dollars.
At least HALF of high net worth donors (female and male) will give general operating dollars.
Key takeaways from the Center on Philanthropy study:
Honoring your donor’s request for use of a gift is important for women and men, but much more important for women.
Women and men are most likely to be moved by how a gift can make a difference, but it is more important for women.
Volunteering and other personal experiences of a nonprofit are more important to women than men.
Nearly half of your women donors and more than half of your male donors are offended when you don’t care enough to do your homework before asking for a gift. Asking for an inappropriate size gift could cost you a donor.
Women are steadily becoming a financial force to be reckoned with and even more than men they like to be strategic and collaborative in their giving. Providing women with a way to organize their giving to you that recognizes their needs and preferences will help your organization gain access to this growing population of high net worth individuals. Don’t the people you serve deserve this?
*About Aspire Research Group* Aspire Research Group was founded so that every development office could have the benefits of professional prospect research. We analyze donor databases to help fundraisers understand their donors better, create systems to help them reach major gift and campaign goals, and provide comprehensive profiles to empower fundraisers to qualify and ask donors for the “right” gift. We use our direct fundraising experience to craft research solutions that answer the questions that lead to more and higher gifts, guiding fundraisers comfortably every step of the way. Contact us for more information or visit us at www.AspireResearchGroup.com
*About the Study* The 2011 Study of High Net Worth Women’s Philanthropy and the Impact of Women’s Giving Networks was written and researched by The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University and sponsored by Bank of America Merrill Lynch. It can be accessed online here:
http://tinyurl.com/HNWwomen
Compensation structures for highly paid executives in public companies are often a tangle of legalese, difficult to parse. The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires that all public companies detail the compensation of their highest paid executives, but that doesn’t mean that what the companies report is straightforward. In recent years, many companies have gone from giving executives large sums of money each year, regardless of company performance, to trying to create a compensation structure that depends significantly upon the actual performance of the executive and the success of the company.
One example of this is the compensation package that Meg Whitman received when she joined Hewlett Packard in September 2011 as Chief Executive Officer. The former CEO of EBAY, Meg Whitman ran an unsuccessful campaign for California Governor in 2010. She was brought on as CEO at HP after a year on their board.
Ms. Whitman will receive $1 a year in salary. According to the Wall Street Journal, the $1-a-year CEO isn’t uncommon at tech companies. Eric Schmidt, Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Google and Apple CEO Steve Jobs have also worked for $1 a year.
However, one dollar is just the beginning of her potential compensation. She will also receive an annual bonus of at least $2.4 million with the possibility of increasing that bonus up to $6 million depending on the cash flow performance of the company.
The biggest percent of her compensation package involves stock options. Stock options have been around quite a while as an executive incentive tool. Options require the executive to purchase the stock with her own money at a predetermined “exercise price”. The options are only valuable if the market value of the stock she purchases is greater than her exercise price. If the market value of the stock has gone down from the exercise price, she earns nothing or could lose money by choosing to exercise the option.
Ms. Whitman received an option to purchase 1.9 million shares of HP. The exercise price will be equal to the market value of the shares on the date she received the options. The options will vest over an eight-year period; however, they will only be considered fully vested if HP’s share price rises by 40 percent or more. In September when she took the job, that number of shares was worth $45.2 million.
100,000 of those shares will vest on each of the first three anniversaries of her hire date if she stays with the company. 800,000 shares will vest after the first year, IF HP’s share price has risen 20 percent and stayed that high for at least 20 days. The final 800,000 shares will vest on the second anniversary of her hire, IF HP’s share price has risen 40 percent for more than 20 days. If she succeeds in raising HP’s share price 40 percent in the next eight years, she would make profit of $17 million.
This type of compensation package reflects companies’ desire in recent times to compensate executives based on what they can do for the company, not just because she is friends with the directors on her board. Ideally, this should save the company money in the short term and encourage high performance from the executive in question.
Hewlett Packard also included an incentive for Ms. Whitman to stay with the company for the long haul, making her severance benefit payment 1.5 times the sum of her annual base salary, or $1.50 plus the average of her bonuses paid in the last three years. If she left before the first year was out, she would receive less than $2 in compensation. That would certainly make me want to stay!
This book is going to be handy for every single front-line development officer, from the solo fundraiser in a one-person shop to the VP for Advancement overseeing a large university research department.
We’re going to highlight the successful partnerships, the innovative ground-breakers and the hair-tearing learning experiences, and our findings just may surprise you.
If you’ve ever wondered…
…then this book is for you!
We’re interviewing fundraisers and researchers to gain lots of perspectives, and the book will be chock-full of case studies and examples. We still have some space, so if you’d like to be featured for your great front-line/research collaborations, let us know!
You wouldn’t slap your donor prospect in the face would you? Of course not!
Donor Trust: Don't Lose It!
Maintaining donor trust relies upon building professional and respectful relationships between your organization and the world. Without trust there would be no giving. Without giving, charitable missions would be unfulfilled. It’s that simple.
It’s also surprisingly easy to slip down the slippery ethical slope. And a donor could feel slapped in the face by some of the information you record. Why not use your personal email to request information? Does it really matter if you use those software subscriptions to look-up your annoying neighbor?
Here are 5 steps to keep you on the ethical track:
(1) Always identify yourself
Whenever you are making requests for information you need to identify yourself. State your name, your role, and your organization. Like this: “Hello, my name is Jennifer Filla and I’m president of Aspire Research Group. I’d like to confirm the owner of a parcel of land in your county.” If this makes you uncomfortable, you probably shouldn’t be inquiring!
