The magic of engagement

Here I was last night watching fireworks when found myself engaged in a conversation with a gentleman by the name of “Dan”. In no time, our conversation turned to non-profit organizations and philanthropy. As he ticked through a number of different organizations he has supported over the years, he ended each of those thoughts with a negative memory attached to a fundraising issue or event. Here is a list of terms he used repeatedly used:

  • Dreaded special events
  • Rubber chicken dinners
  • Money grubbers
  • Beggars

If you personally know me, then you know how enthusiastic I am about philanthropy. So, this conversation was painful to sit through. However, five minutes into our chat Dan’s tone changed completely when he started talking about a new charity in which he has recently gotten involved. The name of this non-profit organization is Year Up.

I was desperate to change the path we had been on, so I started asking questions about this particular  non-profit organization. What I discovered just confirms everything I’ve learned about philanthropy over the last 15 years. In a nutshell, Dan glowed on and on about a recent “rubber chicken fundraising dinner” where participants weren’t just asked to give money, but the entire program was geared towards promoting involvement.

  • Creating internship opportunities for clients
  • Helping clients with resumes, cover letters, and their job search
  • Mentoring clients

While these words didn’t exactly come out of Dan’s mouth, he essentially said, “Ah ha! Finally a non-profit organization that isn’t just after my money. I am more than just a meal ticket. I am seen as a partner who is willing to roll up his sleeves and help advance the mission.” Most importantly, he had a twinkle in his eye and was obviously excited.

In my opinion, this is exactly what Penelope Burk is talking about when she writes about “donor centered fundraising”.

Isn’t it funny how many fundraising and non-profit professionals are afraid to ask donors to get involved? All I can figure is that we practice this avoidance behavior because we’re afraid donors will see us as “asking for too much” and withdraw their support completely. So, instead of letting donors make decisions about their own time and level of engagement, we oftentimes make that decision for them.

I can imagine that there are donors who might stop supporting a non-profit organization if they feel harassed. With that being said, I’m not advocating harassment tactics. So, here is my challenge to you … identify 10 current donors and schedule face-to-face visits with them sometime in the next 30 days. During your sitdown meeting, talk to them about the impact their most recent financial contribution has made and then ask each donor this simple question: “in addition to your generous financial support, is there anything else you would like to do to support the mission?” Don’t offer up your ideas and thoughts. Just like when you are soliciting a contribution, be very quiet and still after asking the question.

You might just be surprised with where the conversation leads you. You might also like what kind of fundraising and non-profit professional or volunteer you become. I bet you will find an army of people just like Dan who will roll up their sleeves and end up becoming some of your most loyal donors. And those donors who are happy remaining financial supporters and cheerleaders will likely be thrilled that you asked.

Do you know anyone like Dan? What words have they used to describe fundraising and non-profit organizations? Have they fallen in love with a particular charity? If so, what do you attribute to their change of heart? Please use the comment section of this blog to share because these stories can be so transformative for so many of us.

Sorry for today’s super long post, but I always get excited when I can relay a real life donor story to those of you who care so much about philanthropy.

Here is to your health!

Erik Anderson
Owner, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
eanderson847@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=1021153653
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Fundraisers are seagulls

One of my favorite books in the whole world is my autographed copy of “Donor Centered Fundraising” by Penelope Burk. As many of you know, Penelope Burk is the CEO of Cygnus Applied Research. Their survey research is some of the only work of its kind when it comes to donor retention and communications. It isn’t uncommon for me to just pull her book from my bookshelf at home and curl up and read a few chapters, which is exactly what I did yesterday.

More oftentimes than not, I find myself closing the book, shaking my head, and wondering what is wrong with us? (and by “us” I mean non-profit and resource development professionals) For example, yesterday I closed the book and started wondering “what would Emily Post — America’s foremost authority (even from the grave) on all things dealing with etiquette — think of my profession?”

