The Key to a Good Proposal

Read & Repeat. This is the foundation of any proposal. 

A donor should be able to look over your proposal in one sitting. Its message and request should stick so well that the Donor can easily repeat them to Mrs. Donor and explain why he's writing such a large check.

Read & Repeat.

Sticking to the Script

Have you ever used a "script" to solicit? Does it make you feel more comfortable or constricted?

Script Pros:

Keeps you from rambling

Moves the conversation

Helps the "confidence challenged"

Script Cons:

Speaking "at" donors, not "with" them

Easily derailed

Sounds "scripted"

The Angry Donor

I remember a farbrengen that some of the staff and I had by a well-known NYC lobbyist. He often has the unenviable job of fundraising for political campaigns - campaigns which demand uber-quantities of cash in a short, fixed amount of time.

We wound up speaking about the "angry donor" - that gevirishe baalebos that is always a little too short on time and patience to treat you like a mentsch.

"The people that I work for have very clear goals and expectations. They hire me to fulfill those expectations," our lobbyist friend declared. "What do you think would happen if I got to a donor but didn't make the ask? Can you imagine if I reported to my client that I got to the donor but didn't make the ask because he was in a bad mood?! My career would be over!"

He added: "Trust me, I'm sure he was in a great mood until the secretary told him you're in the waiting room...!"

Moral of the story: Ask anyway.

Fundraising on Commission

The yiddishe velt is the last stronghold of commission fundraising and, no, that's not good news. 

Commission-based fundraising is shunned as unethical in every sector of the non-profit world, and for good reason. 

This article by Kim Klein for Grassroots Fundraising Journal is a very complete overview on everything that's wrong with our meshulach centric fundraising.

One important point that I feel was omitted: A fundraiser that makes his living from commission knows that his own relationship with the mossad is temporary. He therefore has every incentive to make sure that the donors are his and not the mossad's. This is the dark side of the (only half-true) people-give-to-people mantra. 

Innoculation

I spend a good deal of time dealing with "what if" questions:

What if he gets offended?

What if he's in a bad mood?

What if his business is hurting?

These nagging questions a natural part of our "fight or flight instincts" that seem to shift into high gear before an ask. The way to deal with these types of pitfalls (both real and perceived) is through "inoculating."

Cutting to the Chase

In my years in PR and fundraising, I have learned one lesson that has stood the test of time and has proven to serve its masters infallibly:  People Need Clarity.

This demands that we communicate in a concise and direct way.


Tact and elegance are helpful, but secondary. After all, you and I know a few too many tactful and elegant fundraisers with outstanding shut-off notices.


Concise. 
Direct.

With apologies to email

I've had a very big change of heart.


I use to be very down on email as a means of reaching out to donors, or for any means of respectful communication for that matter. I have relied on good, old-fashioned letters for "real" communication. I still believe that writing letters to donors and prospects is dignified, effective and -frankly- impressive. 

But lately, I've come to owe a number of breakthroughs to email. Too many to ignore. In many cases, the prospect himself asked that email be the principal method of contact at all stages of the game--even solicitation.