We’re now about half way through this series on Acquisition. In the next half I’m about to weigh in with more thoughts on the innovative and the risky.

Of course I’m mindful of the fact that risk and change make most folks uncomfortable and even sometimes hostile. Nowhere is this truer than in our sector, which is probably the least innovative and risk averse in the universe.

Well, maybe Accountancy beats our no-risk tolerance, but then I don’t pretend to know much about that sector so I’ll stick with ours.

There’s a peculiar — and to most fundraisers — a positive but little known trait to being labeled a ‘loser’:  It’s the first step to re-invention – the first step on the path to success and victory.

A week or so ago, Tom wrote a post — Nonprofit Failure Is Too Rare — borrowing from marketer Seth Godin.

Why indeed do so many in our trade resist innovation and the risk it entails. Is it because of CEOs or Boards? If so, there’s always the opportunity to look for work elsewhere.

Is it because we don’t know enough to effectively calculate and decide on what risks are worth it? That’s surely legitimate up to a point, but almost everyone has access to information and resources (Yay! Agitator) that can help mitigate against disastrous risk.

Or is it cowardice — or heaven forbid sloth — masquerading in the guise of ‘not enough time’ or ‘we’ve tried this before’? My guess, with apologies if I’m falsely insulting anyone, is that the truth lies here.

Of course no one should take needless, un-analyzed risks. But neither should cowardice strike, only to find heads buried in the sand as the parade of new ideas passes by.

I’ve been thinking a lot about how much mitigation — elimination or reduction of risk — is necessary to get folks off their fearful butts and moving forward to grasp the potential brass ring.

That’s why I turned to the Agitator itself (always a good port in the stormy sea of uncertainty) and noted a dialogue between Anne Ibach of Oregon Public Broadcasting  and Kevin Schulman of DonorVoice. The back and forth involved an innovative tool to improve the testing of direct response offers while reducing time, cost and risk and the usual push back against anything new.

What struck me was that Kevin offered Anne a risk-free deal. In the face of her skepticism and reticence he said, in essence, “I’ll risk the cost of this effort if you’ll pay me when my results out-perform yours.”

I don’t know whether they struck a deal or not. Regardless, this example is important.

Many suppliers of services who have invested substantial money and time are willing to put their wallets on the line. My question is how many nonprofits are willing to take advantage of this?

My guess is not many, and I wonder why.

Have we become so lazy or stuck in some repetitive groove that innovation and change no longer excite and motivate us to perform faster, cheaper and better? Have we become risk-averse slugs just doing time until we retire, are kicked out, the next job offer appears, or the universe ends?  Whichever comes first?

From my vantage point, if someone offers me a no-risk deal that I only have to pay for when the results come in, I’ll take it. Why not? All it costs is my time and they’ll probably even buy me lunch.

So, as I outline the posts I’m about to write for the second half of the Acquisition Series, I’m curious: What are you seeing by way of pay-for-performance out there?

I remember years ago when Tom offered to place ads and handle the pledge conversions for People For the American Way’s first TV fundraising campaign … for a percentage of funds actually raised. Both PFAW and Tom did fine.

Are those days gone?

And what do you think about it? Are you willing to explore a ‘no-risk’, risk free proposition?

Roger