If you think this is a harsh and an unfair question, please consider the following findings from Penelope Burk’s research:

  • 71% of non-profits reported that they “communicate” with their donors by inviting them to a special event (Donor Centered Fundraising, page 52). I suspect most of these special events are fundraising events, which I believe is just more solicitation. “Thank you for your last contribution Mr. & Mrs. Smith! May we please have some more?”
  • 94% of donors who responded to the survey said that the non-profits they support either never or hardly ever call them on the phone without asking for another contribution (Donor Centered Fundraising, page 55).  “Thank you for your last contribution Mr. & Mrs. Smith! May we please have some more?”
  • 98% of donors who responded said they either never or hardly ever personally see someone from their favorite charities without getting asked for another contribution (Donor Centered Fundraising, page 55).   “Thank you for your last contribution Mr. & Mrs. Smith! May we please have some more?”

Friends, family, and countrymen … what have we become?  At the risk of being over-the-top, I suggest that many non-profit and resource development folks have turned into those self-absorbed seagulls from the movie “Finding Nemo“. Check out this YouTube video clip to refresh your memory, and for this analogy think of the seagulls as fundraising professionals and Nemo as a donor.

Oh, you don’t believe me? Then please consider this … on pages 52-56, Penelope Burk rattles off the top 10 typical reasons that fundraisers provide for not doing a better job with personal stewardship-oriented communications. One of the reasons listed is: “We are overwhelmed by the numbers and feel that if we make personal contact with one donor, we will be obligated to do the same with every donor within the same period, something that might be logistically impossible.” Hmmmm, that certainly sounds like it is all about us … “MINE! MINE! MINE!” And many of the other 10 reasons on Penelope’s list sound very similar to “ME! ME! ME!”

I beg you … let’s start behaving like human beings and take a page out of Emily Post’s Book of Etiquette. I suspect that doing so will get all of us a little closer to what Penelope describes as “being donor-centered”.

Are you a seagull? Have you seen other fundraising professionals behave like seagulls? What written policies does your organization have that keeps you from behaving like a seagull? Please use the comment box to share any stories or best practices or random thoughts on this subject. We can all learn from each other!

Here is to your health!

Erik Anderson
Owner, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
eanderson847@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=1021153653
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Donors and organizational politics

A good friend of mine (and a reader of this blog) sent me an email yesterday suggesting that I start reading another blog called “The Third Sector Report“. Being a firm believer that good writers are good readers, I clicked the link and tried that blog on for size. This week’s post by Jeffrey Wilcox CFRE talks about politics inside of non-profit organizations.

Wilcox’s words hit me sideways and personally. They took me back in time to board meetings where two or three groups of board members were discussing different building options prior to beginning work on a capital campaign. Some volunteers wanted us to acquire land and build in one place. Others wanted to expand on our current site. Still others (including one of our biggest and most influential donors) wanted us to acquire an existing building and renovate.

When you get a bunch of people together who are mission-focused and passionate, politics can’t help but enter the equation. Sometimes it is paid staff at odds with board volunteers, and it really gets interesting when donors get involved.

Wilcox suggests that politics is unavoidable and urges non-profit leaders to develop a political management toolkit. There are lots of awesome tools one of which is a written succession plan. <Yikes!> However, I don’t want to steal his thunder. I urge you read his blog post for suggestions of the other tools to include in your toolkit.

In the end, I am convinced this “political management toolkit” is a great opportunity for non-profit leaders to get donors involved. CEOs and development professionals are wasting an engagement opportunity if they sit down and pound out a communication policy by themselves. I don’t see any problem with involving key donors and board volunteers in development of the executive director’s annual performance management plan.

Some donors just don’t have time to join the board of directors, a standing committee or a special event committee. So, why not ask them if they want to help out with a small project that has a distinct start and end? If you can make the case for why these tools in your political management toolkit are important, you will likely find a few donors who are willing to help. In the end, that donor is likely to be more engaged and as we all know … “money follows involvement”.

The bonus, of course, is that you’ve simultaneously built more organizational capacity in addition to deepening key donors’ engagement. Additionally, if the project involves something that a donor is passionate about, then you are modeling what a good “donor-centered” resource development professional looks like.

Have you ever included key donors who are not board volunteers in short-term projects? What was your experience and the results? Please weigh-in and let us know.

Here is to your health!

Erik Anderson
Owner, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
eanderson847@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=1021153653
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Tin cup philanthropy

So, I was coming out of my local grocery store on Saturday and standing outside of the exit was a volunteer. She was holding a small plastic bank in the shape of a dog. Once I was in ear shot distance, she asked if I could spare some change for the local “low kill” animal shelter.

