The two deadliest words in fundraising are:
- Annual
- Fund
The first word suggests one gives simply because the Earth orbits around the Sun again. The second offers only a big bucket from which allocations will be made at some later day for vague institutional purposes.
We must accept the fact that fewer people are willing to give to an institution for the good it has done and far more are inclined to give through an institution for the good it might do. The latter can be achieved by proposing 5-7 “impact tracks” or “investment paths,” thereby allowing donors to choose the one that most resonates with their philanthropic priorities. Each track or path quantifies the projected impact, either for each gift requested, or if a certain amount is secured – e.g., stocking a shelf in the food for one month for every $1,000 given. Think of them as meaningful, measurable milestones.
This approach lifts the sights of loyalists, promotes acquisition of more discerning, purpose-driven donors and, with effective stewardship, leads to higher donor retention rates for both.
This cannot be achieved by merely changing our fundraising vocabulary. We must resolve to lecture less about our importance and demonstrate more clearly how we deliver better on our mission promise.
Jim Langley is the president of Langley Innovations. Langley Innovations provides a range of services to its clients to help them understand the cultural underpinnings of philanthropy and the psychology of donors and, with that knowledge, to develop the most effective strategies and tactics to build broader and more lasting communities of support. Jim has authored numerous books, including his most recent book, The Future of Fundraising: Adapting to New Philanthropic Realities, published by Academic Impressions in 2020.
