Is “philanthropy” dying?

I recently had the privilege of speaking with the Executive Director of a nonprofit involved in cancer research/funding.  She described the changes she is witnessing in how fundraising is conducted and voiced her concern about the future of what has classically been defined as “philanthropy,” or  major giving. 

Her logic is as follows: if younger donors are giving through new channels (i.e. online, mobile) on impulse, with small donations, because of specific events and not because of an emotional or intellectual involvement with a cause or an organization, what will does this mean for the development of major donors in the future?   Major donors – those who give in very large amounts – are few and far between.  They are cultivated over time and, over the time, they have usually aligned themselves with cause(s) with which they have a passion, ranging from academia (where they went to school, for example) to the arts to others in the sciences, environment, social justice, etc.   

Major donors, as a general rule, have been cultivated.  They become associated with an organization because of their passion or involvement with the mission.  Most importantly, however, their donations end up funding roughly 50 - 60% of the operating costs for a nonprofit…

But where are we today?  Younger donors can make a “quick hit” donation via mobile or other digital device in an instant – on an emotional whim.  What’s a $10 or $25 or even $50 donation if you can afford it?  For major catastrophes or other “events” this works fine.  But this is not helping to cultivate the idea of involvement or mission that grooms major donors for the future.

So what are E.D.s and Development offices to do?  How do they cultivate future donors?   Do they hope that they can match the sexy digital “quick hits” of the “event” driven causes?  Do they stick to the tried and true fundraising techniques that have worked in the past, and hone their targeting skills?  Do they continue to work on personal relationships with donors – focusing on the new young wealth and developing them? 

Is the model truly broken?  Or is it simply a matter of using what’s traditionally worked in the past, testing new ideas and methods, and continuing to reshape what philanthropy can be for the future?

What are your thoughts? 

Face-to-Face Connections

I just returned from one of my favorite rituals: attending the National Assoc. of College & University Mail Services (NACUMS) conference.  Yes, it’s a limited audience – so the show is small and intimate.  Perhaps that’s what makes it such a pleasure to attend. 

After five years it feels more like a reunion than a conference or trade show.  Familiar faces and friends get hugs (not your usual vendor greeting).  We get to sit down and talk or go out for dinner over the course of a few days.  And I get to hear what people are really thinking.  Not the usual “five minutes” before we all move on, feet tired, bleary-eyed typical show surroundings.     

No, this show is different because of its small size. And it helps to bring back what’s important in business – relationships.  Because, in truth, people buy from people.  Even in a business environment relationships matter.  Perhaps more so in a nonprofit environment.

With all our advanced technologies and our ability to “stay in touch” and “reach out” digitally, it’s important to remember that the face-to-face interaction is still the basis for everything.  Meeting someone in person makes a world of difference.  Seeing facial expressions, learning body language, understanding other perspectives in conversation.  And I think that everyone – in nonprofit and for-profit organizations – needs to remember that all our current “personalization” techniques are just an effort to replicate this special relationship.

   

I cherish the personal interactions at NACUMS and look forward to returning again next year.  Perhaps this brief reminder will inspire you to reach out and rekindle a connection, too. 

Craving Social Responsibility

I rarely (read: never) write about the company I currently work for (Pitney Bowes).  However, something interesting that happened last week made me decide to include them in my blog today. (Note: PB has no input or responsibility for anything I write here.) 

Because of a particular project I’ve been working on, we created a press release entitled “Pitney Bowes Adds Social Responsibility to Connect+ Printer Capability.”  I won’t go into the details of the campaign – suffice it to say that the new campaign seeks to promote national nonprofit organizations.  The hope and goal of the campaign is that it will increase these nonprofits' visibility and (hopefully) donations to their cause(s).

What I found most interesting was media reaction to the news. We had pick-ups from over two dozen publications, ranging from Philanthropy World Magazine to msn.com.  From large to small.  From for-profit to nonprofit. 

It’s striking that the market is craving social responsibility from corporations.  Media outlets are looking for examples of it.  People want to see companies making their mark in this direction.  Companies, as well, seem to want to know how it’s done.  The public, in general, wants to know that companies are involved in this type of activity.

I think it’s wonderful that Pitney Bowes is engaged in this direction.  But more importantly, I think it’s critical that we notice the public (and media ) is not only engaged but eager and on the lookout for this type of attitude and action. 

It’s a call for us all to realize there’s far too little of it going on.  Far greater need.  And there may be far greater success for everyone concerned if more would think in this direction – in both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.