First, let me say that I know this charity. Second, let me say that I respect the work that this charity does. However, I did not part with my pocket change and found myself wondering instead:

  • How many hours was that volunteer standing there?
  • How much money could she possibly have collected during that time?
  • How much more money could she have raised in the same amount of time if she just asked a few of her friends who cared as much as she does about this cause to make a direct contribution?

Now there are some people who believe ALL charitable activities that ask people to make a contribution for nothing in return is “tin cup philanthropy”. If you don’t believe me, just read this Financial Times article for yourself. If you get really interested, you can cross check it with our friends at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania who appear to have fallen in love with what they call “Experimental Entrepreneurship“.

As a donor and a resource development professional, I understand why so many people see traditional philanthropy as begging with a tin cup, and it goes beyond just the volunteer standing outside of my local grocery store begging for her charity of choice. It extends to many non-profit organizations who recruit volunteers who are “reluctant solicitors” in the first place and then provide little to no training to those volunteers. The end result is typically well-intentioned people going to their friends and neighbors begging them to make a pledge, purchase a raffle ticket or attend an event.

When this happens, very little time is spent talking about the community needs that the charity might be addressing with its programming. To be frank, it typically sounds like begging and sometimes degenerates into quid pro quo or favor granting.

While I am intrigued with “experimental entrepreneurship” and see nothing wrong with charities exploring it as revenue stream, I don’t think it is “the answer” to tin cup philanthropy.

Non-profit leaders need to recruit the right volunteers for their fundraising activities, and they need to do a better job of training and supporting those volunteers. Let’s stop begging and start talking about our mission; community needs & gaps; our programs, services & solutions; and most importantly the “return on investment” for the community that comes with making a charitable contribution.

Only once we start doing this will we be able to retire the old tin cup.

What has been your experience as a donor? A volunteer solicitor? If you are a non-profit staff person, am I off-base with my conclusions? And is anyone excited about experimental entrepreneurship and why?

Here is to your health!

Erik Anderson
Owner, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
eanderson847@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=1021153653
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Fundraiser-in-Chief?

My partner and I have been bombarded in the last few weeks by the Obama fundraising team with countless solicitations. There have been phone calls, emails and even snail-mail appeals. There is even one interesting email enticing us to donate in order to get entered into a raffle for a chance to have dinner with the President. Ohhh, let the fundraising fun begin!

After closing the “Dinner with Barack” email, I randomly decided to look at the Wikipedia page for “fundraising“. Interestingly enough, the only picture on that page was of U.S. President Barack Obama.

These two unrelated things in my life got me thinking. “Is Barack Obama not just the Commander-in-Chief but also the nation’s Fundraiser-in-Chief?”  Here are some of the thoughts floating around in my head as I contemplate this question:

  • Team Obama raised approximately three-quarters of a billion dollars in 2007-08 and experts are predicting they will top the $1 billion mark in 2011-12. I don’t know of anyone who has done that in any sector.
  • Team Obama raised their money from approximately 4 million donors, many of which were individuals.
  • Many fundraising experts who looked closely at the numbers said the Obama people did very well with getting small donors to contribute to their first political campaign and then did an even better with getting small multiple gifts from those same donor.

While I’ve come to learn the hard way that political fundraising is very different from doing so for a non-profit organization, I still believe the upcoming Presidential campaign fundraising efforts (all of them and not just Team Obama) are worth watching because there will likely be some interesting take-away lessons for social service non-profit organizations.

Team Obama did much to move the needle with regards to making political fundraising more “donor-centered” and less “transactional” compared to previous campaigns, and they seemed to do so using a blended approach of traditional fundraising (e.g. events, mail, phone, face-to-face) and e-philanthropy (e.g. email, website, social media, text, etc).  I personally came to these conclusion because of the countless “update emails with videos” I received in 2008. It was obviously an attempt at stewardship and a way of demonstrating ROI to individual donors. It must have also been successfully because of the number of small donors who made multiple contributions.