(2) Information recorded must deepen the donor prospect relationship
The whole point of researching donor prospects is to bring the organization and prospect closer together to further the mission – usually through a gift. So if the information found will not bring the two closer, don’t include it.That said, there are exceptions…
(3) Discuss sensitive information verbally before documenting
When information about an arrest in the prospect’s family or some other sensitive information comes to light, it can be difficult to decide whether it is relevant to the relationship. Especially with naming rights, there is the possibility of a conflict of interest. Talking it over with leadership or the person building the donor relationship helps you confirm before documenting something embarrassing.
(4) Information must be exactly accurate
Be careful to use primary sources and to avoid using value-laden terms. For example, if a blog post says good or bad things about your prospect that you can not confirm elsewhere, don’t include it because it is an undocumented opinion. If a website claims it is a “leading” supplier or the “largest in the country”, either find the source to prove it or remove those words. If Wikipedia says it’s true, click through the footnotes at the bottom to read the original sources and be sure.
(5) Treat researched information as confidential as donations
Just because you found all of this information in the public domain doesn’t mean it isn’t confidential in the form you have created. We don’t want our donors to feel creepy about the data we collect about them! That will not build trust. We want them to feel professionally handled, flattered and protected by us and our organizations.
Karen Eber Davis is a consultant on a mission to ensure fully resourced, creative and effective nonprofit organizations. On her website she features some free resources including her Mission Brilliant Podcasts. These podcasts are interviews with experts on topics such as events, tax, auctions, using video …and even prospect research.
Check out her podcasts and I bet you’ll find something relevant to your organization!
Lately I have been reading many a headline about how donors ask and respond to good stories told by nonprofits. In the video interview with Táňa Hlavatá of Nadace Via she tells a story about the Mayor of a small village in the Czech Republic who asks for a grant to beautify space in the village. Through the project residents are engaged and community spirit is ignited. It’s a quick story but shines a bright light on the work of Nadace Via.
But what about the stories of the donors who make nonprofit work possible? Planned giving and major gift initiatives know that spotlighting donor stories encourages others to give. In my blog post, 3 Steps to Major Gift Mojo, I talk about listening to your donors as a catalyst to reinvigorate your major gift initiative.
But there is another benefit to talking to your donors. When it is done methodically, you can learn a great deal about why donors give to your organization and how to strategically reach more donors based on that information. But let me tell you a story…
While I was visiting Prague this August and September I began asking local Rotary Club members and others how they felt about giving to local nonprofits. Almost every person I spoke to could tell a story about a charity in the early 1990’s that was corrupt and stole donor money. They would only give to a charity with people involved who they knew and trusted, or to an international charity with a strong reputation.
There is no electronic screening, no purchasing of lists that could have gleaned this critical information about Prague donors. It was only by asking them, talking with them, and listening to their stories that this information came to light. How to grow the donor base? I would begin with existing donors and leverage their peer networks to grow awareness and trust. For major gifts I would research affluent social networks connected to board members.Methodically listening to your donors, perhaps through surveys or random calls in each donor segment, is valuable prospect research that will allow you to intelligently grow your donor base – whether you are focused on major gifts or all gifts.
Do you need to breathe new life into your major gift efforts? Have you been asking the same donors to stretch year after year? Contact Aspire Research Group! We can help you understand your donors better and lay a clear path on which you can methodically move more donor prospects toward gifts. Call us today at 727-231-0516 or email jen at aspireresearchgroup.com.
Does facial recognition software violate our privacy? What if we want to use it on donor prospects? The Economist wrote an article, Anonymous No More, in its 7/30/11 issue. It describes how facial recognition software has improved to the point that in the best scenarios you can feed a picture into it and discover personal information on one-third of individuals. Now, obviously, that means that two-thirds remain “anonymous”, but it does demonstrate that picture-based research is viable and will improve.
As it stands now, I start with personal information (name and address or occupation) and find my way to a matching photo. In the not-to-distant future I can imagine subscribing to software that allows me to take fundraising event photos and identify the people in them – perhaps even automatically screening them for wealth.
Now try to guess who has developed a facial recognition search engine? You guessed it! Google. But they have decided not to release it. Why? Because of the sensitivity around the subject of… [drum roll]… privacy! Now try to guess who isn’t afraid to use facial recognition. Facebook. U.S. Government. Prospect researchers? Hmmm.
Is there privacy left to care about?
It is very clear that the media likes to wheeze on about privacy (even in light of the recent Murdoch news scandals) and equally clear that most of humanity really does not care about privacy. We are happy to trade our personal information for discounts, convenience and even fun. Or are we? Mostly we are okay giving away personal information when we are asked and get something we value in return. It’s when we get duped, fooled, or humiliated that our hair stands on end. And I am grateful to the journalists who report on those abuses.
When does privacy really matter?
If your donors feel that their privacy has been compromised by you they will stop giving. Worse, they might start saying bad things about your organization and get others to stop giving. Privacy matters.
Having a donor privacy policy will go a long way toward helping your organization communicate its actions with donors, but it is not enough to keep you out of trouble. Common sense, empathy and good recordkeeping are required.
For example, just because you found your donor’s unlisted telephone number on her voter’s registration record doesn’t mean she won’t be offended when your president calls her asking for a visit. Was it found in the public domain – yes. Was it in the donor record as a contact number – yes. Did the donor feel her privacy was violated – YES! There are no shortcuts to establishing meaningful relationships.
Facial recognition software is most likely going to do “quiet” tasks like match faces from our organization Facebook pages or constituent forums with photos in our donor database to create deeper relationship maps. That’s not nearly as scintillating as using event photos to identify wealthy prospects, is it? But it is more efficient and respectful.
