Godin Trashes Fundraising Galas
In a recent post titled Gala economics, marketing maven Seth Godin trashes fundraising galas.
He argues: “…the gala is actually corrupting. Attendees are usually driven by social and selfish motivations to attend, and thus the philanthropic element of giving–just to give–is removed.” Of course, one could argue that many ‘big checks’ are so-motivated, at least in part, even when handed over in the privacy of a well-appointed study.
The closest he gets to conceding any purpose to charity galas is this: “Do elements of our community need gala-like events to lubricate their social interactions? Quite probably. It’s a tradition, particularly in certain cities and tribes.”
WOW!
Personally I’ve always thought that these events were simply the least efficient way to raise money imaginable. But I’ve never actually trashed them, because I do believe they can have some ‘tribe-building’ value (with the benefits Godin normally ascribes to tribes), if not done ‘over the top’ and not massively staff consuming and distracting. Peer-to-peer reinforcement has its place.
Godin doesn’t take comments (361 readers did ‘like’ the post on Facebook, and 179 retweets), so I thought perhaps some Agitator readers might want to have a go at his critique here.
Have at it!
Tom
11 responses to “Godin Trashes Fundraising Galas”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Seth Godin has occasional good thoughts however, I don’t think this is one of them. I agree with you that some galas have ‘tribe-building’ value and the one gala I’ve been part of is the largest fundraiser for that organization. However, this organization uses the annual gala to celebrate the founders, generous sponsors, recognize those who provide critical support and services, and client success stories.
Godin should take comments. He may learn something.
I’m with Seth. I’ve seen way too many galas burn out staff, cost WAY too much, and not create long-term donors. I agree that if an event truly reflects the mission of the organization, helps to celebrate support for the organization, tells stories of those being served, and brings new or stronger donors, galas are worth it, but most do none of this. Small tours, luncheons, and simple smaller events do the same without the true cost – time, money, and people.
Thinking like this drives event fundraisers like me over the edge! I mind wrestle Seth Godin and his gala rantings on my own blog here: http://t.co/OBta9rVU Corruptible? Really, Seth Godin? I don’t think so.
I think Mr Godin needs to have done both sides of the story, as with good journalism practices, and should have spoken to organizations that do benefit from the cultivation activities that donor galas represent, and the residual reciprocal follow-up and gifts that result from them. The thousands of organizations that do benefit from these dinners could not possibly continue to justify the annual scheduling and budgeting of them if significant long term benefits to the organization were not accrued.
I think Seth Godin needs to be exposed to more fundraising galas if all he can see is selfish reasons beyond the giving.
A gala that I have been involved with is about celebrating the success of that organization within the past year, those who made the sucesses possible and to bring their international work to an auidence that would not otherwise be able to see the work done in-person. Of course, it is also their largest fundraising of the year. But, the benefits go beyond the money raised.
Godin should have some public form of commenting available. No blog comments, one Twitter account that’s a private to be used as a placeholder and another that just pumps out his blogs posts via RSS feed. What is the point in social media if you aren’t going to be social in it?
I thought his post was a bit over the top as well. I have a 13 year old fundraising event which is successful now. It may be because it is a low key West Coast event in a tent rather than the type of dinner he described. Our event makes our local businesses happy because it brings tourists here and many of those out of towners have become loyal donors as well.
The point I think he missed is that an event can also be used as a tremendous public relations tool. In fact, if it is not a great promotional asset, then I do not think it is worth doing, especially if it’s a new event.
We just raised $38,000 (recognizing our scope is small) for the uninsured in tiny, little Goshen, Indiana with the first-ever “Gala for Goshen Health”. We raised enough to fund a nurse practitioner at a clinic to treat 750 more a year (50 were being turned away a month). We will continue to try to sustain that position. Tickets were only $75 each..the community came out with big hearts and everyone had fun…this is not a socially-motivated community but a deeply kind, predominantly Christian one who – when presented with a true community issue – will band together to do everything to solve it through generosity and compassion. Our organization was the vehicle to present the need and the platform to address it with impact. Having a little fun while doing so with friends and family only motivated those who attended to demand a complete do-over next year: same venue, same band, same everything. I am blessed to be surrounded by such quality folks from the heartland of our country who truly exude the meaning of charity.
I agree that there is an element of wanting to be seen to be supporting a charity publicly when wealthy donors get involved with events – or when they make their donations public. But, while an aspect of this might be for self-gratification, most of the larger donors I’ve worked with over the past 15 (plus) years, actually make their gifts public to encourage others like them to give and get involved. And that can work to great effect (although I agree that events are probably the least cost effective method of raising large donations). Most wealthy donors are genuinely interested in and supportive of those charities that they support rather than supporting them just to show off. That seems to be a rather simplistic argument. Donors may get a certain amount of kudos from their giving – and I’m sure there will be some for whom that is the only reason they give – but that kudos is only one aspect of donor motivation which includes interest, engagement, personal involvement, relationship building and a whole range of different aspects.
Inefficiencies understood and tribe mentality agreed to – I believe that most important element of galas is the “foot in the door” nature of them. A few passionate committee members can help engage hundreds of novice supporters. If you present your mission right at the event, provide post-event engagement opportunities and then follow up correctly, you can transform many of those novice supporters into regular supporters and some into the next generation of ambassadors. It’s when the follow up and engagement are lacking that galas and similar events really fall down the rabbit hole of inefficiency.
Here’s to echo those that say that galas can be a perfect way to showcase nonprofits’ missions. We look at our gala event as an evening for development rather than short-term fundraising and take pride in being authentic and mission-based. It has proved to be a successful formula for us even in a distressed economy.
This article is timely for us since tonight is our largest fundraiser of the year. On this evening, we are careful to highlight our mission and inspire current and future supporters to become engaged first and foremost with our mission. We trust that financial support will follow when people understand the importance of what we do.
We try, and largely succeed, in attracting the most influential community and business leaders to our event. Showcasing our mission at a high-profile, well-orchestrated event is the best opportunity we have to raise the salience of both our mission and organization.
The evening uses program participants as the entertainment for the evening. We also give an award to outstanding community members who’s lives exemplify our mission.
Our event builds community while instilling interest and commitment to our mission and organization.
Wow…that is a pretty aggressive stance to have without studying the full economics of the gala, including brand impressions, donor relations improvements, introductions to new donors, etc. I’m not a gala fan but rather a peer to peer grassroots fundraising fan. But I think there is a place for galas, and really, do we care if some “elements of our community need gala-like events to lubricate their social interactions”? I don’t think so. Whatever gets them to stroke a check if it doesn’t compromise the mission is a win. I see the gala as part of a portfolio of income vehicles, targeting different audiences and yielding different sorts of benefits.
Maybe he got some really bad chicken at his last one.