In addition to non-profit resource development professionals getting an opportunity to observe up-close-and-personal donor-centered techniques being applied, I think it will also be interesting to watch how 2008 Obama donors behave in 2012. There were lots of promises made in 2008. As non-profit organizations have learned (mostly the hard way), when we over-promise and under-deliver, donors tend to be a little more reluctant to renew their contribution.

Finally, I’m also interested in watching how “transparency” in political fundraising continues to evolve in 2012. Have you ever checked out The Huffington Post’s “Fundrace” resource? Unfortunately, I have done so and found myself sucked into countless hours of looking up friends, family and donors to see who was donating what and to whom. Interestingly, I found my personal contributions to be under-reported. I wonder if that was a problem that resulted from having to reconcile contributions made via so many different avenues (e.g. website vs. snail-mail vs phone).

So, I think the jury is out on whether Barack Obama is our country’s Fundraising-in-Chief and the proof will be in the 2012 numbers. What do you think?

Were there any best practices or lessons learned that your non-profit used after the 2008 campaign? Are you watching anything in particular from a fundraising standpoint as we head into 2012?

Here is to your health!

Erik Anderson
Owner, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
eanderson847@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=1021153653
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Hiring a fundraising professional

Yesterday, we talked about the qualities and traits you should look for when hiring a “donor-centered” resource development professional. We ended up with some great comments and discussion. So, I decided to continue down this path a little farther today.

I oftentimes get asked the following two questions by small to mid-size non-profit organizations when it comes to hiring a RD professional:

  • When should we hire our first RD professional?
  • How much should we expect them to raise?

I believe an organization should consider hiring its first fundraising pro when it reaches a point when it feels like it needs more help to go to the next level. So, if a small organization is using committed board volunteers and an executive director to go from Point A to Point B in its resource development program, then it is a natural question during the annual evaluation process to ask once they get to Point B — “Do we need help getting to Point C or can we do it by ourselves?”

Evaluation is key to getting perspective and thinking through the question of when to hire your first RD professional. I also think Tony Poderis does a masterful job addressing this issue. Click here to read his article on this subject.

It is easier for me to definitively say that the following examples are times when an organization should NOT hire a RD professional:

  • When the board is tired of fundraising and wants to hire someone to do it for them
  • When the executive director of the organization is deemed to be inadequate at fundraising
  • When the organization doesn’t know in what direction it wants to go with its comprehensive resource development program.

As for ROI, I have heard lots of different opinions on this subject ranging anywhere FROM “one-times/two-times/three-times the RD professional’s salary” TO “you cannot measure it by dollars & cents because a good RD person makes board volunteers better fundraisers which leads to increased donor engagement”. I thought The Foundation Center did a nice job answering this question in their blog post.

When do you think an organization should hire its first fundraising professional or add more development people to the department? And do you have any suggestions on how to measure ROI? Please jump in and share your thoughts!

Here is to your health!

Erik Anderson
Owner, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
eanderson847@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=1021153653
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Searching for a donor-centered fundraiser

As I said on Friday, I am currently reading the book Co-Active Coaching as part of a business coaching certificate program. While digesting this text, it caused me to reflect back on Penelope Burk’s book, Donor Centered Fundraising. I think this is happening in part because when I read Penelope Burk’s book, I kept asking myself questions like “what would that look like in practice?” and “what skill sets would a donor-centered resource development professional need to possess?”.

I think some of the coaching material I’m currently reading fills in some of those blanks in my head, and I want to share those thoughts with you here today.

Chapter 5 in Co-Active Coaching talks about how one quality of a successful coach is “curiosity” and one skill set required to be curious is being able to ask powerful questions and dumb questions (which can also be quite powerful).  On page 79, the authors list a few example questions:

  • What does what you want look (or feel) like?
  • What about that is important to you?
  • What else?
  • What will you do and when will you do it?

I now see the importance of limiting the number of “Yes-No” and “Why” questions because these questions can be intimidating and limit discussion. Likewise, I found myself thinking that open ended and naturally curious questions help deepen understandings and in turn deepen relationships.

If I was an executive director again and looking to hire a development professional with donor-centered fundraising skills sets, I suspect I would build a search process around finding someone with the following qualities:

  • listening skills
  • curiosity & engagement
  • action-oriented
  • life-long learner
  • authenticity
  • the ability to create accountability
  • connectivity & relationship building

Have you ever hired a donor-centered fundraising professional? If so, what qualities, characteristics, competencies and skill sets did they possess? What were some of the questions you used to tease these qualities out of your candidate pool? Please jump in and share.

Here is to your health!

Erik Anderson
Owner, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
eanderson847@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=1021153653
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Coaching at the heart of philanthropy?

As most of you know, I recently left my job at Boys & Girls Clubs of America to open my own non-profit consulting practice. I am taking the summer to prepare for a Labor Day launch of my new business. One of the things on my “summer to-do-list” is take classes and earn a certificate in “business coaching”.

As part of my studies, I am currently reading a book titled “Co-Active Coaching“.

I am only halfway through this assigned text, and I find myself wondering if the relationship between “coach and client” is similar to the relationship between “donor and non-profit organization”.

  • Non-profit leaders need to “listen” very carefully to donors, which is an important coaching skill.
  • Non-profit leaders need to be “intuitive” when engaging with donors, which is an important coaching skill.
  • Non-profit leaders need to be “curious” when engaging with donors, which is an important coaching skill.

Not to mention, I cannot remember how many times I turned to donors to help me think through and solve organizational issues when I was an executive director.

I am not completely sold on this idea, but the more I read this book the more I come to believe that a good donor-centered resource development professional is a good coach. I also wonder how many non-profit organizations allow their donors to coach them in business practices and participate in strategy sessions?

Does anyone have an example that proves or disproves this hypothesis?

Here is to your health!

Erik Anderson
Owner, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
eanderson847@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=1021153653
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Generational transition and philanthropy

Jessica Journey’s blog post about the 2011 Millennial Donor Summit  is in my head and I cannot stop thinking about Baby Boomers, Generation X and The Millennials.

While on the track this morning at my local gym, I was thinking about what happens when one generation passes the torch to the next generation. My thoughts immediately wandered back to the 1960s when Tom Brokaw’s “Greatest Generation” passed the torch to the Baby Boomers. While there were fun cultural changes like the introduction of  rock-n-roll music, there was also tumultuous and violent changes like the Vietnam War protests and The Civil Rights movement.

Statistically speaking there is a similar passing of the torch happening today. Don’t believe me? Just go add up the numbers of the Baby Boomers and their parents’ generation and compare it to the combined numbers of Generation X and The Millennials. Still don’t believe me? Just open up a newspaper or tune your television to one of the countless news stations. There is all sorts of conflict over gay marriage, the future of Social Security & Medicare, and America’s role in the world.

I personally believe that these generational conflicts during times of transition are the result of two different sets of generational values systems clashing. It can be like tectonic plates sliding against each other producing cultural earthquakes.

So, what does this have to do with non-profits and philanthropy? I am afraid the answer is — EVERYTHING!

  • How do you think Gen X and Millennial donors will react to Catholic Charities in Illinois when they find out they have discontinued their adoption program in order to avoid compliance with the newly passed Civil Unions legislation (something these two generations value and respect)?
  • How do you think Gen Xers and Millennials will see the Boy Scouts of America as they learn about their restrictive membership policies pertaining to atheists, gays, and girls?
  • How will charities recalibrate their relationships with Baby Boomers (who have been the mainstay of most resource develop programs for a few decades) now that they are starting to retire and live on fixed incomes?
  • What will Boomers do with all this time on their hands after retirement? Could this be the start of the golden age of volunteerism? Or could part-time careers in non-profit work become a second career for Boomers looking to supplement retirement income?
  • How will the cynicism that is pervasive throughout the Gen X community impact non-profit organization’s ability to satisfactorily demonstrate “return on investment” and “return on investment” to Gen X donors?
  • How will Millennials’ technology preferences impact cultivation, solicitation and stewardship efforts?
  • As Boomers, Xers, and Millennials all start sharing space in the workplace, how will their different value systems interact and clash? How will non-profit managers balance these competing workplace approaches?

Rather than engaging in conflict and fighting, wouldn’t it be great if non-profit thought-leaders like the United Way took the lead during this transition? They could bring different groups together and engage us in a shared values discussion. They could also help local non-profits see the future and build organizational capacity to meet those challenges. Perhaps, our hope also rests with conferences such as the 2011 Millennial Donor Summit!?!?

How is your organization being proactive in preparing for this demographic earthquake? Please weigh-in and share.

Here is to your health!

Erik Anderson
Owner, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
eanderson847@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=1021153653
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

A dog’s life: Part 5 of 5

This is the last of five posts focusing on Frederick Reichheld’s book “The Loyalty Effect” and how the concept of “loyalty” effects for-profit and non-profit corporations equally. If you don’t own a copy of this book, I suggest you buy it, read it, and change your approach to doing business.

So, we’ve talked about the economics of creating loyalty, the three cogs in the loyalty machine (customers, investors, and employees),  the benefits of creating loyalty, identifying and cultivating the right customers, investors and employees, and the importance of measurement systems with connectivity to incentives & org culture. Today, we will end this “loyalty series” with a brief (and incomplete) discussion about “how to build loyalty”.

Here just a few things Reichhold says in his final few chapters that hit me as important:

  • We need to keep circling back to the question of “how do we build value” for customers, investors and employees. Filtering everything we do through this lens should keep us on the path towards building loyalty.
  • When starting to develop a loyalty-based program, we shouldn’t start with “tactics” but rather we should think strategically. There is a time and place for developing operational tactics, but it is later in the change leadership process.
  • Loyalty leaders are guided by principles: 1) focus the organization’s mission around loyalty and not revenues & profit and 2) use partnerships to “align, motivate and manage”.
  • Loyalty leaders use other loyalty-based companies to benchmark against and learn from (e.g. State Farm, American Express, Northwestern Mutual, A. G. Edwards, Chic-fil-A, and Leo Burnett).

When wading through all of these concepts, two things stuck out: 1) non-profit leaders need to focus on creating “value” for donors and employees and 2) we need to better utilize the power of “partnerships”.

From a non-profit perspective, it is hard to know what “creates value” for donors because many of them are not receiving anything tangible in return for their contribution (special event donors are obviously an exception and so are some NPR pledge drive recipients). What one donor perceives as value might not be seen as valuable by someone else. This is where the idea of “partnership” comes into play and what Penelope Burk says about a donor-centered approach to fundraising. In other words, we need to engage our donors in answering the questions around “creating value” (note – she surveys tens of thousands of donors every year in search of this question). Here are a few ideas you might consider for your organization:

  • Annual in-person meetings with our Top 50 or Top 100 lifetime donors with frank and open discussions about what the non-profit organization can do to create value
  • Focus groups with diverse donor groups and even lapsed donors with frank and open discussions about what the non-profit organization can do to create value
  • Donor surveys getting at the idea of “donor satisfaction”

Of course, tactically speaking there are many different “loyalty tools” in our resource development tool chest (e.g. newsletters; e-blasts; stewardship receptions; programs; activities; volunteer opportunities; mission moments; etc). However, unless we understand what our employees, board volunteers, and donors “value” as part of their involvement with our organization, we cannot effectively employee these tools.

It essentially boils down to communication and follow-through on what you learn.

The other aspect of “partnership” that we haven’t really talked about for non-profit organizations is how to engage and connect customers, investors and employees (aka donors, board volunteers and employees) with each other. One easy way to do this is through any planning process (e.g. resource development plan, strategic plan, stewardship plan, etc). Remember — planning is a means and not an end. Or stated another way — planning is an “engagement activity” and a process that you employ with those you want to get involveddown the road in some capacity.

The idea of building a “loyalty-based” organization is complex. So much so, that Reichheld didn’t just write “The Loyalty Effect,” he also wrote a follow-up book titled “Loyalty Rules” and developed an interesting website with additional resources. My five-part blog series just scratches the surface of this topic. I encourage you to do a lot more reading and then circle back share what you’ve learned with the rest of us.

I’ll end on this note … making the transition from a transactional resource development program to a loyalty-based and donor-centered culture is not something that can be done overnight. It is a change initiative that probably will require you to engage external assistance to help you and all of your key stakeholders frame and guide the process. (That is my self-promotional message for this week. LOL Enjoy the weekend & I’ll see you again on Monday)

Here is to your health!

Erik Anderson
Owner, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
eanderson847@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=1021153653
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847